I think it can help to be a bit of an evil bastard in the first place.

spyman +1

I think people get accustomed to the way things are and if they are in a good position, they will want to hold onto that tooth and nail, kind of like how the West would act if the third world wanted an equal share of the world's resources.
Although having power certainly opens more doors for people and maybe that causes a bit of ego in the individual to make them think they are superior, which could lead to harsh treatment.

i think that theres a little bit of evil in everyone no matter what because we're all human, its most apparent when we're kids and when things dont go our way we kick and scream an hit until we get what we want (or in cases where the parents dont give in, we learn our lesson and stop throwing fits like that).

i think theres a difference between being evil and being corrupt, to be evil you would get enjoyment out of doing others harm but if your corrupt (in this case corrupt with power) then you just seem to have a lack of caring about your people and are acting only to benefit yourself.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton.

Seriously guys, six comments down? WebDip is slipping...

""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Single most overused quote in webdip.

And it's utterly false, the most corrupt countries in the world have the weakest rulers and weakest governments, not the strongest. Look at Pakistan. Look at Nigeria.

very true putin

It depends on the how and the why. If power was obtained by force or because of to increase personal importance, then yes, the person will tend to hold himself in a superior way and become corrupt. However, if the power was obtained for the good of the people, it may be different. Point in case, GW. People wanted to make him king, give him absolute power, he refused because he knew that after him it would lead to tragedy for the new nation.

Nobody wanted to make him king. That's a longstanding myth.

I disagree with you there, but I don't currently have any sources I can throw at you to prove differently. However, he was in command of the continental army. The British were defeated. The French didn't have a military presence in the country that could do anything to counter the continental army. He did have the power to make himself king had he wanted to. He could have done what Napoleon did for instance, but he relinquished all of his power to the Confederation.

Power does not corrupt, it merely provides opportunities. Of course, in the minds of the likes of Nero, Hitler, Stalin etc. It is the nature of society that is corrupt, that allows them to do the bad things they did.

Describing a persons personality as 'evil' is fucking primitive.

"Describing a persons personality as 'evil' is fucking primitive."

How so? Do you prefer sociopathic?

Well sociopath is a step up, but really only slightly relevant if the subject has an obvious mental illness. But 'evil' and 'sociopath' are just used by people to describe other people they don't like. Its a label. Its propaganda. Its not helpful. Again, is the problem really the individual, or is it the group dynamics that allow them to do bad things?

You put any 15 year old in charge of a country and very quickly you will see crazy laws and people being marched off to concentration camps or execution. Is everyone at age 15 an evil dictator? Or are they just ignorant and unable to grasp the wisdom of what they are doing? Whether that be proactive or apathetic. Human weakness is the norm, not the exception.

" But 'evil' and 'sociopath' are just used by people to describe other people they don't like"

I think it is more than that. Although I would say that evil is the more subjective term, as behaviors labelled acceptable by one culture might be considered evil by another.
But sociopath or psychopath are labels that I think are useful because they do describe real traits that some people have, possibly hard-wired. Most of us relatively normal people are sociable, empathic, altruistic (to a degree) but not everyone is. There is a spectrum. And hey perhaps people who are further along the spectrum to sociopathy have there place and their role in society. Perhaps we need people who are ruthless, heartless, fearless, etc sometimes. No doubt plenty of history's great people have been that way inclined. Hitler is an obvious choice, but perhaps some of history's more respectable figures too... Oliver Cromwell comes to mind (not sure if he is respectable or not. Not if you are Irish).

Well you are opening the whole nature vs nurture debate. Let me now close it my opining that as far as behavious is concerned, its all nurture. I have a cousin who is a genetic researcher, and that is certainly her opinion. Perhaps some people have a slight tendency towards ruthlessness. Are they ruthlessly selfish?, or are they ruthless about being morally principled? Are they ruthless about fairless and social harmony? Is someone heartless?, or are they simply philosophical? Is someone fearless? Or do they just care a whole lot about making a point that needs to be made? Is this forest of question marks pretty? Or are readers getting annoyed?
You can twist a so-called trait in any direction you please.

