4 reasons leaders seem worse than regular people | Brian Klaas

University College London professor Brian Klaas exposes the ugly truth about world leaders.
Subscribe to Big Think on KZbin ► / @bigthink
Up next, Why do the worst people rise to power? ► • Why do the worst peopl...
Political scientist Brian Klaas uses philosophical thought experiments like the "trolley problem" to explore the moral complexities faced by leaders when making decisions under immense uncertainty.
According to Klaas, Winston Churchill's World War II choices serve as real-life examples of such dilemmas. Klaas identifies four factors-dirty hands, learning, opportunity, and scrutiny-that may falsely appear as corruption in leaders. "Dirty hands" refers to leaders making harm-inflicting decisions when all options are bad. "Learning" means leaders becoming more efficient at causing harm over time. "Opportunity" signifies the increased chances of those in power to cause harm, while "scrutiny" refers to heightened public examination of leaders' actions.
Klaas asserts that misinterpretations of these factors can lead to incorrect problem diagnoses and solutions. While these factors should not absolve leaders from accountability, they do provide a nuanced understanding of leadership complexities.
0:00 Cracking the Enigma code: Churchill’s WWII trolley problem
2:07 Why all leaders make bad decisions
2:42 4 factors of the corruption illusion
3:12 #1 The dirty hands problem
3:38 #2 The idea of learning
4:09 #3 The problem of opportunity
4:30 #4 The problem of scrutiny
Read the video transcript ► bigthink.com/series/great-que...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Brian Klaas:
Associate Professor of Global Politics at University College London, Contributing Writer for The Atlantic, author of Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, and Creator/Host of the award-winning Power Corrupts podcast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more of our stories on leadership:
Why gaining power turns you into an actual Cookie Monster
► bigthink.com/the-learning-cur...
How Russia’s strange cultural mindset led to Vladimir Putin’s great miscalculation
► bigthink.com/the-present/puti...
The cruelest people in Russian history
► bigthink.com/politics-current...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
Our mission is to make you smarter, faster. Watch interviews with the world’s biggest thinkers on science, philosophy, business, and more.
► Big Think+
Looking to ignite a learning culture at your company? Prepare your workforce for the future with educational courses from the world’s biggest thinkers. Trusted by Ford, Marriot, Bank of America, and many more. Learn how Big Think+ can empower your people today: bigthink.com/plus/?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want more Big Think?
► Daily editorial features: bigthink.com/?...
► Get the best of Big Think right to your inbox: bigthink.com/subscribe/?...
► Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook/
► Instagram: bigth.ink/Instagram/
► Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter/

[@bigthink]

What's your favorite example of a trolley problem?

[@gavinbamber6082]

Choosing one political party/politician over another.

[@LikeToWatch77]

Kobayashi Maru

[@TVC15ohoh]

I'm speaking directly to the Big Think admins here: Of all the leaders from the U.S. whose picture you couple with the words "dirty hands" that you could use as the thumbnail for this video you chose Obama?! I watched the video anyway and understand the concept behind "dirty hands," but on the surface, you're putting Obama in a bad light and creating a negative implication with regards to Obama, his character, history - whatever. Yes, he was imperfect. Yes, I didn't agree with everything he did and said. But he's been one of the best presidents we've had in the last 50 or 60 years, and I RESENT the implication. Getting clicks at the expense of Obama's reputation is beneath Big Think. Or is it? You need to change the thumbnail.

[@jelusxiaz5386]

In india choosing between BJP a party that only causes destabilizing and deaths not to mention corruption vs other parties who are corrupt causes death but can be scrutinized and also in general work for the upliftment of the country. Thats the trolly problem most Indians are blind to in name of religion

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

And then you've put Obama on the thumbnail 😂 Have you guys even seen Vice? I'm not even talking about seeing facts from Noam Chomsky

[@pennywabbit3684]

I can think of a couple more 1. the problem of greed 2. The problem of no accountability

[@mreese8764]

With great power comes no responsibility.

[@bloodcarnage8285]

people used to be accountable to god . now no one wants to be accountable to the subjective of other men/women.

[@joevil6259]

Peter Thiel said a couple of years ago that a high majority of business leaders are sociopaths. The same goes for senior leaders in the military .That is not shocking to me at all. They deal with this "trolly problem" all the time and must still be able to sleep at night. In other words their conscience is not too much bothered by it.

[@gm2407]

The bizare thing is that hedonistic ethics is based on consequences. The one thing the trolly problem does not cover is the consequences real or mental for the person making the decision, the person dispassionatly or otherwise makes the decision for other people who experience the consequences. The decision maker only experiences the consequences of their conscience if they have one.

