
Does power influence moral thinking? - alexandros
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/does-power-influence-moral-thinking
======
Perceval
This is a puzzling result for me to read. As someone who studies international
relations theory, the Realist tradition of thinkers (Machiavelli, Hobbes, E.H.
Carr, Morgenthau among many others) associate power and consequentialist
thinking. It was stated most clearly by Weber in the _Politics as a Vocation_
lecture, where he contrasts the ethic of responsibility (consequences) to the
ethic of conviction (deontological). Weber's Realism favors an ethic of
responsibility against the more idealist thinkers of politics. E.H. Carr makes
a similar distinction between deontological idealism and consequentialist
Realism in his classic _The Twenty Years Crisis_.

This fits in with the tradition of Realism, going back the Machiavelli, who
argued against _actually_ following moral rules, but instead maintaining the
_appearance_ of following moral rules. He also links power, the use of power,
the gaining of power, and the maintenance of power to a willingness to abandon
moral rules. It was will and _virtú_ that determined the prince's
effectiveness in the face of _fortuna_.

Hobbes is probably the most interesting thinker on the topic of the link
between power and morality. He makes very explicit the link between
epistemology (what we can claim we know) and authority and force. In order to
avoid the kind of civil wars he saw around him when writing _The Leviathan_
(the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War), he thought that the ability
to make claims about truth/revelation/values/morality had to be circumscribed
from the public sphere. The ability to resolve disputes about moral knowledge
had to be located in a single figure, the sovereign, who possessed authority
and the power to back it up. But Hobbes is not making a descriptive argument--
he's not saying that the powerful follow moral rules deontologically. He's
making a normative argument--that only the powerful sovereign can make moral
decisions for the public, because if _anyone_ can make deontological claims
what results is the type of religious civil war that he saw all around him.

So, for most of the tradition of Western (realist) thought, the relationship
between power and morality/consequences runs the opposite way. The powerful
operate (or should operate) according to consequences, not to deontological
rules. The idealists--the "unarmed prophets" in the words of Machiavelli--
operate on deontological rules and end up being ineffective, overthrown, or
conquered.

------
greenlblue
It just seems weird to correlate power with morality. Most people, powerless
or not, simply like to cover their asses. The powerful simply use the best
means possible for doing this which is following the rules since the law tends
to be on the side of the powerful. This also makes me wonder how a mob boss
fits into this scheme since such people are considered powerful by most
definitions.

~~~
lionhearted
> Most people, powerless or not, simply like to cover their asses.

My experience is the opposite - the most effective people I know spend the
least time covering their asses, and put themselves on the line the most. Most
people are deathly afraid of stepping up, taking responsibility, being a
decionmaker, and being the one to blame if things go wrong - thus, the people
who do step up and take responsibility usually ascend to great amounts of
influence and, well, "power". Time spent ass-covering is time not spent doing
something more effective.

~~~
Mz
What you are saying looks to me like it fits with this remark from the
article:

 _in determining whether an act is right or wrong, the powerful focus on
whether rules and principles are violated, whereas the powerless focus on the
consequences. For this reason, the powerful are also more inclined to stick to
the rules, irrespective of whether this has positive or negative effects,
whereas the powerless are more inclined to make exceptions._

I think a more interesting question to me would be in regards to people
following "internal rules" vs. "external rules". People like Jesus and Ghandi
and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seem to be willing to break external rules out
of deference to a highly developed set of internal rules -- or, perhaps, they
follow a set of rules grounded more in reality than social convention. By that
I mean that things like racial discrimination aren't simply "morally wrong",
they are bad thinking with negative consequences. For example, the (racial)
discrimination thing: My recollection is that one of the most successful crime
lords of all time was willing to work with the Irish mob, the Jewish mob, etc
whereas historically the Irish mob only worked with the Irish and excluded the
Jews, Italians, etc. Same for other groups: They were all quite insular.
Whether you are a crime lord or a business, inclusiveness is a practical
strength which gives you greater access to whomever happens to have talent. If
you are the only place some people can go to get a fair shake, Bonus! --
because they will work their butts off for you and be die-hard loyalists. Not
because they really give a rat's patootie about you but simply because (to
quote a favorite movie line from "Other People's Money") you aren't their best
friend, you're their only friend.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
smart power associates with power, regardless of origin.

------
tel
I wonder about the reverse causation situation as well: does rule based
ethical thinking help people to gain power? Without trying to debate
deontology versus consequentialism, it certainly seems that someone who can
just decide things based on rules would have an easier time gaining power than
someone who wastes effort considering the consequences of each action.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
the ones who fortuitously choose the right rules at the right time that is,

