Lord Acton was wrong, right?
Hidden somewhere within a series of letters addressed to Bishop Creighton, Lord Acton made examples of powerful and influential men (the King, to name one example, and the Pope) insisting that in cases of moral criminality, they were not above the law – the opinion seemingly held by his interlocutor.
‘Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes’ Lord Acton exclaimed of those highly authoritative men – ’you would spare those 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.’
Creighton fetishised these men somewhat, until to him it seemed they were immune to laws all others were subject to. Lord Acton had no truck with this; to the extent where he distrusted those who exercised influence. ‘Great men’, he said, ‘are almost always bad men’.
What preceded this was a quote Lord Acton is now most infamously known for: ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
But Lord Acton was wrong, right? If “[p]ower tends to corrupt,” then surely “absolute power” only has a tendency to corrupt absolutely.
By using the word ‘tends’ Acton acknowledges that corruption is not a necessary element of power, but that the tendency is there. However in the claim that follows, Acton seems to imply that corruption is a logical necessity of power.
Post-hoc (corruption), ergo propter hoc (power).
He contradicts himself.
Lord Acton says the word ‘and’ before adding ‘power corrupts absolutely’, where the word but would appear better suited (though of course he would still be wrong, assuming he sticks with the belief that power tends to corrupt).
Dropping the word tendency in the second part of Acton’s infamous line
shows his logic to be flawed – perhaps Alex Callinicos, leading member of the Socialist Workers’ Party and great grandson of Lord Acton, consequently felt duty bound to be the secretary of the International Socialist Tendency…

In a case that could have philosophical idealists wetting themselves for decades to come, by naming something before the fact of it, we should adapt to the Conservative attempt at framing inheritance tax as a ‘death tax’. Here’s my proposal:
Recent Comments