[@websoft9656]

That was incredible! 👍🌹

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

And then BT had put Obama on the thumbnail 😂 Have them even seen Vice? I'm not even talking about seeing facts from Noam Chomsky

[@vikivoicecoach]

Completely agree with you, well said

[@IBTU]

Then come up with something better rather than criticising others work

[@lewiskunta9869]

Thomas sowell once said the biggest mistake society can ever make when it comes to making decisions is placing the power of making those decisions to the people who will suffer the least consequences for those decisions.

[@brothermine2292]

At several points, Klaas acknowledges that "bad" (or "evil") must be judged in relative terms, by comparing the feasible alternatives. In other words, "bad" (or "evil") is a misleading shorthand that refers to the "worse than" relative comparison to an unstated alternative. The sensible definition of "bad" is "worse than some feasible alternative." Where Klaas spoke about a choice when all feasible alternatives are bad, that's contradictory, because the best of the feasible alternatives is, according to the sensible definition, not bad. Nearly all adjectives (and adverbs, and many verbs) have the same linguistic problem that "bad" has: They're absolutist, ambiguous shorthands that really refer to an underlying relative comparison to an unstated alternative. For example, the threshold between "big" and "not big" isn't defined. The comparison "bigger than a breadbox" has a pretty clear meaning, but "big" doesn't. That's why someone playing Twenty Questions often asks "is it bigger than a breadbox" and only a loser would ask "is it big." Unfortunately, it's hard for humans to dispense with absolutist shorthands and instead speak clearly using explicit relative comparisons. That specificity requires extra time (a scarce resource), and often the speaker has only a vague understanding anyway. Absolutist shorthands create opportunities for politicians, salesmen and con artists to manipulate the listener, and the speaker can't be proved wrong when he uses inherently vague terms. Pollsters often do it too: questions such as "approve or disapprove," "support or oppose," and "right track or wrong track" impose false dichotomies that, by not explicitly stating an alternative to compare, lump together people who have opposite preferences and compare to different alternatives. For example, suppose 35% of the poll respondents think the current track is worse than a track that's further to the left and 40% think the current track is worse than a track that's further to the right. Then 75% would say "wrong track" and 25% would say "right track." But in fact, the current track is preferred over the alternatives by majorities: 60% (35%+25%) think the current track is better than a track further to the right, and 65% (40%+25%) think the current track is better than a track further to the left. Similarly, although 60% may say they "disapprove" of Joe Biden, a significant fraction of those "disapprovers" actually prefer Biden over likely 2024 opponents, and what they have in mind when they say "disapprove" could be a preference for Bernie Sanders over Biden, or disappointment that the Biden Administration hasn't yet locked up Trump, etc. When polls in 2009 & 2010 found that a majority "disapproved" the Democrats' health insurance bill (the ACA, also known as Obamacare), pundits pretended that meant a majority preferred the status quo, although a significant fraction of that majority actually meant they preferred single-payer heallth insurance (also known as Medicare For All) over the Democrats' bill. Although only 25% think the current track is best in the example above, the current track would win given a genuine majority rule voting method such as the Robert's Rules procedure for voting on motions, which works by counting multiple head-to-head majorities. (Robert's Rules counts N-1 head-to-head majorities to eliminate N-1 of the N alternatives, analogous to a single-elimination sports tournament.) Primitive voting methods, on the other hand, count at most one majority, and make majority-preferred centrist compromises appear least popular. Primitive voting methods are at the root of most of the problems of the world's democracies, because the one majority (or plurality) that they count can often be a coalition of minorities on different issues, which undermines majority rule, prevents issues from being settled, and empowers extremists because their votes are needed by the rest of their coalition. Societies should switch to a voting method that counts all of the head-to-head majorities.

[@websoft9656]

Thanks for such an explanatory comment when others merely utter a few sentences and leave without making much sense. 👍🌹

[@snarf1504]

Spot on about absolute vs relative adjectives, and how the difference can be manipulated by politicians, pundits, etc.

[@LikeToWatch77]

How about one reason why leaders actually are worse than regular people? Leaders often do something when it would actually be best for them to do nothing. Leaders routinely create false dilemmas as a means to take control and sieze power. They create "solutions" to problems that don't exist. There is a reason why we are horrified at the phrase"The Final Solution"! Many leaders are power hungry above all else.

[@todoz11]

nah, this logic is actually faulty. you are falsely assuming "regular people" would act differently in their position and that leaders do things wrong on purpose, but that is of course not true. the problem is that it is NOT actually obvious when it is "best to do nothing", and in many cases where YOU might believe it is best to do nothing, you would be wrong.

