The Worse Roman Emperor?

[cacian]

according to you..

caligula because of his erratic sexual deviations...how he lasted is anyone's guess.:out:

[TheFifthElement]

Of course this question has already been addressed by the Horrible Histories crew :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Nh-zSMzqo

[cacian]

Of course this question has already been addressed by the Horrible Histories crew :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Nh-zSMzqo

hehe....I am enjoying this The FifthElement this is just abfab...heheh... thank you:thumbsup::lol:

[Des Essientes]

Tiberius, Caligulla, and Nero were very bad, but in my opinion the worst crime committed by any of the Roman emperors was perpetrated by Justinian when he closed down the Athenian schools of philosophy.

[cafolini]

Caesar. "To Caesar what belongs to Caesar."

[cacian]

Tiberius, Caligulla, and Nero were very bad, but in my opinion the worst crime committed by any of the Roman emperors was perpetrated by Justinian when he closed down the Athenian schools of philosophy.

what were the reasons behind the closing of the Athenian Schools of Philosophy?

[Des Essientes]

Justinian closed the Athenian schools of philosophy beause he deemed them uneccessary remnants of the pagan past's search for truth which had been superceded by what he considered the one and only truth- Christianity. The schools had been supported by the secular aristocracy of the empire much of whose power had been taken away Christian clergymen.

[BienvenuJDC]

Tiberius, Caligulla, and Nero were very bad, but in my opinion the worst crime committed by any of the Roman emperors was perpetrated by Justinian when he closed down the Athenian schools of philosophy.

I'm sorry, but you consider closing the schools of philosophy as being worse than murdering thousands of people and burning down Rome? I don't get it.

[YesNo]

Of course this question has already been addressed by the Horrible Histories crew :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Nh-zSMzqo
That video set me straight. :)

Nero was the "worstest" after all and luckily for me one of the few whose name I remembered.

[Climacus]

Diocletian was pretty nasty at times. But why is this thread in the philosophy forum?

[Darcy88]

Some sources say Nero killed his own mother. Its hard to top the evil of that. He also used Christians for candles, burning them slowly alive. I may be a staunch atheist but I'd never go that far.

[OrphanPip]

You have to be careful in believing everything the Romans wrote about the emperors, because much of the history was political propaganda, or often hearsay written down centuries later.

[Des Essientes]

I'm sorry, but you consider closing the schools of philosophy as being worse than murdering thousands of people and burning down Rome? I don't get it.
Nero's crimes were indeed terrible, but the people he murdered and the property he damaged were replaced and rebuilt in good time. Justinian's worst crime was the destruction of the venerable schools of the highest learning whose knowledge, and methods would be lost in Europe for over one-thousand ignorant and superstitious years. Condemning the contintent to an aeon of darkness would alone put Justinian in the running for worst emperor ever, but beyond this he mismanaged the empire by fighting to retake North Africa and other far flung lands, while in his own environs Slavic raiders and other barbarians were depopulating the country by tens of thousands of citizens a year in their annual raids. If Procopius is to be believed Justinian was a sort of devil that never slept, seldom ate even a few bites of food, and instead spent all of his time in evil scheming and evil actions that were every bit as malicious as those of Nero or "Little Boots."

[Climacus]

. . . the worst crime committed by any of the Roman emperors was perpetrated by Justinian when he closed down the Athenian schools of philosophy

. . . Justinian's worst crime was the destruction of the venerable schools of the highest learning whose knowledge, and methods would be lost in Europe for over one-thousand ignorant and superstitious years

We might find the closing of the schools intellectually reprehensible. But such actions are just not comparable to the egregious moral atrocities of a Nero or a Diocletian.

Moreover, Damascius, the last head of the Athenian school and teacher to Simplicius, was a superstitionist in excelsis, a proponent of both mysticism and theosophy. And the neo-Platonist knowledge and methods of the Athenian school weren't lost by any means; they were thoroughly assimilated. The sort of anti-scholasticism you're putting forward here just isn't tenable anymore, given what we now know of the enormous complexity and logical rigour of medieval philosophy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That one guy who killed Russel Crowe's family and then fought him after stabbing him in the side like a coward. He was the worst.

