Stargate episode "Absolute Power"

[Arpy]

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

SG-1 season 4, episode 17...the one when alien-tech-infused-genius Daniel Jackson masterminds an orbital satellite defense grid...

The theme of the episode is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Jackson didn't deteriorate into Caligula...the episode didn't go on that long...but the idea was that, "The evil in my subconscious is too strong to resist. The only way to win is to deny it battle." No one should be given un-checked power or the troll within will take over.

Question is though, how accurate is that? It's a common idea that we have an inner troll, an id, that simply wants, without purpose or end, but is that only pseudo-scientific misanthropy?

I think maybe it's Jackson's use of the word "subconscious" that bothers me. Someone correct me, but if you believe in such things, isn't the idea that our subconscious is made of both id and superego? Want and denial? It's not that our conscious mind alone forces us to be compassionate and reasoning. If that were the case, wouldn't sleepwalkers go about raping and killing?

 

[Commander Richard]

One of my favorite episodes of the series.

I don't believe that most people would misuse "power" and I don't believe that people should be denied competence or an advantage because of a belief that they would.

As for your quote, a number of eastern philosophies abide by the idea that temptation or craving will go away if you don't indulge them. So in that sense, it's accurate. Don't feed to the trolls. Nice touch that the Harcssis kid looked like a buddhist.

 

[Arpy]

I was just looking at an article about gun violence and was reminded of another article I'd seen a while ago on suicide. Stats show that people who are suicidal and have access to guns are far more likely to commit the act than those who don't. Thought of suicide, and I'd imagine murder, can be transitory.

I don't think the volatile nature of the subconscious should be underestimated, but what gets me is the idea that subconscious volatility is necessarily negative. I can see how people would just as likely be overcome with love or generosity as they would be anger or fear.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

In the context in this episode it seemed like it was the genetic memory of the gu'ald that came along with the knowledge that caused him to act the way he did and not just the knowledge in and of itself.

It is a weighty philosophical question. If one human being is given absolute power over another, can he possibly use it benevolently? Even if his intent is benevolent, can the outcome possibly be? Any small selfishness that creeps in will lead to domination and abuse. Even attempts to be selfless will confuse one's own values with the common good. (Metaphorically, why Gandalf could not accept the Ring). This gets down to the fundamental reasons that every attempt at Communism has degraded into Capitalism of influence. The moral knowledge of every human being is incomplete. That completeness of wisdom is what would be required to truly have a benevolent dictator. Otherwise every exercise of irresistible force over another human being is tyranny.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I misused power and it buried me.

 

[theenglish]

The concepts of subconscious, as well as id and ego, are not really scientifically proven concepts. The truth is that we don't really know how our brain works nor if there is some kind of orientation toward ethical or unethical behavior in our minds.

This notion that we are inherently evil seems to be well founded in many religions. It seems that religions emerged as a means to curb our "trolls". The twentieth century has shown us a number of examples.

Historical and qualitative evidence suggests that how we behave is largely dependent upon circumstances. If we have been made angry and have access to weapons (even words) we tend to lash our, sometimes at something not even related to that which makes us angry. On the other hand, if we receive a nurturing and loving upbringing we tend to be more disposed to helping others. It gets much more complex than this, however, because we don't all react equally to the same environment and some people just "seem" to be bad or good from birth regardless of circumstances.

The question of absolute power corrupting also seems to be dependent on circumstances and the person. Think of the powerful figures in society today. Most of them do both bad and good things, just like everyone. The degree to which they become corrupted seems to also be related by their personal support as well as legal checks within their countries. Current election aside, there aren't often fascists who want to be elected president of the U.S. for example. Corrupt leaders like Correa in Equador, Chavez in Guatemala, Assad, Putin, etc don't seem to be able to take hold in the Western world. One wonders if that would be different if the governmental structures were less stable in our first world nations?

Then you have people like Zuckerberg, Gates, or Jobs. They all just seem to be people who do both bad things and good things. In the case of the first two figures they also seem to have made contributing to society a priority, which is highly admirable.

 

[bigdaddy]

The amount of shit my ex and I have done when we weren't fully conscious or sober would get me many years of jail time. People have evolved to be evil.

 

[Romulan_spy]

It has been awhile since I have this episode, but I seem to remember that Daniel thinks that he is doing the right thing. He genuinely believes that he and only he is able to defend Earth from the real threat of the Goauld. Therefore, for the sake of humanity, he must have total power and authority to better achieve his goals of defending Earth. So, I think the idea in the episode is that we can end up going too far even though we mean well. Power corrupts because it deceives us into justifying our actions because we believe our cause to be just.

 

[cultcross]

It has been awhile since I have this episode, but I seem to remember that Daniel thinks that he is doing the right thing. He genuinely believes that he and only he is able to defend Earth from the real threat of the Goauld. Therefore, for the sake of humanity, he must have total power and authority to better achieve his goals of defending Earth. So, I think the idea in the episode is that we can end up going too far even though we mean well. Power corrupts because it deceives us into justifying our actions because we believe our cause to be just.

I agree - I interpreted the message of the episode as being that even the best of us (and Daniel is consistently portrayed as a fiercely moral individual even to the point of sacrificing himself for people he doesn't know, more than once, making his transformations in Need and Absolute Power all the more noticeable) should not be given unchecked power over others. The most pure of intentions are still dangerous when there is no check on power or oversight. It is a key lesson to learn in public policy, imho, and one that Stargate went back to a few times. The Asgard are an interesting case study - although their intentions are much more benevolent than the Goa'uld, they still posed as all powerful gods to primitive people. Stargate plays nicely with the question of whether this is OK, and what responsibilities come with that assumption of power.

