Is it fallacious to argue that power must be evil?

Question

According to popular wisdom "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

If one is considering ethics, and one argues that power must be evil because it can corrupt people, is this a fallacy or are there merits to the argument?

It is not a complete argument. There is an *hidden* premise: "everything that can corrupt people is evil". — Mauro ALLEGRANZA, Feb 06 '18 at 19:28
Hi, welcome to Philosophy SE. Please visit our [Help Center](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help) to see what questions we answer and how to ask. Is this a HW question? We do not answer those unless more context is given, your own thinking on the issue presented, and specific difficulty identified. — Conifold, Feb 06 '18 at 21:16
@MauroALLEGRANZA another premise is: nouns can be objectively judged as good/evil — ngn, Feb 07 '18 at 00:54
I would argue that, contrary to the well-known adage, power does *not* corrupt; it simply gives greater means to those who are already inclined to do corrupt things. — , Feb 07 '18 at 11:52
@MauroALLEGRANZA "power" is a generic noun. You can't judge it without context. It could mean anything from a parent preventing a child from running into a busy street, to the power of bombing a sovereign state for its natural resources. — ngn, Feb 07 '18 at 13:36

score 1 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 08:34

Since there is no argument in 'power must be evil' or in 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely', both of which are only claims, neither can be fallacious (if no argument, then no fallacious or logically erroneous argument).

'Power corrupts', by the way, derives from Lord Acton, who said: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Power

This is a vague and imprecise concept. It can be precisified in at least three ways:

1.'A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.' (R. Dahl, 'The Concept of Power', Systems Research and Behavioral Science 2(3), 201–215.

2.'A has power over B to the extent that A can control the range of choices of action available to B.'

3.'A has power over B to the extent that A can determine B's self-perception and therefore of the choices of action that B can conceive.'

Adapted from Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan) 1974.

You have to decide which concept of power is in play: 1., or 2., or 3., or all three or some subset.

Modalities

Your (mis-) quote from Acton makes merely a contingent claim. It says what is possible and actually the case. In contrast, in your question on whether 'power must be evil', a stronger modal claim is at stake: not merely that it is possible or actually the case that power is evil but that necessarily it is evil. Mixed modalities produce a double vision in answering your question.

The limits of philosophy

I can't see that, apart from (a) clarifying what a fallacy is, (b) supplying a conceptual framework for the discussion of power, and (c) sorting out the mixed modalities in your question and text, philosophy alone can take us any further towards an answer.

Your question definitely raises interesting matters and involves philosophical issues, but the resolution of your question lies, I think, beyond the scope of philosophy.

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Feb 07 '18 at 21:18

Aristotle would have said that generation & corruption are both aspects of change.

Power is neccessary to the individual and to the social body. When it is used well, it generates strength; and when it is used badly, it generates weakness, that is it corrupts.

We say power corrupts because it magnifies the deficiencies and flaws

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Feb 07 '18 at 21:23