[Drkshadow03]

That one guy who killed Russel Crowe's family and then fought him after stabbing him in the side like a coward. He was the worst.

Great answer!

[JuniperWoolf]

That one guy who killed Russel Crowe's family and then fought him after stabbing him in the side like a coward. He was the worst.

:yesnod: He had that weird thing with his sister too, gross! Definitely the worst.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

:yesnod: He had that weird thing with his sister too, gross! Definitely the worst.

Yeah . . . but, in his defense, his sister was smokin' hot.

[cafolini]

You have to be careful in believing everything the Romans wrote about the emperors, because much of the history was political propaganda, or often hearsay written down centuries later.

Correct. On commission.

[YesNo]

You have to be careful in believing everything the Romans wrote about the emperors, because much of the history was political propaganda, or often hearsay written down centuries later.

That's a good point, OrphanPip. I'm glad cafolini quoted this or I would have missed it. We really can't assume that what we heard about these guys is true.

[MarkBastable]

That one guy who killed Russel Crowe's family and then fought him after stabbing him in the side like a coward. He was the worst.

Be fair. It was Russell Crowe. So you can see his point.

[Hawkman]

Commodus was definitely a nasty piece of work but as to whether he was worse than any of the others is an open question. He actually ruled for 12 years and was unquestionably of a bloodthirsty and licentious disposition. As to whether he ever indulged in single combat with Russel Crowe is somewhat doubtful, however, he did hunt wild beasts in the arena for the gratification of the mob, but afterwards demanded to be worshiped as Hercules. He was eventually murdered by one of his concubines whom he had determined to put to death, but she poisoned him first. The poison was slow to kill him though, so an athlete, one Narcissus, was ordered to strangle him.

Robert Graves and the BBC would have us believe that Claudius was a nice old buffer, but he could be just as psychotic as the rest. He is reported to have blinded one of his officials by stabbing him in the eye with a stylus.

There has been a theory postulated that all the Roman Aristocracy who drank wine were suffering from lead poisoning. The wine was stored in lead lined vessels and the acids in the wine leached toxic compounds from the linings more effectively than ordinary water did. It should be remembered that Romans used lead (plumbum in Latin) pipes for water, which is where our word plumber comes from.

Anyway, I don't think the Roman emperors should be granted sole propriatory rights over beastliness. The modern age has produced its share of maniacs. Uncle jo Stalin was pretty bad, not to mention Pol Pot. The list is endless.

[cafolini]

Good points.

[cacian]

:yesnod: He had that weird thing with his sister too, gross! Definitely the worst.

most roman emperors were just like the Pharoahs, having it on with their own families. the pharoahs were prolific incestious people.
it ranged from mother father brother and sister, young or old. Power stinks when it comes down to that.
gross when you think Cleopatra married her youngest brother..yuk!
amasing when you watch programms about them no one mention how vile they were with their sexual deviances.

[cafolini]

most roman emperors were just like the Pharoahs, having it on with their own families. the pharoahs were prolific incestious people.
it ranged from mother father brother and sister, young or old. Power stinks when it comes down to that.
gross when you think Cleopatra married her youngest brother..yuk!
amasing when you watch programms about them no one mention how vile they were with their sexual deviances.

What we call incest today was strictly cultural in Egypt and has nothing to do with the behaviour of Roman emperors. It was the way of the aristocracy. Of course that doesn't preclude their corrupted power dealings.

[Alexander III]

What we call incest today was strictly cultural in Egypt and has nothing to do with the behaviour of Roman emperors. It was the way of the aristocracy. Of course that doesn't preclude their corrupted power dealings.

Yea califony is actualy right here, we can;t judge other cultures based on our own cultural assumptions.

For example our present day culture viewed from the imperial roman standpoint would be effeminate and devoid of any real men, viewed from a 18th century view point we are the vilest of sinners and disgusting deviants.

[cacian]

What we call incest today was strictly cultural in Egypt and has nothing to do with the behaviour of Roman emperors. It was the way of the aristocracy. Of course that doesn't preclude their corrupted power dealings.

cultural?since when incest became culture?
I would not call these poeple anyhting but aristocractic.
Incest is insane leading to more insanity.
How these so called pharoahs/people ruled, being born out of incest, is beyond my imagination.
Pharoahs had nothing to do with culture or aristocracy as far as I am concerned.
Their behaviour was sick beyon belief.
Glad they are gone.Did they really think they were going to last after that?

