Posts
Comments
Its interesting to note the compability of malevolence with strong moral convictions, and in fact, is a personal conundrum that I have had for long time. In certain situations, malevolent personalities are not only conducive to power, but also instrumental to obtaining it. And in a utilitarian framework, if you discount the future rewards against your present acts of malevolence and find the former >> later, then would it not be imperative for you to pursue the malevolent path? The trickiest part is when these people are proven to be effective in outcomes. In modern corporate, Jobs is the epitomous example, single-handedly leading Apple after his return to one of the most valuable companies in the world. In 20th century history, Stalin bootstrapped an industrial powerhouse from an agrarian society, eventually becoming the dominant challenger to the post-WW2 world order. Malevolence in both of them are not only correlated but seems to be instrumental with their success, and I don't think we need to reach very far for other examples, both comtemporary and historical. So I guess the conundrum is, are bad people nessescary to do good things?