Are there exceptions to the rule "absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

[ataraxia]

This phrase comes from a quote by historian Lord Acton:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority. Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
-Historian Lord Acton

I think we can all agree this is, for the most part, true.

But are there exceptions? I was recently reading about the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (after becoming interested in him after reading his "Meditations", one of the canonical works of the philosophy of Greco-Roman Stoicism). He truly was king of the world in his day, or at least the known world (Not many people knew about a world outside of the Roman empire at the time). He is known as one of the last of the "Good Roman emperors".

As emperor, he had no checks on his power; and yet, by everything I have read about him, he was somehow able to maintain great character and integrity through it.



If true, how did he do it? Is is temperament? Is there something I don't know about Aurelius? If so, are there other such exceptions to Acton's assertion above- leaders whose character can withstand the withering assault of such unchecked power?

 

[tshade]

This phrase comes from a quote by historian Lord Acton:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority. Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
-Historian Lord Acton

I think we can all agree this is, for the most part, true.

But are there exceptions? I was recently reading about the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (after becoming interested in him after reading his "Meditations", one of the canonical works of the philosophy of Greco-Roman Stoicism). He truly was king of the world in his day, or at least the known world (Not many people knew about a world outside of the Roman empire at the time). He is known as one of the last of the "Good Roman emperors".

As emperor, he had no checks on his power; and yet, by everything I have read about him, he was somehow able to maintain great character and integrity through it.



If true, how did he do it? Is is temperament? Is there something I don't know about Aurelius? If so, are there other such exceptions to Acton's assertion above- leaders whose character can withstand the withering assault of such unchecked power?

well, even NON-absolute power corrupts.....

Some great rulers with all-power have done sone nice things....

 

[HIP56948]

"absolute power corrupts absolutely"​

Personally, I've never believed in that statement.
I DO believe that most people who want great power are just the type that shouldn't have great power. Usually.
I call them (insert derogatory nasty names)
Naturally, there have been decent people, even Republicans, like Eisenhower.
I think the Gov. of California would make a great President.

 

[ataraxia]

"absolute power corrupts absolutely"​

Personally, I've never believed in that statement.
I DO believe that most people who want great power are just the type that shouldn't have great power. Usually.
I call them (insert derogatory nasty names)
Naturally, there have been decent people, even Republicans, like Eisenhower.
I think the Gov. of California would make a great President.

Well you gotta admit there is a very strong tendency and correlation being in power and being a jerk. The question of causation though, as you point out, may be more of a chicken-and-egg problem.

It is true that people with deep personal insecurities tend to develop narcissistic personalities, which motivates them to achieve positions of great power and influence. This in turn may lead people to think that it was the power which corrupted their personality, when in fact, the causation worked the other way around: it was their jerkiness and willingness to step on others to get to the top.

 

[Jessie C]

If you can find an exception during the last 300 years, please let us know! I think honor among men died with Marcus a million years ago....

 

[samiam5211]

Power attracts corruptible people.

There are many people who are not corruptible. I mean many millions of them. Most of them are not out seeking power though.

 

[ataraxia]

If you can find an exception during the last 300 years, please let us know! I think honor among men died with Marcus a million years ago....

Oh I don't know about that. What about, say, George Washington? They supposedly wanted to make him king, and he refused. He voluntarily stepped aside after only two terms (maybe because he couldn't even trust himself being around that much power for that long?).

Yes, I know he owned slaves- but as a man of his times, I really don't think that should be held against him. That's just what everyone did, kinda like we meat, and in the future our great grandkids may look down on that as completely barbaric. But I mean to say that I don't think he was corrupt.

A funeral oration for him:

"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in the humble and endearing scenes of private life: Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding, his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting. To his equals he was condescending; to his inferiors kind; and to the dear object of his affections exemplarily tender: Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence, and virtue always felt his fostering hand; the purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues."
-Major-General Henry Lee

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Power corrupts.
And Marcus Aurelius was not an exception to that.
One of the worst acts by an emperor was done by him.
He would gather audiences in the Coliseum and tie Christians to stakes and release underfed lions to eat them alive.
Many at a time. On numerous occasions. He considered it entertainment.