P.S:
Pharoah in arabic means sinner because they committed incest.
Hence the name pharoah in arabic.

[cacian]

Yea califony is actualy right here, we can;t judge other cultures based on our own cultural assumptions.

For example our present day culture viewed from the imperial roman standpoint would be effeminate and devoid of any real men, viewed from a 18th century view point we are the vilest of sinners and disgusting deviants.

I am afraid I cannot agree.
Incest is incest.
It is not jusfified and is never is.
To call incest cultural is an insult on human intelligence.
Sorry but this is my position on this matter.
I cannot possibly justify that.

[BienvenuJDC]

I am afraid I cannot agree.
Incest is incest.
It is not jusfified and is never is.
To call incest cultural is an insult on human intelligence.
Sorry but this is my position on this matter.
I cannot possibly justify that.

I agree with you, incest is incest. Likewise can be said about other things as well. Culture cannot justify behavior.

[Alexander III]

I agree with you, incest is incest. Likewise can be said about other things as well. Culture cannot justify behavior.

You say incest is incest - fine , we all come from adam and eve, that means by deafult we are all children of incest - how can you justify that then?

[cafolini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incestuous

[MarkBastable]

I think one could argue that this...


Culture cannot justify behavior.

...directly contradicts this....


Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

[cacian]

You say incest is incest - fine , we all come from adam and eve, that means by deafult we are all children of incest - how can you justify that then?

How do youknow for sure it down to adam and yve?
I am more likely to believe that we started as group of different races and not from just too people.
IT seems rather far fecthed to think of all the power that god has that he would start with only TWO people.
I believe that we starte with ONE THOUSANDS people because that is power.
Two is a weak number.
One thousand is a powerful number.
If I am going to use power then I am use to BIG as my starting point.

[cacian]

I think one could argue that this...



...directly contradicts this....


Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

Bad cultivators can only be people
to cultivate you need people.
Incest is insanity and so is the incestee.
To cultivate with your own blood it to infest and turn to dust.
same blood can only mean disease and disease leads to infestation and detriment.
Phaorahs are not here anymore. That is their legacy of incest.

[OrphanPip]

The Pharaohs aren't here any more because the Ptolemaic dynasty was conquered by Rome...

[cacian]

The Pharaohs aren't here any more because the Ptolemaic dynasty was conquered by Rome...

That is what it is said.
But Ican imagine that a dynasty that is build on incest would not last very long as you know.
This is my prefered version of events.

[MarkBastable]

That is what it is said.
But Ican imagine that a dynasty that is build on incest would not last very long as you know.
This is my prefered version of events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty

Eighteen rulers, 275 years. Not bad going, for a dynasty in a highly-volatile place and time.

[cacian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty

Eighteen rulers, 275 years. Not bad going, for a dynasty in a highly-volatile place and time.

so you think 18 rulers and all of them blood related through incest is a lot.
well they are not here to tell the tale and that is enough said for me.

[MarkBastable]

so you think 18 all of them blood related through incest is alot.
well they are not here to tell the tale and that is enough said for me.

...Huh?

[prendrelemick]

Emperors, Pharaohs -mere amateurs.

The succession to the Sultan in the Ottoman empire fell upon "The Fittest" that meant that sons had to fight it out between them. Then there was the problem of all those potential threats from half brothers in dad's hareem.

The practice of fratricide, first employed by Mehmed II, soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord. As royal blood must not be spilled. _ (from Wiki)

[Darcy88]

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

[cacian]

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

This kind of behaviour bears all the signs of insanity. How these individuals got to rule is beyond my comprehension. It is scary to think that these 'emperors' were literally mad.

[Darcy88]

This kind of behaviour bears all the signs of insanity. How these individuals got to rule is beyond my comprehension. It is scary to think that these 'emperors' were literally mad.

No doubt. I kept reading. After that incident Nero formed round himself a bodyguard of soldiers and gladiators who he'd have stand at a close distance while he violently reveled and anyone who got rough with him he'd set this mighty armed entourage upon them.

