6 ms·

Not that this study isn't interesting, but Lord Acton was really talking about how powerful people corrupt us. ''' I cannot accept your canon that we are to ju

Not that this study isn't interesting, but Lord Acton was really talking about how powerful people corrupt us. ''' I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of historians] has to make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is, legal consequences during the rulers' lifetimes]. 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 or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which . . . the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, . . . but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.... ''' http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html What is he getting at? We'd hang Mary and forgive Elizabeth for the same crimes, so we're corrupted by the powerful. I think the the leading presidential candidates of both major U.S. parties shows this to be true.

Programmatic 10y ago
I don't think that interpretation jibes with the text: Assertion: "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases." Rationale: "Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of historians] has to make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is, legal consequences during the rulers' lifetimes]. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He then goes on to rail against people that hold power: "Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." Without the idea that power tends to corrupt those in power, there would be no reason to presume that they did wrong by default or to say that people who exercise influence and authority are bad men.
- zaphar 10y ago
  In some ways it's mutual. Power tends to remove societal curbs on bad behavior. The natural result in aggregate is an increase in bad behavior. The cause though is both on those who allow and indeed even consent to the removal of those curbs. (See the current Trump campaign.) And the individual who fails to resist the temptation of consequence free action.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  There's probably some of that in there too, but the context is history, so when I read 'great men', for instance, there is an implied 'great men of history' in there. I think Acton was saying our view of events and actions naturally lean towards making excuses and we need to be aware of that. You probably have a point there, but I think the corruption of authority on the rest of us is certainly a major theme.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority That implies great men have influence and/or authority to exercise. You may read it as 'great men of history', but if to you that set of people includes those who accomplished a lot without authority of influence (at the time, otherwise it would not be possible to be exercised), then the set of what you and Lord Acton consider 'great men of history' likely have different conditions for inclusion. A simple example of this is probably Srinivasa Ramanujan, whose genius was largely unrecognized until very late in his life, and his notebooks were later studied for his many results. A man of great influence after his death. That's not to say your interpretation isn't useful, or possibly even correct, just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it The context is a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Acton read some work of Creighton's and thought Creighton wasn't critical enough of certain popes. The context is exactly about why the bishop was too uncritical when looking back on the powerful men of history. It wasn't a narrative of a pope and how he turned to the dark side after he started wearing white robes. And I'm sure Acton wasn't referring to men like Ramanujan in his quote, though he may indeed have been a great man in other dimensions.
barrkel 10y ago
The two are intermixed. The only reason powerful people are powerful is because we acquiesce to their demands. Our acquiescence in turn influences our moral judgements; or alternatively, one measure of power is the ability to cause people to inhibit their moral judgements that could cause them to resist.

Programmatic 10y ago

I don't think that interpretation jibes with the text: Assertion: "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases." Rationale: "Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of historians] has to make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is, legal consequences during the rulers' lifetimes]. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He then goes on to rail against people that hold power: "Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." Without the idea that power tends to corrupt those in power, there would be no reason to presume that they did wrong by default or to say that people who exercise influence and authority are bad men.

zaphar 10y ago
In some ways it's mutual. Power tends to remove societal curbs on bad behavior. The natural result in aggregate is an increase in bad behavior. The cause though is both on those who allow and indeed even consent to the removal of those curbs. (See the current Trump campaign.) And the individual who fails to resist the temptation of consequence free action.
humanrebar 10y ago
There's probably some of that in there too, but the context is history, so when I read 'great men', for instance, there is an implied 'great men of history' in there. I think Acton was saying our view of events and actions naturally lean towards making excuses and we need to be aware of that. You probably have a point there, but I think the corruption of authority on the rest of us is certainly a major theme.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority That implies great men have influence and/or authority to exercise. You may read it as 'great men of history', but if to you that set of people includes those who accomplished a lot without authority of influence (at the time, otherwise it would not be possible to be exercised), then the set of what you and Lord Acton consider 'great men of history' likely have different conditions for inclusion. A simple example of this is probably Srinivasa Ramanujan, whose genius was largely unrecognized until very late in his life, and his notebooks were later studied for his many results. A man of great influence after his death. That's not to say your interpretation isn't useful, or possibly even correct, just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it The context is a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Acton read some work of Creighton's and thought Creighton wasn't critical enough of certain popes. The context is exactly about why the bishop was too uncritical when looking back on the powerful men of history. It wasn't a narrative of a pope and how he turned to the dark side after he started wearing white robes. And I'm sure Acton wasn't referring to men like Ramanujan in his quote, though he may indeed have been a great man in other dimensions.

barrkel 10y ago

The two are intermixed. The only reason powerful people are powerful is because we acquiesce to their demands. Our acquiescence in turn influences our moral judgements; or alternatively, one measure of power is the ability to cause people to inhibit their moral judgements that could cause them to resist.