[@LikeToWatch77]

@@todoz11 - I think you are seriously underestimating how aggressively power hungry some people are. There has been research showing that leaders are disproportionately psychopathic.

[@gonkong5638]

This is so true. What is the last time they truly solve something that not cause by them in the first place ??

[@Alieth]

@@todoz11precisely, “regular people” often assume that they’d be the best to make a decision when it’s likely they themselves wouldn’t know what to do.

[@alixl1618]

This is conflating leadership with a lot of things that aren’t leadership

[@TremblingQualifier]

This video is simultaneously informative yet also strange. I think for most people watching, they just need to keep in mind that leaders are people too and whether they could handle the situation differently. In their venting, most non-leaders frustrated with leaders don't think about this enough. However, many leaders who do bad things simply get used to it and are not held accountable through the problem of learning. Most non-leaders shouldn't ignore repeated bad behavior, no matter how the system might facilitate it. Also, people often spend too much time adulating leaders and leadership. =

[@daralic2255]

When you brought up the Australian Submarine incident….you can’t ignore that Winston Churchill on record did not like Australia so his justification for not warning the submarine can’t be taken at face value. His biases could’ve reinforced that decision. That’s the problem with utilitarianism…. It doesn’t account for basic bigotry in the decisions made.

[@hungrymusicwolf]

A great desperately needed explanation of how we misperceive power and corruption. I'd say that the situation is worse than it looks exactly because of these factors, but that's a different story.

[@onemoreguyonline7878]

This is why I am incredibly excited for the Oppenheimer movie in July.

[@GEMSofGOD_com]

And then BT had put Obama on the thumbnail 😂 Have them even seen Vice? I'm not even talking about seeing facts from Noam Chomsky

[@ev.c6]

If you are talking about the US, hidden corruption, e.g, money under the table in an envelope is very small. The US has lobbying groups to achieve what corruption would, but in plain sight. There is no need to pay politicians. That, with the electorate’s inability to understand politics and elect utterly incompetent leaders, such as Trump, doesn’t help to the case. This man lied and confessed on open TV lie a bunch of crimes. Politicians from both parties were openly shorting and selling stocks during the pandemic, using secret information to enrich themselves. Yet a couple of years later people simply forget all of this and they get re-elected.

[@dennisgichohi5392]

Exactly.......because the ones in power have the exact idea how their corrupt decision affect people in the long run

[@brothermine2292]

The Vulcans had some understanding of the Trolley Problem: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." However, the episode of The Good Place about the Trolley Problem posed a series of trolley problems of escalating moral difficulty... culminating in the question of whether to harvest the organs of a healthy person to save the lives of several medical patients suffering from terminal organ failures. Apparently the Vulcans oversimplified.

[@annwe6]

The healthy person should live....

[@thl205]

I feel like the ethical thing to do would be not to waste our time on hypotheticals. These thought experiments are useful for philosophy students, but a waste of time for everyone else.

[@brothermine2292]

@@thl205 : Hypotheticals can become real, as illustrated by the examples of the sacrifices made to protect the British secret of the crack of Germany's Enigma code. It would be unethical to postpone considering hypotheticals until they become real, if a quick decision would be needed and there wouldn't be enough time to deliberate. Since philosophy students aren't a representative sample of society, the hypotheticals should be considered by other people too. The option of harvesting a healthy person's organs isn't hypothetical. But it's illegal, and it may be a case where we can accurately predict that most people would decide it's worse than letting the other people die.

[@brothermine2292]

@@annwe6 : Perhaps so, but providing your reasoning would be more helpful than only providing your conclusion.

[@annwe6]

@@brothermine2292 Thank you for asking. The healthy person should live because of fate. There could be multiple reasons why the organ failure people are ill, some may be self induced, but others may not. Or perhaps the healthy person has committed evil acts in their lifetime to the degree that some might consider them undeserving of life. However, to make a life or death judgement based on any of those scenarios would be playing God, and they weren't even part of your scenario. At the end of the day, why should the healthy person die? On what basis? It's the fate of the incurably sick to die, as it has been since the beginning of time. Also, killing a healthy person for the sake of several sick people is not a sane president to set. Think organ harvesting by the rich and powerful from the poor and vulnerable, for example. I'm not exactly thinking out of the box and I imagine most people would draw similar conclusions.

[@seanLeprechaun]

I remember an interview with Obama one time. The question was, "What was the most surprising thing to you about being president?" He said, "That no decision is easy. By the time a decision reaches my desk, it's been through a whole bunch of smart people. The easy decisions are made before I see them. All I'm left with are the hard ones."