[cacian]

No doubt. I kept reading. After that incident Nero formed round himself a bodyguard of soldiers and gladiators who he'd have stand at a close distance while he violently reveled and anyone who got rough with him he'd set this mighty armed entourage upon them.

wow how spooky is this, glad they are gone they could have lasted the way they were losing the plot.
I am quite not clear on what 'violently reveled' actually mean, I did look it up and it says boisterously having fun..

[BookBeauty]

Honorius is a good candidate for the worst Roman emperor.

He killed the one man who might have prevented the Western Roman empire collapse: His guardian, father-in-law, and principal general Flavius Stilicho. Stilicho provided much-needed stability in the already-declining empire. If he had lived, that might have been just enough to shift the tides... But we shall never know. :(

There's also a funny story about his chicken, that he named ''Rome''.

Anyway...

Valentinian III is another lesser known emperor.


The opinion of most modern historians is that Valentinian not only lacked the ability to govern the empire in a time of crisis, but aggravated its dangers by his self-indulgence and vindictiveness.

He killed a very good General too, in a fit of jealous rage.


I consider any Emperor that actually affected the Empire to be the best candidates. The most popularly cited, and terrible persons as they were, did not generally make a significant impact.

Caligula didn't really mess up the Empire in any real way. Nero didn't really burn down Rome. Based upon their debauchery, and immoral behaviour, these aren't, in my opinion, true reasons to put them up as the worst. There were very few Roman emperors that were moral.

I think it's their administration, the allocation of resources, etc. of the Empire that should measure whether a King, or Emperor, is the worst or not.

[cacian]

=BookBeauty;1121344]Honorius is a good candidate for the worst Roman emperor.
Never heard of him, for a name such as Honorius whoever he was he obviously did not live up to his Honorius name.
Big words and nothing to back them up with.

He killed the one man who might have prevented the Western Roman empire collapse: His guardian, father-in-law, and principal general Flavius Stilicho. Stilicho provided much-needed stability in the already-declining empire. If he had lived, that might have been just enough to shift the tides... But we shall never know. :(
I personally would not think they would have lasted more then they have, they had gone too far and had too many on their hands, such as empires outside Rome.
Ruling outside your own city leads to debauchery corruption treason and ultimately destruction. They bit more then they could chew.


There's also a funny story about his chicken, that he named ''Rome''.
What it this chicken story about (not the chicken and the egg story I hope:svengo:)



Valentinian III is another lesser known emperor.



He killed a very good General too, in a fit of jealous rage.
Fits, I agree, they had many. Never heard of him either.


Caligula didn't really mess up the Empire in any real way. Nero didn't really burn down Rome. Based upon their debauchery, and immoral behaviour,
No you are right but one can say that they did it to themselves rather then to Rome. The city still stands today, they have gone. The proof is in the story.

these aren't, in my opinion, true reasons to put them up as the worst.
May be you are right, 'the worst' is propably the wrong expression, but a more appropriate term,something like 'notoriously inept and absurd failure was their only option' would make a better description.


There were very few Roman emperors that were moral.
I read that there were very few roman emperor that were 'normal' hehe:biggrin5:

[hallaig]

I think the most sadly underrated Emperor ,whose mission to stop the insidious tide of Christianity unhappily failed, was Julian the Apostate.

[/dev/null]

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

Is that form the Annals? I was considering rereading Suetonius, but that sounds tempting.

[cacian]

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. [/QUOTE
Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

I would propably say that he ordered him to kill himself rather then commit suicide.

[Darcy88]

I would propably say that he ordered him to kill himself rather then commit suicide.

What's the difference?

[Darcy88]

Is that form the Annals? I was considering rereading Suetonius, but that sounds tempting.

Yeah its from the Annals. Its pretty good. I really much prefer earlier Roman history, the Punic wars up to the late Republic, but imperial Rome is still interesting. Before you read Tacitus I would urge to you read Livy if you haven't already. He might be my favourite ancient historian of all, excepting maybe Thucydides.

[cacian]

What's the difference?