"I disagree with you there, but I don't currently have any sources I can throw at you to prove differently. However, he was in command of the continental army. The British were defeated. The French didn't have a military presence in the country that could do anything to counter the continental army. He did have the power to make himself king had he wanted to. He could have done what Napoleon did for instance, but he relinquished all of his power to the Confederation."

For anyone interested in the origins of this myth, and why it is in fact a myth, read the following:

http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/201.pdf

In short: There were some in the continental army who were dissatisfied with how the Confederation was operating in terms of paying and supplying the army. One such soldier, Colonel Nikola, wrote Washington a letter musing about the merits of a monarchy. He never offered Washington any kingship, and he was certainly in no position to offer a kingship.

Considering the fact that the 'Federalist' putsch that occurred in 1787 had a difficult enough time getting approved, and was only approved after a number of compromises were made, the idea that the newly independent colonies would have easily accepted a kingship led by Washington is ridiculous. He "relinquished" nothing.

Hitler doesn't seem like a sociopath to me. And evil is a completely bullshit subjective idea anyway. (so talking about a historical context not useful, you can't go back in time and change hitler, you can do something to change Iraq/Libya today - if you want to study history you should try to be objective...)

Hitler was probably a power-hungry rascist, but not a sociopath by any definition. He may not be a person i'd like to have around today, but he isn't so i don't see what the big deal is.

People are neither intrinsically good/evil. They are people. Power gives them the opportunity to make mistakes. Their actions do not make them evil/good, they make them humans capable of making mistakes. They may not recognize these things as mistakes and if the are succeed they may even convince themselves they are doing some form of good.

I think the 'definition' of an evil person is someone who does something 'evil' while thinking it is 'good'. If people don't have power they are less likely to succeed at any given 'evil' thus they are less likely to start rationalizing and convincing themselves that it was 'good' - it is much easier to fail and then decide you made a bad choice... if you win all bets are off... there is nothing to make you reconsider the original decision.

¹ where 'good' and 'evil' are subjective terms which people may ascribe.

'Let me now close it my opining that as far as behavious is concerned, its all nurture. I have a cousin who is a genetic researcher, and that is certainly her opinion.'

i have seen a lot of twin studies, which indicate that identical twins are more likely to make the same decision (when it comes to some risk-taking experiment) that fraternal twins.

The evidence indicates there is a huge genetic component at work aswell. I don't care who your cousin is.

@Ora - Nice work re-stating what I have already said.

Well, as far as your 'evidence' is concerned. Were all these twins seperated at birth? Cos if they werent, then they grew up in the same family culture. Which makes your 'huge genetic component' spiel fail rather hard.

Secondly, the results of 'risk-taking experiments' are hardly a complete inventory of an individuals personality.

I don't care who your cousin is either :) funny that.

"Hitler was probably a power-hungry rascist, but not a sociopath by any definition."

Well I am not a psychologist, but I think it was be reasonable to infer from his actions that he was abnormally short on empathy. That is one of the criteria I believe.

not a whole inventory, but if you can show that some decision making has a clear genetic component you have demonstrated that some part of personality is genetically pre-determined.

I'm not saying there is no environmental factor, and the same neural network can definitely behave differently (you can even train people to react in certain ways...) but there are genetic differences - whatever environment you happen to develop in, if you have canine DNA you're not going to develop the same way...

Power doesn't currupt, it just changes perspective. A baker who works hard to give his family every possible advantage is a hero. An MP who does the same thing is a villian.

Twins: this is from the Wikipedia entry on psychopathy :

"One twin study suggests that psychopathy has a strong genetic component. The study demonstrates that children with anti-social behavior can be classified into two groups: those who were also callous acquired their behavior by genetic influences, and those who were not callous acquired it from their environment."

I know it's only Wikipedia. But there was a citation too.

^ Viding, Essi; Blair, R. James R.; Moffitt, Terrie E.; Plomin, Robert (2005). "Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46 (6): 592–7

@spyman, have you any evidence of hilter's lack of empathy in personal relationships? i mean not caring about people in other nations (or black slaves or hispanic workers or starving africans or opressed tibetans) is not in itself something unique...

@octavious: of course, because the MP has the power to do more, and has been given the responcibility to act in the 'common interest' not his family's interest.

It is not merely a difference in prespective, it is a difference in their actually implicit social relationship with their community.

