# Powerseeking and Ideology

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-22 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: William S. Hatcher, Powerseeking and Ideology, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Powerseeking and Ideology
> 
> William S. Hatcher
> 
> In the last chapter, we have seen that the universal moral imperative is to recognize
> our universal humanness and to become thereby increasingly more perfect instruments for
> altruistic (unconditional love). We demonstrate the degree to which we have responded
> adequately to this moral imperative by the way we actually deal with ourselves and others.
> Consistent kindness, encouragement, and acts of genuine service are impossible without
> altruistic love, and cruelty, selfishness, and powerseeking cannot exist with altruistic love.
> The "absoluteness" of the universal moral imperative derives from the stark
> simplicity of these considerations. Either we are consistently kind towards others, or we are
> not. If we are not, it is useless to consider that there is some other really kind person
> existing underneath our selfish and cruel exterior. Selfishness and cruelty come from the
> heart. They are not accidents of nature (except in the case of certain genuine mental
> illnesses). Similarly, kindness and service come from the heart, and if they are the rule
> rather than the exception, then we have a positive indication that they are motivated by
> love. Moreover, it is impossible for the truly loving person to be unhappy, and it is similarly
> impossible for the selfish and cruel person to maintain any lasting well-being.
> Yet, human history is replete with acts of cruelty and oppression. All through
> history, people have actively sought power and thereby sought their own unhappiness.
> Why?
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> The Logic of Powerseeking
> To proceed systematically in our discussion of these issues, we need to pause and
> gain a bit of conceptual clarity about the notion of power. What exactly do we mean by
> power?
> On the most abstract level, power is more or less equivalent to energy, i.e., the
> ability or capacity to do work. The inner power or autonomy of an individual human is
> proportional to the degree of development of his essential, intrinsic capacities of
> consciousness, mind, heart, and will. We all have these capacities, but we all begin life as
> totally helpless and dependent beings: our inherent capacities exist but have not yet been
> developed. As this initial configuration of our being interacts with the social and material
> environment, our capacities (potential for autonomy) became gradually actualized as
> abilities (the achievement of autonomy). We acquire physical, emotional, mental, and
> voluntary powers.
> Power is the capacity to do work, but it is not an imperative to do work in general,
> or any kind of work in particular. The fact that I can (am able) to accomplish a given task
> does not mean that I will necessarily chose to do the task. I can deliberately refrain from
> doing the task, or I can be prevented from doing so by outside forces that overcome my
> abilities. I can also choose to do something else, so my choice is not necessarily passive
> either. Thus, good and evil arise from the choices we make of how we use our power, not
> from the mere fact of having power. Power itself is morally neutral; it is, in itself, neither
> good nor evil.
> But, to possess power is to have the possibility of doing evil, as well as good. The
> helpless infant is morally innocent precisely because he lacks the ability both of conscious
> choice and of effective action. He is literally not responsible for his actions. So, the process
> of self-development is a process of actualizing our capacities as abilities and thereby
> gradually increasing our responsibility for our actions and attitudes: power, or the ability to
> do work, implies responsibility for how we use our power __ for what tasks (work) we
> choose to do (or not do). Responsibility implies that we have become active, localized
> centers of power, and that we generally have several choices of how to use the power (the
> binary choice to use it or to refrain from using it, if nothing else).
> Universal morality says that there are relatively good ways and relatively bad ways
> to use our power. Whether we do good or evil will depend, first, on our knowledge of moral
> principles (in particular the universal principle of altruistic love discussed above) and,
> second, on our desire (motivation) to implement what we perceive as the good. This
> desire, or purity of intention, is the most important component of moral action, for if we
> have it, then we can learn from our mistakes made in ignorance. We can correct our faulty
> knowledge of moral principles and realities and thereby overcome any evil done out of
> ignorance alone. But if our intention is weak or (worse) consciously misdirected, then no
> amount of knowledge will, in itself, transform us into doers of good. Either we will lack the
> intensity of motivation (moral courage) to implement good in the face of opposition or
> resistance, or else we will actively intend evil.
> We sum up this truth by the slogan: good and evil is a potential that lies within the
> heart of each individual. There are no identifiably "evil people" who are alone responsible
> for all human misdeeds. If there were such an identifiably evil segment of humanity, then
> really there would be no problem of morality at all. We could simply organize society so
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> that the evildoers are identified and eliminated or restrained from action, thereby
> permanently eliminating all evil (or at least all evil actions) from humanity.