[@heristyono4755]

+ Sir, a ship is about to be torpedoed. Churchill : Is that a British ship? + No, sir. It's Australian. Churchill : It's okay. They'll be fine.

[@mr12aT]

Exactly.

[@wilforster7426]

I think this idea some what ignores the reality of how people get into power, and what people are motivated to seek it. It is all well and good, to not admonish someone for making the better of two decisions, but maybe with a different person at the helm the situation could be entirely circumvented. Especially in a world where climate, and natural resource issues continue to ask the question of use/abuse.

[@xooq_]

not making a decision is a decision. you're wrong

[@asokt4931]

I also feel guilt further corrodes because when we harm someone - it forces us to confront our shadows. Confronting our shadow is not easy and thus, we compartmentalization and use confirmation bias and other projections to protect the ego. In some sense - power does corrupt but power corrupts because it leads these decisions and the inability of our leaders to contextualize their guilt is what drives the corruption.

[@AzEagletarian]

It's probably a bit more complicated than your explanation.

[@bloodcarnage8285]

maybe guilt is used as political lever age and they intentionally corr0de guilt. you have to trust human on his own guilt.

[@Sturgeon54]

There's a fifth mitigating factor. The concept that the most difficult-to-solve dilemmas with bad choices are always passed to the top person to make. Therefore, the top person will simply have to deal with nearly all Trolley problems and get the most people killed in comparison to everyone else.

[@Jamer508]

Im not sure if it's my phone but it sounds like the audio mix has the background music louder than his voice.

[@nofrost8031]

Thanks!

[@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104]

I agree with this. I think it would be terrible to have great power and be forced to make terrible compromises and decisions that could turn out wrong.

[@ussamahammed2.0]

what is the background music in this video called?

[@RobWert]

I feel like the audio levels need to be lower on the music by like 15-30%. Having trouble listening to the speaker.

[@ayoolaayodejidavid638]

Great thinking. Says my mind.

[@katherandefy]

Solving problems proactively is something that most people are relatively thoughtless about. And that directly creates impossible situations where decision making and leadership get shoved all the way to the top in the rush to keep our own hands clean. Consider all the pointing fingers emerging from those so-called clean hands to be in need of far greater agency and experience in making decisions from the far safer environments prior to situational madness. Decision making is very simple at that level, before problems erupt. Try something and then study the effects then mitigate for all initial signs of trouble. Be responsive to easily hushed and quieted voices pointing out potential areas for improvements. Avoid secrecy thereby to increase trust and other collaborative supports. Not enough collectivism has a distinctly paradoxical effect on individualists. It makes them too dependent on people in power above them which rankles so they keep striving to find someone more willing to do their dirty work for them instead of learning from their own decision making with others.

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

I don’t believe that communications were that fast that Churchill could be in a position to save a single ship in the sights of a submarine. Indeed this same story was told about Churchill and the bombing of Coventry; a story which is more believable but was itself debunked several years ago IIRC. However it’s a good example of the trolley problem if we consider it more as a fable* than historical fact. * In it’s original sense as a cautionary tale.

[@erik.hansen]

It's also incorrect to say that Churchill therefor caused the deaths of the people on that ship because he didn't divert it.

[@chickenwarrior3067]

@@erik.hansenhe didn’t cause it but he could have easily prevented it

[@theemirofjaffa2266]

​@chickenwarrior3067 yes he could, at the expense of thousands more or perhaps even millions. He didn't kill them, they just happened to be casualties in war, collateral damage.

[@rimantas4335]

How is the last leader published?

[@hklinker]

This should be required viewing/listening, especially for younger people. It frames realities that are so often ignored in the absence of complete information.

[@Taunt61]

It's a stupid video justifying any means towards an end. O yea USA was right in using nukes cause it ended the war early. O yea Obama's drones kill all those innocent people so that terrorists are caught, because you know they 'may' kill even more people. Yada yada. There are better solutions. The leader's job is to find them. If you're not intelligent or resourceful, don't aspire to be a leader of nations.

[@2bfrank657]

While it is necessary to scrutunise our leaders, I think we often underestimate the difficulties their jobs. No decision is going to please everyone, and the more decisions our leaders make, the more people they will upset. Some leaders have remained popular by sweeping problems under the rug rather than actually addressing them. Others have become very unpopular after having taken real action against big problems. I don't expect leaders to always make decisions that i like, but I DO expect them to act with honesty and transparency, and to explain their reasons for making the choices they make.