A baker may be seen as a vital component in the community who people rely on for the provision of food. (especially in a small village, with few transport links) an MP however is always a vital component in the decision-making of society, and people rely upon MPs to act in the 'common good' - whatever that is...

No I don't have any evidence. I was just looking for an example of someone who lay somewhere along the spectrum I postulated. Hitler came to mind. But I really don't know what the was really like. He almost seemed nice in the movie "Downfall" (great movie by the way).

@spyman - errr, yes, did you read that quote? Maybe I'm tired but that does not seem to make any sense.

And yes, ONE study. Do you know how many thousands of studies there are on the subject?

I'm off to bed, I think we can all at least agree that Hitler was a cuddly bunny.

Lol
By the way the quote I provided was strangly worded. I think some of the context might have been missing.

This link doesn't prove anything but it does kind of make the same case that I am making:

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009/03/evil_genes.php

"@spyman, have you any evidence of hilter's lack of empathy in personal relationships? i mean not caring about people in other nations (or black slaves or hispanic workers or starving africans or opressed tibetans) is not in itself something unique..."

Hitlers behavior throughout the war, especially toward the end, showed without a doubt that the man was unstable.

And theres a difference between a racist and a man who attempts to exterminate a race and build a museum to showcase the race he destroyed

Or maybe it's just because being in power makes your mistakes/failings/weaknesses/etc larger and more obvious.

...and Hitler ruined, RUINED, the little mustache for everyone - thanks Hitler.

It does a great injustice to people with mental illness to attribute all 'evil' behavior in the world to mental illness. The term 'psychopath' has been horribly abused and misused.

It's not power because things are necessary for a person to have power, basically government. And in order to have a government you have to have people to govern, this is a society. And eventually you get down to Man in the state of nature (this is where Man has no property or government). Basically just read Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality".

Really? I have been avoiding posting to this thread because I wanted to see what kind of life I could get without, but this statement is bogus. Governments aren't the only place to get power. Look to priests and preachers who abuse their position. Look to heads of corporations who do. For every Warren Buffet or Bill Gates there are 10 Bernie Madoffs. No one put him in power through some election into a government office, but he still had and abused his power.

Read Rousseau and understand corruption.

I have never understood the people's admiration of Rousseau... He was a quack. There have been much greater philosophers throughout time. Descartes, Plato, Socrates all had better notions of the human being than Rousseau.

People need to be able to explain an idea before they do the usual "read 30 links and 12 books" tactic.

Usually nobody except the Iranian Mullahs have any respect for Plato.

And you criticize Rousseau but have admiration for Cartesian dualism? Talk about quackery.

"It does a great injustice to people with mental illness to attribute all 'evil' behavior in the world to mental illness."

Is sociopathy considered a mental illness? I realize it is labeled a disorder, but it won't you get your more lenient treatment in court. A sociopath may still know right from wrong.

"People need to be able to explain an idea before they do the usual "read 30 links and 12 books" tactic. "

Was that aimed at me? I said myself that my links proved nothing. I posted them only as illustrations of two points: Firstly I am not the only person who has suggested that Hitler was probably sociopathic. And I have conceded that maybe he wasn't. The point I was making is that perhaps lie on a spectrum of social ("good" if you like) to antisocial ("evil" if you like). Some people are naturally ruthless. Just as some people are naturally gregarious. So whether Hitler was or wasn't a sociopath (technically) is irrelevant. My second post was to illustrate that there is some evidence that sociopathy is genetic and I am not the first person to suggest this.

I believe most people are born good, but certain circumstances (like power) sometimes (not always) corrupt people.

But spyman is right. Some people are just evil in the first place.

typo... perhaps *people lie on a spectrum...

"Those who are attracted to power, are the very people who should not have it" is a much better basis to argue corruption...

I think we are all corrupt to some extent (at a least a little bit). Power gives people the opportunity and the incentive. So in that sense it is true.
But as I said earlier, I think being a bit evil can work in your favour on the road to achieving power.

Yes, legally it's not recognized and can't be used as a defense. The law and psychology don't always to eye to eye. But clearly it is a type of anti-social personality disorder.

Wasn't referring to you, Spyman, but rather tatertotz.

no worries then. lol.