> Thus, the fundamental problem of morality is universal (shared by all humans) but
> ultimately localized within the individual. It is the problem of how we each use the power
> we have, whether with good intentions based on accurate moral knowledge, or with weak or
> misdirected intentions based on inaccurate moral knowledge. This is the theme of all great
> literature. It is the theme of every serious play of Shakespeare, of every parable of Jesus, of
> the great novels by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Victor Hugo, etc.
> This raises the question as to whether there are objective consequences from
> immoral actions. That is, are the only consequences of immorality the opprobrium of
> society or subjective self-devaluation, or are there consequences that accrue independently
> both of society and our self-perceptions? In the light of our universal moral principle of
> altruistic love, the answer is a resounding "yes." There are indeed objective consequences to
> immorality.
> Let us recall that the love principle is based on the knowledge that the human being
> is the highest value in creation. Good actions are thus those which enhance the value of
> universal humanness, which properly develop our intrinsic capacities of mind, heart, and
> will. Such actions will inevitably result in an increase in autonomy (inner development) and
> an increase in well-being (stable and durable happiness). In contrast, immoral actions will
> decrease our autonomy, replacing it by unnatural (because artificially provoked)
> dependencies and unhappiness (because we will no longer be living in harmony with the
> principle of love which is the only source of genuine well-being).
> For the truly wise man, these objective consequences are enough to deter him from
> all intentional wrongdoing. The problem is time: these consequences cannot always be
> immediately detected. We may gradually slip into the vise of a vicious dependency (drug
> addiction, for example) without even realizing it until it is too late. Also, immoral actions
> can give us a temporary or immediate happiness of ego gratification. What is the big deal?
> Again, when the unhappy, long-term consequences set in, it is often too late to undo their
> causes. For example, we may now have lost forever the possibility of a love relationship
> with a wife or husband we have unjustly abused over a period of time, or the respect of a
> beautiful and sensitive child whom we have mistreated. Grief over such loses can last a
> lifetime, and yet how difficult it can be for us to see the direction in which our daily actions
> are taking us.
> Since increased autonomy is one of the results of acting in accordance with the love
> principle of universal morality, autonomy must itself be a moral good. In particular, moral
> autonomy __ an increase in our ability to act responsibly __ is the highest form of
> autonomy. Thus, we achieve moral autonomy by practicing autonomy, by consciously
> striving to increase our understanding of the good and our desire to implement this
> understanding. Autonomy begets autonomy (a virtuous cycle) whereas dependency begets
> dependency (a vicious cycle).
> In other words, it is by exercising our spiritual capacities of mind, heart, and will
> that we develop these very capacities. We develop ourselves by learning the process of
> development and then by implementing the knowledge of that process. This "process
> knowledge" derives from an application of our spiritual capacities to our spiritual
> capacities: we apply our mind, heart, and will to our mind, heart, and will. Thus,
> autonomous moral functioning is both a first-order process of the proper use of our mind,
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> heart, and will, and a second-order process by which we learn to continually increase the
> level of our first-order functioning.2
> In the whole process of self-development, our abilities (powers) increase, but it is
> never an increase in power itself that is sought. Rather, what we seek is an increase in
> autonomy (self-mastery), authenticity, and well-being. As we pursue this process
> successfully, our powers will, as a consequence of this very success, increase in fact.
> But, at every moment, we stand in danger of misusing our powers, leading to a (hopefully
> temporary) regression represented by a certain loss of autonomy and a consequent decrease
> in our powers. To misuse our powers is to lose our powers.
> The notion of power we have so far discussed in the present section might be called
> "internal power," because it arises from the development of our inherent (inner) capacities.
> However, this is a second connotation of the word "power," which we might designate as
> "outer power" or "external power." The external power of an individual is the degree of
> control he or she has over the material and human resources of society. It is a social power
> which derives wholly from the social role (whether formal or informal) played by the given
> individual. A person has external power to the extent that society and its members allow
> that person to make decisions concerning the use and allocation of human and material
> resources.
> External power is what is most commonly meant when we say that someone is
> "powerful." Politicians, administrators, successful business men have external power,
> which may have hardly anything to do with whether they have developed internal power
> and self-mastery. Such power derives purely from the role they play in society. Similarly,
> charismatic, manipulative, aggressive, or physically strong individuals may have de facto
> external power, which is accorded them through fear, naiveté, or excessive deference.