[@laurencedavey3121]

You'd have a hard time finding a senior politician who any of this applied to. They all retire multi millionaires because to them there's only 1 trolley scenario - on one track their ability to make vast amounts of money for themselves and on the other, everybody else.

[@thomaskositzki9424]

To see what horrendous decisions leaders have to make, go watch "The Fog of War - Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara". There you have exactly these discussions, only from a man who had to actually make these kind of decisions. One of the most informative and griping documentaries I've ever seen.

[@akshayde]

So why is it difficult to just solve the imminent problem you know and let go of the uncertain ones and deal with the fall out when it happens

[@maxyogi]

Anyone whom chooses Whom is to be Sacrificed (A NECESSITY IN OUR WORLD) is seen as Horrible. But a Necessity Defeats Choice! Everytime.

[@benah6192]

Identification of the plan to save is a key component of this thought process. If one is exercising a deliberate intention of saving Millions, then it is safe to say s plan of interveneing is already underway. If there is no plan to intervene, then the status quo is set to continue indefinitely. The trolley car problem as an example whether pulling the lever, or continuing straight forward there are still People tied to the tracks, and it being a trolley car route, this means their is another trolley on the way. What is the plan to remove the tied People from the tracks? It's not just some sort of simple question about the saving of one or many, instead it's a contemplations that is controlled and directed. In turn People often miss the larger picture of a goal. Additionally if the lever is pulled on the side of the track as with this example on display, why not have that man pull the one off the tracks? Taking the clean route? Currently the United States of America is NOT interveneing in the lives of millions of People being tortured to death not just around the World, but here on AMERICAN Soil. If asked they have literally been doing this to AMERICANS for years. One of them sighting there are over 800,000 other men and women who the leadership of the Sacramento Branch know are TORTURING Civilians to death across the Country. Their plan? To keep all those tortured to death concealed, continue to torture to death all those being tortured but alive still, and without a plan of intervention with a date, and time, do so indefinitely into the foreseeable future. This includes everyone alive today but a toddler, who with the proper interpetation of time, is already a young adult being subject to the same until dead. The United States of America is currently the largest purveyor of TORTURE on Earth. Gathering Civilians in mass for the "entertainment" of TORTURING People to death. As sadistic ad this sounds this is factual and accurate. The issue American's are having with realizing this is the situation that occurred with Native American Nation's, and a musket. A Population only familiar with Bow, and arrow, when People start falling over dead with a hole in them, discovering what it is that caused it can take some time... This is the status of AMERICAN Civilians including Men, Women, and Children. They do not know how the HAVANA CUBA WEAPONS work, how they are fired, who is operating them upon them...but they see the "bullet holes" in many People. Yet because there is not metaphorical "arrow" they sit dumbfounded as to the cause of death in mass, and suffering. This status quo, the AMERICAN Federal,and State Government is not only comfortable with maintaining, but has plotted out the continuance of indefinitely. In turn if allowed to continue indefinitely, it is only a matter of time before the US once again reaches the numbers of 60,000,000 million People...and more, if done indefinitely without Truth shed on the subject. The planned date for INTERVENTION on behalf of American's right now? Never. That is the current leadership's plan for America.

[@smishdws]

great video and the full version is great, but the music in this one is too loud and distracting

[@juliaconnell]

ummm... unless you're a dictator - the _reality_ of world leaders making decisions is that there is a lot of work & people behind the scenes - yes politically they are responsible, but they are reliant of the work & advice of others, their knowledge, expertise etc. if a leader is wise, they will listen to the advice of others, experts in their field.

[@JPKiers]

Like the CIA and their owners.

[@vojislavduric5040]

I am from Serbia part of former Yugoslavia. Bad stupid politicians, are the most popular both in my country and around the world

[@johnbuckner2828]

Realizing those in power need to make tough utilitarian calls sometimes doesn’t mean it should become the norm, and that we should all just become used to it; Or look the other way as they line their own pockets while greasing the wheels. Like a bunch of narco terrorists bringing money into villages and offering protection justifies their “ questionable behavior“ and we should all just turn a blind eye because it happens to benefit me in the short term, knowing how hard it is to predict long-term unintended consequences. There are limits to what we should get used to.

[@mr12aT]

Diplomacy is under utilised

[@bloodcarnage8285]

be more liberal and dont judge people. it will all end up well.

[@johnbuckner2828]

@@bloodcarnage8285 but definitely make judgments on the character & decisions of those we’ve hired to lead the tribe.

[@bloodcarnage8285]

@@johnbuckner2828 i prefer to trust people rather than trying to make them walk in thin line that caters to me as m0ral. or we can remove leadership method completely?

