"All it takes to make one man a king is one other man to kneel at his feet. I would look not to the king, but the the integrity of the man who kneels before him." -- seen on a message board today
I like social contract theory, but it leaves a few problems.
The first problem is of course physical power: to make someone else kneel at your feet could take intimidation of physical ruin (death, torture, hampered living, etc.). No human being is omnipotent and regardless of strength of character (moral, willpower, or talent/skill), it takes some luck to get to a position of strength - specifically, luck in your favor and against someone else's. Thus, we have the problem with karma and blaming the victim.
The second problem is socialization. What happens if you have a strong person (in some regard) who has been socialized to bow before another person (any level of quality) as "morally correct"? What if Person A has every reason to think that said submission is the proper course of action?
Then, of course, there's social power. Hitler was an awful human being, as far as history is concerned...but he was charismatic. He wouldn't have gotten away with what he did if he were not able to convince the majority that what he was doing was right and/or in their best interests. Browbeating, flattery, rhetoric, bluffing, and every other social skill are fantastic tools for securing power. You can criticize someone for being inept at picking out the bad apples, but socializing is always in the context of plurality (unless you're Ges and believe in solipsism) and it is unfair to both the victim and the person in power to say that it is solely the underling's fault.
Finally, what if the "king" is actually a good person and/or ruler? Is it not often a double standard that wise and/or benevolent leaders are praised for their wisdom and/or benevolence, but those underlings who supported said leader are not praised for supporting the ruler? In fact, when you hear that a leader is "beloved by all his/her subjects," it's treated as if popularity were a quality of the leader rather than the subjects having a quality.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: May. 4th, 2010 05:33 am (UTC)From:The first problem is of course physical power: to make someone else kneel at your feet could take intimidation of physical ruin (death, torture, hampered living, etc.). No human being is omnipotent and regardless of strength of character (moral, willpower, or talent/skill), it takes some luck to get to a position of strength - specifically, luck in your favor and against someone else's. Thus, we have the problem with karma and blaming the victim.
The second problem is socialization. What happens if you have a strong person (in some regard) who has been socialized to bow before another person (any level of quality) as "morally correct"? What if Person A has every reason to think that said submission is the proper course of action?
Then, of course, there's social power. Hitler was an awful human being, as far as history is concerned...but he was charismatic. He wouldn't have gotten away with what he did if he were not able to convince the majority that what he was doing was right and/or in their best interests. Browbeating, flattery, rhetoric, bluffing, and every other social skill are fantastic tools for securing power. You can criticize someone for being inept at picking out the bad apples, but socializing is always in the context of plurality (unless you're Ges and believe in solipsism) and it is unfair to both the victim and the person in power to say that it is solely the underling's fault.
Finally, what if the "king" is actually a good person and/or ruler? Is it not often a double standard that wise and/or benevolent leaders are praised for their wisdom and/or benevolence, but those underlings who supported said leader are not praised for supporting the ruler? In fact, when you hear that a leader is "beloved by all his/her subjects," it's treated as if popularity were a quality of the leader rather than the subjects having a quality.