> Roughly speaking, external power is power over others, whereas internal power is
> power over self. The internal power of a morally autonomous individual enables him to
> compel himself to choose what he desires to choose or feels morally obliged to choose.
> External power enables the individual to compel others to choose what he (the powerful
> individual) wants them to choose. Such power is generally exercised either by the promise
> of reward or else by the threat of punishment or of the withholding of reward. In order for
> such promises and threats to be effective, the individual has to have control (and to be seen
> to have control) over those social resources which will clearly enable him either to execute
> the promised threat or deliver the promised reward.
> We speak of compelling other individuals to make choices. Looked at from the point
> of view of these individuals, there is always free choice, and so no one is literally
> "compelled" against their will. However, refusal to capitulate to a powerful individual can
> have such socially or personally disastrous consequences (e.g., death, torture,
> imprisonment, widespread public humiliation) that, in normal circumstances, only a
> negligible few will have the inner strength or power to resist. Nevertheless, it is extremely
> important to realize that the degree of real external power over others is inversely
> proportional to the degree of internal power possessed by the others.
> The confrontation between my external power over you and your internal power to
> choose freely is not a zero-sum game. You can increase your inner freedom independently
> of whether my external power increases, decreases, or remains unchanged, because your
> 
> 2 I owe certain of these insights to the therapist and author Mary K. Radpour.
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> moral autonomy is achieved by a process of self-development which is largely in your own
> hands and largely independent of external conditions. As we have already noted above, this
> self-development process results from the pursuit of authenticity not the pursuit of power.
> Thus, the confrontation between my external power and your internal power is not really a
> power struggle, but only a measure of how much moral autonomy you have attained relative
> to a given degree of external power.
> A true power struggle is a competition between two people for an increase in their
> respective external power, and such a struggle is precisely a zero-sum game. I can increase
> my power over you only if your power over me is correspondingly decreased, because it is
> logically impossible for me to hold power over you and you to hold power over me at the
> same time and in the same way. Moreover, as we have already noted in Chapter 1, the
> competitive struggle for external power is antithetical to the internal struggle for
> authenticity (and a consequent increase in internal power).
> Our internal power or autonomy is the only power we truly possess, because its
> achievement depends only on us. External power can be taken from us at any time, for
> example by an unexpected encounter with a more powerful person. External power is
> largely in the hands of others, whereas internal power is, for the most part, in our own
> hands.
> Like all power, external power is morally neutral. The doctor has (external) power
> over his patient, the teacher over the student, the parent over the child. Again, the fact of
> power is neither good nor evil, but the way we choose to use external power does indeed
> have a moral dimension. The doctor can use his power humbly to uplift and heal his patient
> or else arrogantly to celebrate his superiority over the patient. The teacher can serve and
> facilitate the mental development of his students, or crush (perhaps forever) their desire or
> ability to learn. The parent can consciously and lovingly foster the autonomy and self-
> development of his child or seek to maintain the child in a continual state of fear,
> dependence, and submission.
> Let us sum up. Power is energy, the capacity to do work. But it is not a moral
> imperative. Moral imperatives arise from the motivations of the heart, which are actualized
> whenever our free will makes use of available energy (power) to accomplish (or strive to
> accomplish) a given goal. Without power we can do neither good nor evil, while the
> availability of power (whether internal or external) allows for the possibility of doing evil as
> well as good. When we understand the universality of the love principle and the value
> supremacy of essential human nature, and when we act upon that knowledge, we use our
> power for good ends. Otherwise, we misuse power and suffer objective, negative
> consequences from such abuse.
> We are now in a position to gain deeper insight into the logic of powerseeking. In
> the first place is the fact that we do not face reality as self-sufficient beings but as needful
> creatures. When we were helpless infants, our needs were satisfied (or not at all) by our
> mother and other powerful caregivers. As adults, we must make efficient use of the law of
> cause and effect to satisfy our needs. Whether or not we identify happiness with need-
> satisfaction, we perceive clearly that we cannot be happy if our essential needs are
> continually unmet. It then appears logical that the more power we have, the more efficiently
> we can act to satisfy our needs. In particular, the more external power we have, the more we
> can compel others to act in a way that satisfies our needs and desires (thereby reproducing a
> simulacrum of the blissful mother-child relationship, of which we carry a primal memory).
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> It thus appears reasonable to pursue (an increase in) power as a means to efficient need-
> satisfaction and thus to happiness.