 

[phoenix2020]

This phrase comes from a quote by historian Lord Acton:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority. Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
-Historian Lord Acton

I think we can all agree this is, for the most part, true.

But are there exceptions? I was recently reading about the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (after becoming interested in him after reading his "Meditations", one of the canonical works of the philosophy of Greco-Roman Stoicism). He truly was king of the world in his day, or at least the known world (Not many people knew about a world outside of the Roman empire at the time). He is known as one of the last of the "Good Roman emperors".

As emperor, he had no checks on his power; and yet, by everything I have read about him, he was somehow able to maintain great character and integrity through it.



If true, how did he do it? Is is temperament? Is there something I don't know about Aurelius? If so, are there other such exceptions to Acton's assertion above- leaders whose character can withstand the withering assault of such unchecked power?

Peter Parker did a decent job of it until Spider Man 3.

 

[Individual]

Elect only Democrats to ALL positions of government and let's see.

 

[Loulit01]

This phrase comes from a quote by historian Lord Acton:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority. Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
-Historian Lord Acton

I think we can all agree this is, for the most part, true.

But are there exceptions? I was recently reading about the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (after becoming interested in him after reading his "Meditations", one of the canonical works of the philosophy of Greco-Roman Stoicism). He truly was king of the world in his day, or at least the known world (Not many people knew about a world outside of the Roman empire at the time). He is known as one of the last of the "Good Roman emperors".

As emperor, he had no checks on his power; and yet, by everything I have read about him, he was somehow able to maintain great character and integrity through it.



If true, how did he do it? Is is temperament? Is there something I don't know about Aurelius? If so, are there other such exceptions to Acton's assertion above- leaders whose character can withstand the withering assault of such unchecked power?

While Meditations is a laudable work that gives modern readers great insight into Stoic philosophy, Marcus Aurelius personally spent most of his time on battle fronts engaged in wars of conquest. He made his son Commodus co-emperor and when after the death of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus became a disastrous emperor who was assassinated in 192 AD sparking an era of civil wars.

 

[ataraxia]

While Meditations is a laudable work that gives modern readers great insight into Stoic philosophy, Marcus Aurelius personally spent most of his time on battle fronts engaged in wars of conquest. He made his son Commodus co-emperor and when after the death of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus became a disastrous emperor who was assassinated in 192 AD sparking an era of civil wars.

Would you say Autelius was a corrupt man though? Didn’t he see his war campaigns a necessity of duty, for preserving the security of the empire? Was the choice of Commodus an error of judgment or evidence of evil or corrupt intent?

 

[Loulit01]

Power corrupts.
And Marcus Aurelius was not an exception to that.
One of the worst acts by an emperor was done by him.
He would gather audiences in the Coliseum and tie Christians to stakes and release underfed lions to eat them alive.

Do you have a source for that?

Many at a time. On numerous occasions. He considered it entertainment.

 

[Loulit01]

Oh I don't know about that. What about, say, George Washington? They supposedly wanted to make him king, and he refused. He voluntarily stepped aside after only two terms (maybe because he couldn't even trust himself being around that much power for that long?).

Yes, I know he owned slaves- but as a man of his times, I really don't think that should be held against him. That's just what everyone did, kinda like we meat, and in the future our great grandkids may look down on that as completely barbaric. But I mean to say that I don't think he was corrupt.

A funeral oration for him:

"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in the humble and endearing scenes of private life: Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding, his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting. To his equals he was condescending; to his inferiors kind; and to the dear object of his affections exemplarily tender: Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence, and virtue always felt his fostering hand; the purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues."
-Major-General Henry Lee

"Condescending" was a good thing back then?

 

[Loulit01]

Would you say Autelius was a corrupt man though?

Don't know.

Didn’t he see his war campaigns a necessity of duty, for preserving the security of the empire?

Is preserving an empire a good thing? If you conquer a people is holding them conquered a good thing?

Was the choice of Commodus an error of judgment or evidence of evil or corrupt intent?

Just saying the man wasn't perfect. If Commodus was an error in judgment did not the error stem from power? He had the power to make his son emperor so he did. As Acton says,

"Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”

 

[ataraxia]

Don't know.

