Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Power & Integrity

Hello guys,

Here is a value conflict (you can decide for yourself), would you rather:

1. Have Power but no Integrity. Example: you are the master of the world but you're a POS.

OR (only one choice!)

2. Have Integrity but no Power. Example: you would be a bum in the street but you're a saint.

Which one would you choose?

Note: It is on purpose an extreme example to be able to force a choice from us and reveal our underlying personal value system.

That's the first part. The second part:

Now, here is the real-life problem. Socrates/Platon talked about that. He said that: when asked the question "who should be the ruler?" his answer is: "a man of good". But there is another underlying problem that he uncovers. The man of good, being a man of good does not want to rule. The reason is: it would bring him away from what he values. He could become corrupted. So the man of good avoids the Power. That is why Socrates' solution is to force the man of good to rule.

The third part.

Now, here is even more real-life. What's the problem with politicians? They become more corrupt the longer they stay in the political game. Almost nobody escapes it just as almost nobody escapes the Mafia. It's the same. So the idea that WHEN the person will acquire the power THEN this person will be virtuous is ridiculous. Because of the development above, I propose that the easiest way for a politician to be close to being a man of good is to begin by being a man of good. The other way around: to get first power, then integrity is such a small probability it's not even funny. So it is key to be able to identify the most virtuous person to delegate him/her our power. Whereas it is as an employee, as a citizen or anything in-between.

Cheers!

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStef

An interesting take, John.

Another somewhat overlapping concept:

It's the good man's burden to lead and take power.

Even if he doesn't want, he should step up anyway.

John Freeman and Stef have reacted to this post.
John FreemanStef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

It is somewhat overlapping. I think that is what one would call duty. Once you have seen then you can not unsee. The next question is "what will you do?".

Yeah, the videogame name "call of duty" applies.

As a libertarian, I wouldn't go as far as say "it's your duty", but in many ways, it's a good thing to feel that pressure.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Well, people call it what they want to call it. When you are aware of something, then you can act in a different way than you could not before. This gives you a new choice, a new freedom. Then, with this freedom comes a responsibility that comes from awareness. How we call this responsibility (or burden), I propose that it could be duty.

From Oxford dictionary:

Duty: something that you have to do because it is part of your job, or something that you feel is the right thing to do

  • The duty of the agency is to act in the best interests of the child.
  • [ + to infinitive ] I felt it was my duty to tell them the truth.

That being said, I respect your perspective: you think it's a bit strong.

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStef

Yeah, I also agree with you, just would stop short from going into the "must".

There is also a saying in Italian:

Potere, e' dovere

Which correct if I'm wrong, should work the same in French:

Pouvoir est devoir

In English you lose the alliteration, but could be translated as:

When you can, you must

John Freeman and Stef have reacted to this post.
John FreemanStef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I agree. I don’t think it’s a “must”. I think it’s a choice. 🙂

 

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStef
Processing...