> The fault in this otherwise flawless logic lies in the existential fact that no increase
> in external power can help satisfy our most basic and universal need, which is to love and
> be loved, since love cannot be compelled. At the same time, an increase in internal power
> (e.g., our very power to love altruistically) cannot itself be pursued but results rather from
> the pursuit of authenticity. Thus, the pursuit of power (not the moral use of power) is
> wholly antithetical to the pursuit of authenticity which, alone, leads to genuine well-being
> and autonomy (and an increase in internal power!)
> Thus, the essential and unavoidable truth of authentic morality is that the pursuit of
> the good (self-development leading to autonomy and well-being) involves that we treat
> power as a means not an end. To pursue power as an end reverses this relationship, leading
> us to sacrifice universal and essential human nature for an increase in external power.
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> Ideology: the Attempt to Legitimize Powerseeking
> Henceforth, whenever we use the term "power" without modification, we will
> understand what we have now called external power. Our use of the term "power" in
> Chapter 1 is also consistent with this usage, even though we had not, at that point, made the
> distinction between external and internal power. Thus, when we speak of powerseeking
> behavior, we mean the individual's attempt to increase his external power (dominance over
> others).
> In most (though perhaps not all) cultures, to be seen as a blatant seeker of raw power
> is to be perceived negatively. If I am openly seeking power, others will begin to deploy
> strategies of resistance to my attempts, thereby making it even harder for me to succeed.
> Furthermore, the competitiveness and jealousy of other powerseekers will be aroused,
> mobilizing them to engage in power struggles with me. The chances are that, sooner or
> later, I will meet an opponent who is more efficient (or willing to go to further lengths) at
> seeking power than I, and I may then lose whatever power I have gained, or else face the
> unpleasant choice between such loss, on one hand, and extreme moral compromise (say
> murder or sabotage), on the other. The powerseeking game is fragile and dangerous, and we
> stand to lose everything from one moment to the next.
> Thus, for an inveterate seeker of power, the ideal configuration is to be efficient
> (even ruthless) in seeking power, but not to be perceived as such by others. Indeed, what if I
> could seek power over others and not only avoid their resistance but have their active
> cooperation in the process?
> When stated in bald terms, such a configuration seems impossible of attainment. Yet
> it is precisely what successful powerseekers of history have done. We want to understand
> how they have accomplished this. In one word, the answer is: ideology.
> Again, as with power, we need to proceed carefully in order to maintain conceptual
> clarity. By an idea we mean a thought or mental conception. Ideas can usually be expressed
> or articulated as propositions, i.e., statements that affirm or assert that reality is configured
> in some particular, given way. By a belief we mean an idea plus a value given to the idea: a
> belief is a valued idea. An ideal is a belief that expresses how we think reality should be
> configured. A collection of ideas is a theory and a collection of beliefs is a belief system.
> Finally, by an ideology we will mean any belief system that contains some belief whose
> value is considered greater than the value of universal, essential human nature. An ideology
> thus asserts, in some manner or another, that human beings are not the highest value in
> creation, because it considers at least one of its beliefs or doctrines as higher than humans.
> It is important to notice that many people use the term "ideology" in a slightly more
> general sense __ a sense which corresponds rather to what we have called a belief system.
> To be an ideology in our restrictive use of the term, a belief system most contain at least
> one proposition (idea, doctrine, thesis) which is accorded higher value than universal and
> essential human nature.
> As we have defined the notion, an ideology necessarily contravenes the universal
> love principle that holds human beings to be the highest value in creation. Since most
> people presumably accept the value supremacy of humans, one might be tempted to think
> that ideologies as we have defined them are, in fact, very rare. We will see that, on the
> contrary, most historical belief systems have either begun as ideologies or been transformed
> into ideologies in the course of their social evolution and development.
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> Now, any rational system of values adheres to the purely logical principle that
> higher values are ends and lower values are means. The essence of immorality, according to
> any moral system whatever, is (would be) to sacrifice higher values to lower values __ to
> make higher values mere means for the obtention of what are recognized and acknowledged
> by the moral system as lower values.
> Let us take the case of Christianity as an historical example. According to the New
> Testament, the only historical record we have of what Jesus said and taught, the basis of
> Christianity is the very principle of universal love (agape) which we have put forward in
> Chapter 1 as the only possible supreme value, when once we have accepted the Platonic
> assumption that universal, essential human nature exists. In the whole New Testament,
> Jesus gives no doctrinal criterion of believership. He says only that his true followers are
> those who love others even as he (Jesus) has loved them.