Hi Darcy

The way I see the difference is this:

one can kill themselves in many different ways:
one is by accident
one is by fighting like gladiators did they fought till one of them died
and
one can kill themselves by being told they have to like in this case.

to commit suicide is a one way decision it comes from the person themselves because of unknown/hopeless circumstances.

[Darcy88]

Hi Darcy

The way I see the difference is this:

one can kill themselves in many different ways:
one is by accident
one is by fighting like gladiators did they fought till one of them died
and
one can kill themselves by being told they have to like in this case.

to commit suicide is a one way decision it comes from the person themselves because of unknown/hopeless circumstances.

That's one way of looking at it. I think both ways are correct though.

[cafolini]

No Roman emperor was inmoral or amoral, which is an impossibility. But the nature of the Roman Empire was based strictly on Protagorian, sophist ethics. Those ethics prescribed that the only justified behavior was to proceed in self interest with enduring strength. It was the insitution of the law of the fittest. Check the Protagorian position thouroughly and what happened when the Greek agrarian states became city states ruled by the nouveau rich, who were eventually educated by the sophists. Undestand the roots of moral sophistry.

[/dev/null]

Yeah its from the Annals. Its pretty good. I really much prefer earlier Roman history, the Punic wars up to the late Republic, but imperial Rome is still interesting. Before you read Tacitus I would urge to you read Livy if you haven't already. He might be my favourite ancient historian of all, excepting maybe Thucydides.

Livy then. Any recomendation on early roman history?

[Darcy88]

Livy then. Any recomendation on early roman history?

Oh yeah. Penguin has out a book of Livy called The Early History of Rome. Its enthralling. It hammers home what politics was and is fundamentally about. A great read.

[cacian]

No Roman emperor was inmoral or amoral, which is an impossibility. But the nature of the Roman Empire was based strictly on Protagorian, sophist ethics. Those ethics prescribed that the only justified behavior was to proceed in self interest with enduring strength. It was the insitution of the law of the fittest. Check the Protagorian position thouroughly and what happened when the Greek agrarian states became city states ruled by the nouveau rich, who were eventually educated by the sophists. Undestand the roots of moral sophistry.

the point here is this:
does anyone needs education when it comes to knowing right from wrong?
Unless of course one is saying one is not very bright which in this case one needs to taught that killing or massacres is wrong.
I find that quite debiliating as a fact if it was true about the sophists educating emperors. What next? educating presidents would be next.

[Alexander III]

This kind of behaviour bears all the signs of insanity. How these individuals got to rule is beyond my comprehension. It is scary to think that these 'emperors' were literally mad.

But just because x and y are collarated doesnt mean that one causes the other. Maybe it is just the absolute power which comes along which the position of emperor which makes most of them mad.

Im not saying what I said is ture, but it is interesting as a thought.

[Darcy88]

But just because x and y are collarated doesnt mean that one causes the other. Maybe it is just the absolute power which comes along which the position of emperor which makes most of them mad.

Im not saying what I said is ture, but it is interesting as a thought.

I think what you say here is definitely true to a large degree. A person with cruel impulses who is humble and must in order to get on with co-workers and members of the opposite sex wear a mask of affability is not going to indulge his sadistic "evil" desires as he would were he in a position of absolute power.

But I do not agree with the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Solon was not corrupt. Marcus Aurelius I don't think was corrupt. A good man in a position of power might very well remain, despite his high authority, a good man.

Nero the mason or Nero the blacksmith may not have been as wicked a man as Nero the emperor.

[Darcy88]

And dev null. I said Livy is my favorite ancient historian. I kick myself now for saying that when it is in fact Plutarch who is far and away my definite fav. I'm reading a book of his lives now, short biographies of the leading men of Greece, Macedonia and Rome. Just read the one on the Macedonian King and general Demetrius. One of the most entertaining eye-popping things my eyes have ever been delighted to behold. Now I'm reading one on the great Roman statesman Camillus. It covers the sack of Rome by the Gauls and is full of incidents almost too perfectly dramatic and action-packed to have actually gone down.

One could gain a decent knowledge of all Greek, Hellenistic and Roman history by reading all of Plutarch's lives. And it sure ain't as tedious as Polybius or some other ancient historians. Its like it was written by a Hollywood screen-writer with a golden muse-blessed pen.