 

[Commander Richard]

Oversight and checks can backfire and make things worse too because now it's the system that holds power and prevents things from getting done.

 

[tharpdevenport]

The thing is Arpy, most people don't intend to misuse power -- only a select few want to. Man is imperfect and the natural state of man leads into tyranny. That's why we have systems, laws, religions, to keep humanity from de-evolving what we spent well over a thousand years living under: various forms of tyranny.

Now imagine a human with super abilities of some kind, like mental ones. Let also also be predisposed to said person having good intentions. However good ones intentions are, there are always consequences to your actions and when you think you not only know but are actually smarter than all of humanity andshould be able to run it better than every other human being, you will do things -- what ever positive reasoning behind them -- that disrupt and nagatively affect people's lives. Further more no country lives in a bubble, so say this person was in one of the large industralized countries of the world and the consequences started affecting other countries not only both financially but also production wise, then you start created instability. Imagine the old line about a butterfly flapping it's wings changing, unpredictably, things across the world.

Said super human still has to live in the civil society (if presant) and the government behind it, good or bad.


It's fiction to think the actions taken have no consequences and that it only stops there, as presented in the episode. But it's also good television to not chain a series with so much based upon one episode.


A smart man once said (paraphrased): Who are these better angels that will run this perfect world? Why, I don't even trust you to do that.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't believe man is inherently evil but I believe it is our dependence on others to fulfill our basic needs that trends us toward good.

Take away that dependence, take away the need to be a social being, it gets easier and easier to just take what you want.

No matter how benevolent you think you are, nobody truly knows what is best for another person. If I make a decision that I believe is best for me, I may be wrong. If I make a decision I believe is best for you, I will definitely be wrong. The only way to benevolently exercise power is to use it exclusively to uphold other people's right to self determination. (Superman's approach.)

Daniel may have believed his way was the way to defend Earth but remember that in his vision he murdered Teal'c due to feeling Apophis' hatred toward him.

 

[Unicron]

It is a weighty philosophical question. If one human being is given absolute power over another, can he possibly use it benevolently? Even if his intent is benevolent, can the outcome possibly be? Any small selfishness that creeps in will lead to domination and abuse. Even attempts to be selfless will confuse one's own values with the common good. (Metaphorically, why Gandalf could not accept the Ring). This gets down to the fundamental reasons that every attempt at Communism has degraded into Capitalism of influence. The moral knowledge of every human being is incomplete. That completeness of wisdom is what would be required to truly have a benevolent dictator. Otherwise every exercise of irresistible force over another human being is tyranny.

I can't speak for Stargate specifically, having never watched the TV series, but some of the recent He-Man/MOTU comics have addressed a similar issue. Adam went to see the Sorceress and saw a rather apocalyptic future in which he chose to become He-Man on a permanent basis (to better protect Eternia) and to essentially stop being Adam, and this ultimately caused him to become a very dangerous tyrant. This darker He-Man killed more than a few friends who had finally revolted, and would have eventually been killed by She-Ra in order to undo the harm that had been done. According to the Sorceress, He-Man is a great hero because Adam's humanity helps to temper the incredible power that runs through him and is an essential aspect of who Grayskull's champion should be. He provides that raw power with a moral compass, but he shouldn't be He-Man all the time.

I'm not fully versed on the modern issues, but I've learned that skimming them in B & N does have some benefits. It's an interesting question though, as even the best heroes can go wrong when they put too much faith in their own power or beliefs, or when they refuse to let others share the burden of ruling wisely.

It's one reason I've come to appreciate Sinestro when he's a well-written villain, because his sense of order eventually trumped his sense of morality and got him expelled from the Green Lantern Corps. He's smart enough to consolidate a lot of power, despite his ego, and he sincerely believes in his own self-justifications (he's ultimately working for the galaxy's good, and especially Korugar's). Sinestro is the embodiment of lawful evil, and he usually plans ahead even if his plans don't always succeed.

 

[Commander Richard]

All this suggests that the issue isn't power, it's control. Trying to impose your will on others.

 

[Saul]

^
I agree. Imposing your will on others with power is what corrupts. Ultimately, controlling what everyone does even if it's for the benefit of mankind is a dictatorship. No one should have the power to judge the whole world in their own view.

In the context in this episode it seemed like it was the genetic memory of the gu'ald that came along with the knowledge that caused him to act the way he did and not just the knowledge in and of itself.

That's how I saw it too.

 

[Tracy Trek]

Daniel may have believed his way was the way to defend Earth but remember that in his vision he murdered Teal'c due to feeling Apophis' hatred toward him.

When I watched this I wondered if perhaps it could have also been a small part of him deep down still harbored resentment towards Teal'c. For his part in Sha're's abduction and death.

 

[matthunter]

The point isn't whether Daniel actually would go power-mad, it's that he fears he might and the Harcisus uses that fear to demonstrate why it's dangerous for its knowledge to be available to ANYONE.

Daniel's a better man than he gives himself credit for, as we see when he has difficulty ascending because he genuinely doesn't think he's actually done any good.

And yet, when he DOES get the power of the Ascended, he resists using it to remake the universe in his own image (as he does here) right up until its obvious the Ancients are being a bunch of utter dicks. And, even then, is only willing to stop Anubis, rather than institute a fascist state on Earth.