> To make sure that people understood the implications of the love principle, Jesus
> told truly shocking stories and parables. If struck on one cheek, a person should not only
> refrain from seeking revenge but should offer the other cheek. If forced by a powerful
> person to accomplish some burdensome task, one should "go the second mile" and
> voluntarily offer to do more than was required. We should love even our enemies (after all,
> points out the ever-rational Jesus, there is no particular virtue in loving your good friends;
> even murders, thieves, and other powerseekers do that).
> During the three-hundred years following Christ's death, his followers endured
> torture and martyrdom for the privilege of participating in a community based on the
> practice of agape. In fact, this love principle conquered the Roman empire, which was
> wholly and frankly based on the power principle (that power is the greatest value in
> creation). However, after the Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in
> 315, the new Christian Emperor convened the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), where a
> number of basic doctrines were woven into a creed. It was then held that whosoever refused
> to accept any part of this creed was an infidel and, as such, subject to sanction, including
> death. Historians tell us that there were more Christians killed (in doctrinal disputes) by
> fellow Christians in the first generation after Nicea than all of the Christian martyrs during
> the three-hundred years of Roman persecution.
> From Nicea onward, to be a Christian meant, first of all, to be doctrinally correct,
> and only secondarily to practice the love principle. Christianity, as taught by Jesus Christ,
> had been transformed into an ideology, which held that certain doctrines about Jesus (so-
> called Christological doctrines) were more important than human beings. It then become
> morally legitimate, even for Christians, to sacrifice human beings for the propagation (or
> "protection") of these doctrines. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Catholic-Protestant
> clashes, the first and second world wars when Christian nation arose against Christian
> nation __ all of these slaughters were done by people who considered themselves good
> Christians because they firmly believed all of the Christological doctrines of their church.
> The case of Christianity is far from unique, but it is particularly striking because the
> principle of altruistic love was so clearly articulated as the basic teaching of Christ. The
> spectacle of human beings killing each other in the very name of a religion based on
> universal love shows the capacity of ideology to give moral legitimacy to virtually any
> cruelty whatever. If we humans can rationalize murder and torture in the name of love, then
> we are capable of rationalizing anything.
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> Every one of the major historical religions has taught, in one form or another, the
> supreme value of the human being in creation, and every one of these faiths has, sooner or
> later, justified cruelty to others (and even to fellow believers) in the name of its conception
> of the truth (its ideology). These religions did not begin as ideologies, but they were
> ideologized __ transformed into ideologies. Other social movements, such as communism
> and fascism, were born as ideologies and so never had to be transformed into something
> else.
> From the standpoint of theism, ideology is idolatry __ the worship of certain ideas
> instead of the worship of God. Many theologians and religious thinkers of history have
> pointed out that people often consider they are worshipping God when they are, in fact,
> worshipping their own idea or conception of God __ another thing entirely.
> One point is extremely important for a clear assessment of these issues of power and
> ideology. Any religion, moral system, philosophical system, social movement (or branch of
> science, for that matter) has to be founded on principles that its followers regard as true.
> Our own system, based on the value supremacy of the human being, supposes the truth of
> the principle that there is a universal, essential human nature. We need true beliefs. But, if
> we accept the truth of the universal love principle, then other true beliefs must be regarded
> as subservient to the fact of the value supremacy of the human being. Belief systems derive
> from human value choices. They should serve not enslave human beings. Applied to our
> own system, this means that belief in the value supremacy of humans is less important than
> are human beings themselves.
> Any (true) belief system can be transformed into an ideology simply by adding to it
> the metabelief that one (or some) of its principles have greater value than human beings. Let
> us illustrate with a simple example:
> We can accept as true than some people are much kinder than others. We can also
> accept as true that the world would be better (more ideal) if all humans were supremely
> kind. We now conceive of a simple plan to achieve this ideal: we kill all of the unkind
> people. Once we have done this, our ideal will be achieved because there will be only kind
> people left.
> What is wrong with this logic? The only thing wrong is that we have used an unkind
> (unjust) means in an attempt to obtain what we perceived to be a just end. In reality, we
> have sacrificed the universal love principle for a lesser thing, i.e., perpetrating unkindness
> on the whole of humanity. When we accepted as a true ideal that all humans should be kind,
> what we really meant was that kindness should spread from the already kind to the presently
> unkind, thereby becoming universal. But, instead we tried to spread kindness by spreading
> unkindness, a logical impossibility.