Plutarch was Shakespeare's main source for Roman history, for some of his plays like Antony and Cleopatra, if I remember correctly.

[cafolini]

Nero the mason or Nero the blacksmith may not have been as wicked a man as Nero the emperor.

I fully agree with that one. Specialization did a lot for progres not only on the tecnical side but also on the elimination of natural stupidity regarding the ability to rule and how much.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't know...I have heard a lot of things about those "masons"... ;)

[cacian]

But just because x and y are collarated doesnt mean that one causes the other. Maybe it is just the absolute power which comes along which the position of emperor which makes most of them mad.

Im not saying what I said is ture, but it is interesting as a thought.

Interesting thought and yes you have touched on something quite eye opening.
But thenI I compare them to the nazis for example
They were so many of them who did comply and so quickly became adapted the role of a nazi and worshipped an insane dicatator They did not have any problems carrying on the atrocities they did.
The question here that begs asking is this:
Were they already insane, because atrocities can only explained via maddness, a mental disability I call it, and by their thousands and did they just happened to tap on the right opportunity to pratice their insane evileness or was it the war that turned them evil?
I am more likely to believe they were already insane and evil.
The same would apply to roman emperors.

[/dev/null]

The question here that begs asking is this:
Were they already insane, because atrocities can only explained via maddness, a mental disability I call it, and by their thousands and did they just happened to tap on the right opportunity to pratice their insane evileness or was it the war that turned them evil?
I am more likely to believe they were already insane and evil.
The same would apply to roman emperors.

So a huge percent of governors from antiquity to this day happen to suffer severe mental disorders. Is that your theory, that mankind just has bad luck?


And dev null. I said Livy is my favorite ancient historian. I kick myself now for saying that when it is in fact Plutarch who is far and away my definite fav.

Uhm, I like the "one of us one of them" structure. I'm definitely looking for it at the library tomorrow. First volume, anyway.

[cafolini]

the point here is this:
does anyone needs education when it comes to knowing right from wrong?
Unless of course one is saying one is not very bright which in this case one needs to taught that killing or massacres is wrong.
I find that quite debiliating as a fact if it was true about the sophists educating emperors. What next? educating presidents would be next.

You have to also consider the effect of Platonism, before the sophistry. Platonism substituted the idea of right or wrong with an inflexible point of view where any expression of nature was divorced from reality at least one step. In the case of art, it was two steps. First, the natural separation of Idea (latter essence) and manifestation. Then the separation of art which, by not being directed by The State, was degenerate (the Nazi's tried that one also, more than 2000 years later). Morality (the individual's sense of good and bad) was destroyed a-priori and then reconstructed under intimidation.

[Darcy88]

You have to also consider the effect of Platonism, before the sophistry. Platonism substituted the idea of right or wrong with an inflexible point of view where any expression of nature was divorced from reality at least one step. In the case of art, it was two steps. First, the natural separation of Idea (latter essence) and manifestation. Then the separation of art which, by not being directed by The State, was degenerate (the Nazi's tried that one also, more than 2000 years later). Morality (the individual's sense of good and bad) was destroyed a-priori and then reconstructed under intimidation.

This actually makes a lot of sense Caf.

[Buh4Bee]

I agree. People will act in the most savage ways under intimidation- it weakens any individuals ability to function morally.

[cacian]

So a huge percent of governors from antiquity to this day happen to suffer severe mental disorders. Is that your theory, that mankind just has bad luck?

Hi dev/null
What I mean that these individuals are prone to evileness,that they are already predisposed, awaiting for the right opportunity to flair up if you like.
Dormant until awaken is another expression for it.
Some have it in them, the minority, and some, the majority don't.
How else would you explain their evileness?

[/dev/null]

Hi dev/null
What I mean that these individuals are prone to evileness,that they are already predisposed, awaiting for the right opportunity to flair up if you like.
Dormant until awaken is another expression for it.
Some have it in them, the minority, and some, the majority don't.
How else would you explain their evileness?

I'm afraid human beings are predisposed to evilness. Power is just a catalyst. (Note: I don't exactly mean naturally evil, but evil by means of social/cultural conditioning.)