It doesn’t mean that. It means something more like “power changes the empowered’s utility function in a way others deem immoral”. (ETA simplified)
ETA: Just to make the point clearer, there are many things that change an individual’s goal content but are not considered corrupting. For example, trying new foods will generally make you divert more effort to finding one kind of food (that you didn’t know you liked). Having children of your own makes you more favorable to children in general. But we don’t say, and people generally don’t believe, “having children corrupts” or “trying new foods corrupts”.
Also: it seems like a really poor plan, in the long term, for the fate of the entire plane to rest on the sanity of one dude. If Hirou kept the sword, he could maybe try to work with the wizards—ask them to spend one day per week healing people, make sure the crops do okay, etc. Things maybe wouldn’t be perfect, but at least he wouldn’t be running the risk of everybody-dies.
Okay, but in any case, regarding the issue at hand, “power corrupts” is not a purely factual claim. (And I thought that hybrid claims get counted as moral by default, since that’s the most useful for discussion, but I could be wrong.)
Then you need to separate the factual claim and the moral claim, and discuss them separately. The factual claim would be, “power changes goal content in this particular way”, and the moral claim is, ”...and this is bad.”
Is this fair though? Let’s say the passage had been, ”… his position that it is immoral to possess nuclear weapons”. That too breaks down into a factual and moral claim.
Moral: “it is wrong to possess a weapon with massive, unfocused destructive power”
Factual: “The devices we currently call nuclear weapons inflict massive, unfocused destruction.”
Would you object to “his position that it is immoral to posses nuclear weapons” on the grounds that “you need to separate the factual and moral claims”?
Well, in fact it would be highly helpful to separate the claims here, even though the factual part is uncontroversial, because it makes it clear what argument is being made, exactly.
And in this case it’s uncertain/controversial how much power actually changes behavior, who it changes, how reliably; and this is the key issue, whereas the moral concept that “the behavior of killing everyone who disagrees with you, is wrong” is relatively uncontroversial among us. So calling this a moral claim when the key disputed part is actually a factual claim is a bad idea.
Evolution doesn’t do most things. Doing things requires oceans of blood for every little adaptation and humans haven’t had power for all that long. Toddlers need to learn how to hide. How’s that for failing to evolve knowledge of the obvious (to a human brain) and absurdly useful.
I think my concern about “power corrupts” is this: humans have a strong drive to improve things. We need projects, we need challenges. When this guy gets unlimited power, he’s going to take two or three passes over everything and make sure everybody’s happy, and then I’m worried he’s going to get very, very bored. With an infinite lifespan and unlimited power, it’s sort of inevitable.
What do you do, when you’re omnipotent and undying, and you realize you’re going mad with boredom?
Does “unlimited power” include the power to make yourself not bored?
It seems to me that “power corrupts” means “power changes goal content,” and that’s a purely factual claim.
It doesn’t mean that. It means something more like “power changes the empowered’s utility function in a way others deem immoral”. (ETA simplified)
ETA: Just to make the point clearer, there are many things that change an individual’s goal content but are not considered corrupting. For example, trying new foods will generally make you divert more effort to finding one kind of food (that you didn’t know you liked). Having children of your own makes you more favorable to children in general. But we don’t say, and people generally don’t believe, “having children corrupts” or “trying new foods corrupts”.
Okay, but that’s still a factual claim underneath the moral one.
It’s a bit of argumentum ad webcomicum, but http://www.agirlandherfed.com/comic/?375 is not something I find particularly implausible. There was Marcus Aurelius.
Link’s broken. Is this guess the page in question?
Yup!
Also: it seems like a really poor plan, in the long term, for the fate of the entire plane to rest on the sanity of one dude. If Hirou kept the sword, he could maybe try to work with the wizards—ask them to spend one day per week healing people, make sure the crops do okay, etc. Things maybe wouldn’t be perfect, but at least he wouldn’t be running the risk of everybody-dies.
Okay, but in any case, regarding the issue at hand, “power corrupts” is not a purely factual claim. (And I thought that hybrid claims get counted as moral by default, since that’s the most useful for discussion, but I could be wrong.)
Then you need to separate the factual claim and the moral claim, and discuss them separately. The factual claim would be, “power changes goal content in this particular way”, and the moral claim is, ”...and this is bad.”
Is this fair though? Let’s say the passage had been, ”… his position that it is immoral to possess nuclear weapons”. That too breaks down into a factual and moral claim.
Moral: “it is wrong to possess a weapon with massive, unfocused destructive power”
Factual: “The devices we currently call nuclear weapons inflict massive, unfocused destruction.”
Would you object to “his position that it is immoral to posses nuclear weapons” on the grounds that “you need to separate the factual and moral claims”?
Well, in fact it would be highly helpful to separate the claims here, even though the factual part is uncontroversial, because it makes it clear what argument is being made, exactly.
And in this case it’s uncertain/controversial how much power actually changes behavior, who it changes, how reliably; and this is the key issue, whereas the moral concept that “the behavior of killing everyone who disagrees with you, is wrong” is relatively uncontroversial among us. So calling this a moral claim when the key disputed part is actually a factual claim is a bad idea.
What’s the evolutionary explanation for power not corrupting?
Evolution doesn’t do most things. Doing things requires oceans of blood for every little adaptation and humans haven’t had power for all that long.
Toddlers need to learn how to hide. How’s that for failing to evolve knowledge of the obvious (to a human brain) and absurdly useful.
Be careful you don’t end up explaining two contradictory outcomes equally well, thus proving you have zero knowledge on evolution’s effect on power and corruption!
And then there are those of us who take moral claims to be factual claims.
I think my concern about “power corrupts” is this: humans have a strong drive to improve things. We need projects, we need challenges. When this guy gets unlimited power, he’s going to take two or three passes over everything and make sure everybody’s happy, and then I’m worried he’s going to get very, very bored. With an infinite lifespan and unlimited power, it’s sort of inevitable.
What do you do, when you’re omnipotent and undying, and you realize you’re going mad with boredom?
Does “unlimited power” include the power to make yourself not bored?