> Thus, any belief system, no matter how valid, can be transformed into an ideology
> by the simple adjunction of the false metabelief that some doctrine or other is superior in
> value to the human being. No matter how humanitarian or altruistic the belief system
> originally was, it now becomes morally justified to kill or mistreat humans if it is deemed
> necessary for the defense or the propagation of the system. In fact, the more humanitarian
> the original belief system, the easier it is for people to feel justified in acting with cruelty in
> its name. One could hardly feel more justified than when one kills in the name of a high
> humanitarian ideal.
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> It is now known that Joseph Stalin killed thirty million of his own subjects in the
> name of protecting holy communism against counterrevolutionaries and of preserving the
> purity of its doctrine for the sake of all humankind. It is physically impossible for one man
> to execute thirty million people. Stalin had help __ help from millions who believed that it
> was legitimate to kill innocent human beings if it was necessary to preserve their precious
> ideology.
> We can now draw certain direct conclusions. (1) Ideology (which holds certain
> doctrines superior to human beings) gives moral justification to cruelty towards human
> beings. (2) Ideology generates complicity in the power principle rather than resistance to it.
> Thus, ideology has been the method of choice by which powerseekers have gained
> the cooperation of masses of people __ people who were themselves victims of the very
> power. By means of ideology, a charismatic leader enables his followers to identify with
> him and his power, rather than with themselves as victims of the power. People vicariously
> participate in the leader's power and gain thereby the illusion that they themselves are
> powerful.3 Notice also that capitulation to an ideology implies the complete loss of moral
> autonomy. As Nazi war criminals claimed, they were only "following orders," that is, acting
> not in their own name but in the name of their ideology, which was alone responsible for
> their acts. They literally had no sense of individual moral responsibility, they were utterly
> bereft of inner freedom and inner power __ all sacrificed on the altar of the pursuit of
> external power.
> 
> 3 When asked why they had continued to love and support Stalin in spite of his massive
> 
> cruelty, many Russians responded that they took great satisfaction in the fact that Stalin
> "made the West tremble." It seems not to have occurred to them they, and not the West,
> were the first and greatest victims of Stalin's powerseeking.
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
> 
> Conclusions
> Good and evil is a potential that lies within the heart of each individual. Under
> normal circumstances, and in the absence of ideology, most people are "good people" in
> that they will shrink from committing acts of gross cruelty towards other human beings.
> However, a believer in an ideology can feel morally justified in perpetrating cruelty towards
> others, because he sees himself as defending a higher value against an infidel, an enemy, or
> a traitor. Truly, an ideology enables good people to do bad things.
> History certainly confirms this analysis. Most of the evil committed in history was
> done by good people __ good people who felt morally justified in committing cruelties
> which, in other circumstances, they would have considered possible only by the most
> degraded of human beings. We are not here considering the moral dilemma of committing
> cruelty under duress (as when one's life or family is physically threatened). It is a perceived
> threat to the ideology itself which, in the eyes of the ideologue, legitimizes his behavior.
> In the last analysis, evil is the product of two things: an evil act and the justification
> given by the perpetrator of the evil act. Until now, our moral systems have concentrated on
> the evil acts themselves, examining them in detail, classifying them, assigning degrees of
> seriousness to them. The causes for such evil acts are usually sought in the personal history
> of the perpetrator. What in his life experience has led him to do this act? But if our current
> analysis is correct, we should begin to focus rather on the socially diffuse values systems __
> the prevalent and often unstated ideologies __ which allow individuals to justify their
> cruelty.
> We might be inclined to think that such ideologies are not present in our modern
> Western democratic societies __ that such ideologies are peculiar to the Balkans, or the
> Middle East, or Afghanistan, or Africa, or Northern Ireland. In the next Chapter, we will see
> that this is far from the case __ that indeed most of us justify our daily injustices to each
> other with reference to one or another (usually unstated) ideology. Obtaining a clear
> perspective on these strategies of inauthenticity is the first step towards self-responsibility
> and moral autonomy.
> 
> Copyright 2008, The Estate of William S. Hatcher. Source: The William S. Hatcher Library. Can be used
> under terms of the Library’s license found at http://william.hatcher.org/license.
>
> — *Powerseeking and Ideology (Used by permission of the curator)*