Is preserving an empire a good thing? If you conquer a people is holding them conquered a good thing?

Aurelius saw the preservation of the empire and protection of its security as part of his duty he had been charged with- and for a Stoic doing your duty is what it’s all about.

Letting the empire splinter and be overrun, and descend into chaos on his watch was not a desirable outcome. He did what he had to do to protect it. This is not evidence of corrupt and selfish intent.

Just saying the man wasn't perfect. If Commodus was an error in judgment did not the error stem from power? He had the power to make his son emperor so he did. As Acton says,

"Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”

It would have been unheard of to put anyone other than one’s son on the throne. You are judging historical figures by modern standards.

 

[ataraxia]

"Condescending" was a good thing back then?

It means he could be a formidable rival.

 

[Loulit01]

It means he could be a formidable rival.

Not by any current definition. Are you sure the quote is accurate?

 

[ataraxia]

Not by any current definition. Are you sure the quote is accurate?

So think George Washington was corrupt as well because of that one word someone used in his eulogy?

It seems to me like your standards may be unrealistically high- almost superhuman. You expect them to transcend their time and place. I don’t think that’s fair.

 

[AmNat]

This phrase comes from a quote by historian Lord Acton:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority. Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
-Historian Lord Acton

I think we can all agree this is, for the most part, true.

But are there exceptions? I was recently reading about the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (after becoming interested in him after reading his "Meditations", one of the canonical works of the philosophy of Greco-Roman Stoicism). He truly was king of the world in his day, or at least the known world (Not many people knew about a world outside of the Roman empire at the time). He is known as one of the last of the "Good Roman emperors".

As emperor, he had no checks on his power; and yet, by everything I have read about him, he was somehow able to maintain great character and integrity through it.



If true, how did he do it? Is is temperament? Is there something I don't know about Aurelius? If so, are there other such exceptions to Acton's assertion above- leaders whose character can withstand the withering assault of such unchecked power?

"It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible". - Frank Herbert

 

[Rumpelstil]

difficult to say

 

[nvflash]

Jesus had absolute power and forwent his Kingdom on Earth to die for our sins.

Tho remember even he was temped.

It is only mortal life that corrupts, the knowledge of good and evil. If we could not kill, if we could not inflict pain and suffering, corruption would melt away. Thus are the trappings of a physical world so far from any place for the oppressed to retreat.

 

[Northern Light]

The adage makes sense when you consider that most people who rise to power have to do morally questionable things to get there.

I used to know a journalist who interviewed most of the major power players in politics and the business world. His description of them when they were off the record was very interesting. Pretty much the same type of person across the board. Highly intelligent, socially adept, reduced empathy and an ability to manipulate others including the interviewer.

There's a reason why these people rise to the top, and it's not necessarily their merits.

 

[ataraxia]

I used to know a journalist who interviewed most of the major power players in politics and the business world. His description of them when they were off the record was very interesting. Pretty much the same type of person across the board. Highly intelligent, socially adept, reduced empathy and an ability to manipulate others including the interviewer.

I don't know if they need to hide it nowadays. Politicians like Trump are making being openly, shockingly, and unapologetically rude, insulting, and abusive not only socially acceptable or something they need to cleverly try to hide- but a point of pride, a character trait they can proudly flaunt, and something that can be used to help them rise in the polls. It's no longer a liability, but an asset. Politicians which try to maintain a facade of socially acceptable behavior are considered sissies.

 

[ataraxia]

Power corrupts.
And Marcus Aurelius was not an exception to that.
One of the worst acts by an emperor was done by him.
He would gather audiences in the Coliseum and tie Christians to stakes and release underfed lions to eat them alive.
Many at a time. On numerous occasions. He considered it entertainment.

I don't know about this. The gladiator games were so popular at the time that banning them outright would have probably been foolish, and the equivalent of banning NFL football today. You would have had riots on the streets.

"Marcus Aurelius did not ban the games outright, but placed restrictions on the games to make them less deadly."

Did Marcus Aurelius ban gladiatorial games? | Homework.Study.com

Answer to: Did Marcus Aurelius ban gladiatorial games? By signing up, you'll get thousands of step-by-step solutions to your homework questions....

homework.study.com