by Megan Furner

Created on: January 14, 2010   Last Updated: January 16, 2010

The question, "If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does knowledge corrupt too?" grasps the minds of many. The transitive train of thought may seem logically valid, but may not be true in all cases.  The question requires a person's custom definition of knowledge, power, and corruption as single entities.  Differences in meaning cast doubt upon the belief that knowledge leads to corruption.

In a world that encourages education as a means for individuals to be more productive in society inspires the attainment of unlimited knowledge. Ultimately, the hunger for knowledge is rooted in self-aggrandizement.  Used competitively, superior knowledge grants one notoriety, financial security, and confidence, all of which can lead to corruption if used unwisely.  But what does it really mean to 'be corrupt?'  The word bears a negative connotation as it alludes to the primacy of self-righteousness.  Self-righteous or not, corruption derived from power and knowledge may have a beneficial impact upon society. 

For example, politicians are renowned for campaigning their smarts to gain governmental positions.  They are biased in their pursuit; otherwise they would not convince citizenry to vote for them and not their competition.  The winner of the election is entrusted with the power to fulfill the promises of his campaign and influence the outcome of societal events.  Also, it is assumed that the winner has the knowledge to materialize said promises, owing to the legitimacy of his political victory.  So, even if he basks in his new found popularity, is it correct to say that his ability is single-handedly responsible for his ostensible corruption?  In other words, is it the person or the person's talent (knowledge) that makes him corrupt? Personally, I find it difficult to verify knowledge as the key component of corruption.

Moreover, what about intrinsic knowledge. God-given or genetic, intellectual ability atrophies without stimulation.  Exercising the brain to elucidate one's scholastic assets allows an individual to channel his intellect for the greater good. Is this person corrupt, or is he merely confident?  Reveling in the benefits of one's knowledge and criticizing his intent is a form of hypocrisy.  Even if the individual is corrupt, moral disdain does not discount the efficacy of his efforts. 

Overall, owing corruption as the product of knowledge is not applicable in many cases. In one way or another knowledge is responsible for many of society's fortunes. Knowledge spurred the growth of modern medicine, the development of social security, the invention of the toaster, and several other commodities enjoyed by many.  Therefore, while one can be both knowledgeable and corrupt, saying his corruption is solely dependent on his knowledge is unreasonable.

Learn more about this author, Megan Furner.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.