[@johnbuckner2828]

@@bloodcarnage8285 My wife trusts people, she sees the good in them and I love her for it; balances out my cynicism.

[@LantaeX]

0:21 😅

[@ceefar10]

I mean I like it, except for the scrutiny part… I don’t think under any circumstances additionally scrutiny is in anyway mitigates corruption or abuses of power, as quite rightly put, if anything there should be more scrutiny. Furthermore taking it too far into account ignores the impact that those in power could have over media, and in turn the narrative around such scrutiny, which is notable imo. Nonetheless very interesting points to consider, is certainly something to ponder on.

[@MichaelRicksAherne]

I don't think he was saying it mitigates corruption per se, just that it can be misdiagnosed as "power corrupts" when in fact Madoff was corrupt *before* he had power. (And that lots of instances of "power corrupts" might actually be just corrupt people, whether they had power or not.)

[@Elaphe472]

I find it so strange that many great videos have in the background noise and music that it is irrelevant to the subject matter.

[@saliexplore3094]

Now I see that "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" is rather simplistic.

[@kevinkenney7483]

please, in the future, state things correctly. Mr. Churchill did not cause the deaths of the individuals aboard that ship. The individual that ordered the attack did. Mr. Churchill did not attempt to prevent the attack for the reasons that you have outlined. please do not confuse these two things as being one and the same. to do so, discredits you as a journalist.

[@daralic2255]

It was also not stated when he knew when the attack was going to occur after deciphering the code. Even if messaged the sub may not have been able to move in time.

[@larryc1616]

Just semantics. Churchill knew but did nothing to warm them. Only a psychopath would allow civilians to 💀💀💀

[@nameless5646]

That was a great video. Better said than i ever could have and a very important message for a lot of people who are frustrated with politics and opt to vote for populists.

[@couchpotatoe91]

Sadly exactly those people usually lack the critical thinking to understand this video. If anything, they'll look for one of their priest-equicalents and what they think about the video, then repeat what they heard. There's some people you simply cannot reason with and that's scary and frustrating at the same time.

[@nameless5646]

@couchpotatoe91 you're not wrong but i feel like a lot of people, not just the hopeless ones, would benefit from seeing this video.

[@couchpotatoe91]

@@nameless5646 Definitely agree on that. Especially at this time where politics seems to devolve more and more into finger-pointing at the other side.

[@aukalender]

I don't see how these factors are mitigating - 2, 3 or 4 are not mitigating at all.

[@setionos]

1. Dirty hands 2. Learning 3. Opportunity 4. Scrutiny

[@carpballet]

If someone, leaders included, are making decisions that hurt people, there is a good chance they are directly responsible for murder. Whether or not fewer people get killed/murdered is linguistic gymnastics. (In some cases we will never know). Therefore, some of these leaders are granted immunity from laws the average citizen is not. Where this immunity starts and stops is impossible to determine. In early 2024 this is a HUGE issue.

[@Larsbor]

..Better at punishing bad leaders is a really impressive idear and something we yet have to see some day… it seems they always get away with alot of money even when acted completely abusive, illegal and unethical.

[@internetprincess788]

You guys should bring on Douglas Bloch.

[@seanransom6227]

Regular people don’t have the individual power to end needless wars, the existential threat that is climate change, and an unjust system. It’s the trolly problem, but instead of saving the 5 ordinary people, they choose to save the one guy every time because he’s wealthy, and their constituent.

[@cutetiny6144]

We should punish no one If you could think a little further.

[@simplysunmoon]

Very true and fair ❤️🌝🌛

[@twbishop]

@0:24 the trolley problem gets more complex with uncertain outcomes and probabilities. @3:38 this is why term limits are necessary and useful. note that as leaders of military and security institutions, leaders are instigators of violence. consider the iraq and ukraine wars.

[@atkinarnstein7519]

Music too loud

[@anmolagrawal5358]

Eh, except for the dirty hands problem, I am not really on board with the rest. Of course since they are in a position of power, the tolerances of malicious act would be much lower than for other individuals. Same goes for scrutiny. It scales accordingly and rightly so

[@ImhotepVII648]

There is always another option, there is always a simple inexpensive solution.. also making decisions that hurts the weak, the poor, the sick, the unfortunate is always evil..

[@proudhavenot]

Let's scrutinize those that designed the policies and the process that won't help those in need of healthcare, homes, and psychological help.

[@markgrissom6107]

It seems to me, the bigger problem is what is good and what is evil. Are there universal principles at all?

[@somnorila9913]

Yes, greater good, meaning to have the interest of as many people as possible while sacrificing as little people as possible or their sacrifice be minimum for that goal to pull through. Pretty much species well being over anything else. The problem is not in making these type of choices but in keeping doing it again and again on the same path of logic without personal or societal corruption, because sooner or later the sacrificed on the cutting block will be you or people you care for, own supporters and such.

[@therealrodney8561]

Power is the most addictive drug that we have yet to develop a true immunity. Most humans want power much more than equality!

[@user-kb8qw7dy4t]

I'm not sure Winston Churchill's decision is a good example of the trolley problem, as his decision was essentially to do nothing but look the other way.

[@grantm6933]

Churchill did not cause the deaths of those aboard the ship. The Nazis did that. Churchill did not act on knowledge might have saved them because the risk of doing so was considerably greater than the reward of saving them.

[@pyeitme508]

Wow

[@etb7856]

I don’t see why the trolley thing is such a hard decision Obviously divert it to kill the one person instead of the many

[@twentyfourfps6315]

This is the bears have arms guy from Philomena Cunk Show.

[@TheUnknown79]

Biggest thinkers empowered by trinity Is there any thinker to venture beyond trinity

[@thomaschase1719]

If you're in agreement that the arguments aren't currently applicable, your point is?

[@jacmaclar]

Turn the music off, so we can hear him better.

[@mikiallen7733]

Is there a way to turn your suggestions in to an AI-based algorithm which is ethical enough and responsible enough ?

[@mmarkusgaming]

corruption = greed + opportunity - control

[@funnytv-1631]

The godfather of habit building, William James, wrote: “To change one’s life: Start immediately. Do it flamboyantly. No exceptions.” Because our time is finite, there is no reason to wait. In fact, there is every reason to begin. When you decide on a change you would like to make, ask yourself: what is the first step? The entire vision of your ideal future is actually a series of first steps. They just happen to come one after the other. These are all moments you initiate. One little step at a time.

[@cmcbride17]

Gems 🧠💎

[@en2p187]

Thank you

[@joejarvis2497]

The points leading up to the conclusion were relatable but the conclusion seemed rushed and empty.

[@ElCapitanDeLaNoche]

“It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another." -- Capt. Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly

[@wilfredpeake9987]

If people realized the power structures that control them they would get super depressed

[@braveshine2579]

done

[@blake-nw4pd]

Good video, but those you need to understand will never watch.

[@steveguti6452]

Love bears all things believes all things hope all things endures all things praise God praying for everyone everyday God bless you all 🙏

[@ophidiaparaclete]

Divine right these hide under public servants.

[@sethevans5318]

I just watched a 6 minute video on why we shouldn’t just jump to conclusions.

[@greenvelvet]

All of this is meaningless when we know that politicians are in the pockets of big business, and that the people that they are supposed to serve are an aftertought. You can't have two masters, whose interests are in direct opposition

[@tablet4170]

so we can actually say that the 2 nukes during WW2 was the best worst decition in order to end the war and save more lives?!

[@LabGecko]

No, we can't. That's the whole point. We weren't in the situation holding the switch, and attempting to put our view decades later on the person in the same moment is comparing apples to tomatoes. They might both be red, they are even both technically fruit, but no rational person would say they're the same.

[@user-ne5jp9qc9j]

nope

[@missyaman7053]

Yes.

[@Prestrev1010]

Churchill didn’t “CAUSE” the deaths of those people aboard ship, smh, that’s crazy to say/think.

[@lunganigumede6678]

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in my life. These people don’t become evil because of power, they’re powerful BECAUSE they’re evil

[@Kokoras2000]

This video was not Big Think. It was Minimal Think. That's what I think.

[@frankjennings4489]

To a mouse, Man is a tyrant. To a bee, he is the devil, and to a germ, he is Earth itself. It is easy for the weak to cast blame upon the strong.

[@alannamichellepaulino8429]

Styler winner solo política américa

[@contecrayononpaper]

I don't burn through tens of millions of tax dollars traveling from d.c. to Delaware and back every weekend because I can't seem to find a quiet room in The White House.

[@user-wt3bk9nl5x]

No they're not. Nowadays politicians are self-serving only.

[@RoeRogan231]

This is ‘well produced’ and ‘pretty’,… but it is glib and scratches the surface poorly. The greater good theory cannot be used to vindicate murder without being able to see all future possible outcomes - which nobody can - and a thorough understanding of the history, which few people have. The dreaded Nazis were created in the first place by The treaty of Versailles and Churchill knew this was the case i.e. he knew his own people plus a few other big powers were the initial cause of the war, and still went ahead with it - not because he believed it was ethical,.. but for the money and power. Politicians make difficult choices, yes,.. to suit their own pockets and careers,… and come one - they are virtually never held to account. They can act with almost total impunity. A beggar on the street, who has no power or money, has way more difficult choices to make than a politician, because the beggars actions have real instant consequences that directly effect him. Politicians can do almost anything and get away with it. And this is because they have endless supply of tax payers money, to pay lawyers, to stay out of jail, no matter how terrible their deeds were. Also, in terms of foreign policy, its legally outside their home country jurisdiction, which means they can commit even bigger crimes. This video is misleading and puts a bandaid on a gaping wound.

[@astrophe-cat]

1:42 "[Churchill] caused the deaths of the people". And I thought it was the explosion from that torpedo or their subsequent drowning. Silly me...

[@carpballet]

Because they are worse than regular people

[@muhammadmustafa2946]

Makes me appretiative more how hard the job of the President of the United States is.

[@AlfaazbyPiyush]

Until they're leader they do every bad things After loss of leadership they became Saint and give lectures

[@MaxVliet]

Ngl, this was a pretty poor take at why political leaders should be absolved of their wrongdoings...

[@m0n4rch911]

Gonna take off the SJW hat for awhile and just give it to you raw and no rubber. Does EVIL exist in the political landscape? YES obviously and theres GOOD aswell so can you really be TOO NICE when your surrounded by sharks that would gladly have a piece of you. We can all dream we can just play nice with each other and hold hands but reality is the world is brutal like more brutal than the past eras and were even more brutal now and if were gonna make politcians liable of oopsies then there wont be any of them left coz every single one of us has different opinions. If we only have nice politicians i guarantee you 100% that whatever coutry that is will fall and as it falls its morals gets even more extreme and ultimately most will turn evil from desperation till it eats each other to survive. What you want is a politician who knows what hes doing and ready in a heartbeat to be the necessary evil so we dont have to.

[@joemoore1998]

1. Because they are worse than regular people

[@clementgavi7290]

Are all leaders seem worse than regular people? And are all regular people seem better than leaders? If not, all leaders seem worse than regular people, then the reasons must also be understood with the perspective to compare the reasons why some seem worse than regular people while other not. In so doing, it can appear that character and personality are determinant. The direction printed to the status of leadership depend on the character and personality. In Africa, we had a leader called Nelson Mandela, he spent 27 years of his life in prison, so that all the people of South Africa can live a life that suits human beings, a life without apartheid. When he became president, one term of five years seemed enough for him. In another country in the same continent called Togo, six decades of power are not enough, thousands are killed, persecuted, ruined, jailed, etc so the same can keep power against the will of the people. Not all leaders seem worse than regular people. Leaders are characters and personalities; characters and personalities are different. Character and personality are important.

[@zimpetrichor4919]

Ummmm you left out the fact that Winston Churchill sacrificed the lives of 2 million Indian citizens by forcing them into famine where they died of starvation in order to feed a few British soldiers. How does this equate with your reasoning?

[@user-qq3bl6py3g]

Being a guy in charge is honestly kind of shitty if you’re a decent person.

[@PowersBenzoCoaching]

Well because they are. A huge part of their education is learning to lie and manipulate.

[@huzaifa-682]

reason #1: because they are

[@Guy-Lewis]

Misinterpretation Factors: 5. Observer BIAS Courtesy of social media (not only the trolls sponsored by enemy states) commenters all too often echo resentful negativity = "You can't trust ___!"

[@kinngrimm]

Where it comes to choices it always has to also to do with options and sometimes i agree one can not get out of preset themes and need to hold course, but at times one does not have to. When people say they had no choice, that maybe true from their perspective but when switching perspective suddenly other options open up. so basicly one should always have the following routes to gain options: 1) doing nothing 2) doing something 3) doing something dipolar to 2) 4) doing something on a spectrum betwee to 2) and 3) being bothe the extrems on a spectrum 5) doing something (n) different, whereby perspectives change the spectrum on which options become available Those are base upon which then value systems (like Kant's imperative), character, trauma and discourse with others narrow down options. Psycologicly another filter is within what group one identifies (is the leader of), what charcterises the "us/we" and therefor becomes context to available options or would deny such. If a leader goes through all of this and comes to a decission i would say that leader did the best he could. It is unlikely though that would be the case if not trained from the very beginning or not explicitly having the awareness to go through these stages.

[@breaktide251]

Damn bruh rip that Australian ship

[@user-ne5jp9qc9j]

1:42 "He caused the death..." No, he did not, that's the point.

[@prabhatp654]

There's a saying in India that if you don't act during a crime when you are capable, you are a criminal too.