Many people ask, “Is The 48 Laws of Power evil?”
In short: The laws themselves aren’t really evil. But The 48 Laws of Power – the book – is kind of evil.
Click here for my detailed summary of The 48 Laws of Power
The actual “laws” in the book are not evil. They’re merely descriptions of the way in which the world (sometimes) works. As I will explain in my summary, they’re not really “laws” because the world doesn’t always work in the way the author, Robert Greene, suggests. But sometimes it does and, as the examples in the book illustrate, and the results can be rather unfair and unpleasant.
Reading the book and wanting more power is not necessarily evil. Power is simply the ability to get what you want. What you want may be selfish (e.g. money, status) or altruistic (e.g. you want to reduce suffering in the world).
Seeking power doesn’t even have to involve unethical actions. Some of the “laws” such as Win through your actions, never through argument (Law 9) and Plan all the way to the end (Law 29) are not ethically dubious in any sense. Others, such as Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit (Law 7) and Create a cult-like following by playing on people’s need to believe clearly are if you take them at face value (which I don’t recommend you do).
The book encourages you to seek more power
What makes The 48 Laws of Power open to – in my view, fair – accusations of being “evil” is what Greene actually writes in the book, particularly in the Preface. There, Greene encourages you to seek more power by making the following assertions:
- Everyone wants more power, and anyone who isn’t is lying. The implication here is that you should want more power too.
- Being better at power makes you a better person.
- Power is just a game. The implication here is that you don’t need to worry about the consequences of your actions on other people.
I deal with each of these in turn.
Everyone wants more power
No one wants less power; everyone wants more.
While it’s probably true that no one wants less power, I certainly doubt that everyone wants more. Most people are largely satisfied with the amount of power they have, and aren’t all that concerned about power in their daily lives. Greene, however, disagrees – he alleges that anyone claiming to “opt out” of playing power games is lying:
To some people the notion of consciously playing power games – no matter how indirect – seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past. They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people, for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power.
Now, I’m sure that some people who deny wanting power nevertheless still do. But I doubt this is true for all – or even most – people. Power is not the be-all and end-all in the world. It certainly is no guarantee of happiness. And having too much power can make you a target. So why would you assume that everyone wants more of it?
Being better at power makes you a better person
Instead of struggling against the inevitable, instead of arguing and whining and feeling guilty, it is far better to excel at power. In fact, the better you are at dealing with power, the better friend, lover, husband, wife and person you become.
Some of the skills or characteristics to gain power mentioned in the book are patience, acting rationally, controlling your emotions, planning ahead and paying attention. It is plausible that such skills may make you a “better” person (though obviously it’s hard to pin down what makes a person “better”).
But a huge part of the book is also about deception and manipulation. Basically tricking other people into doing what you want. I certainly don’t think that being better at that makes you a better person, and it’s hard to imagine anyone seriously arguing otherwise.
Power is just a game
Greene writes several times about power being “amoral” and essentially a “game”.
Power is a game – this cannot be repeated too often – and in games you do not judge your opponents by their intentions but by the effect of their actions.
And:
It is a game. Your opponent sits opposite you. Both of you behave as gentlemen or ladies, observing the rules of the game and taking nothing personally.
By saying that power is a game, Greene implies that you don’t have to be concerned about the consequences of your actions. In a game, people sign up to play, knowing that there will be a winner and a loser. A player should be entitled to play as hard as they want, within the rules of the game. They shouldn’t have to worry about hurting their opponent’s feelings – after all, the point of a game is to win!
But life is not a game. Maybe some people sign up to play power games, but not all do. Your actions have real consequences on people’s lives, and you are always responsible for those consequences. You can’t use the excuse of “it’s a game” as a “get out of jail free” card.
The book does not point out the downsides of power
Greene has subsequently defended his book, saying:
There are people on the borderline and maybe the book helps them to move into that sociopathic realm so then I feel bad, … but mainly it’s positive.
And:
I believe I described a reality that no other book tried to describe … I went to an extreme for literary purposes because I felt all the self-help books out there were so gooey and Pollyanna-ish and nauseating. It was making me angry.
Well, going to “an extreme” is about right. The 48 Laws of Power assumes that power is the only thing worth caring about. It doesn’t question if power is worth seeking. There’s no mention of the costs or downsides of seeking power. Nor is there is any suggestion that readers need to consider for themselves to what lengths they should be willing to go in order to obtain power. You might think that this is so obvious that it’s not worth stating, but some readers are impressionable.
Greene himself acknowledges that his book may have caused some “borderline” people to act less ethically than they would have otherwise. If he’d written a warning about the downsides of seeking power, providing a more balanced view, he might have dissuaded at least a few of those “borderline” people. (To clarify – the “Reversal” section of each chapter doesn’t count. Those are cautions about how a law might backfire and cause you to lose power, not cautions about why you might not want to follow the law for other reasons.) Greene doesn’t even include a half-hearted disclaimer (like Robert Cialdini did with Influence) that the book is intended to make you more aware of these tactics so that you can guard against them. To the contrary – he describes these as “laws”, implying that you should follow them.
Conclusion
So, to summarise:
- The “laws” in the book aren’t evil;
- Reading the book isn’t evil; and
- Even putting the laws into practice isn’t necessarily evil, though it would depend on which laws and how you went about it.
But I think The 48 Laws of Power, the book itself, is kind of evil, because it encourages people to seek power and to ignore the costs of doing so.
Get The 48 Laws of Power here: Amazon | Kobo <– These are affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you buy through these links. I’d be grateful if you considered supporting the site in this way! 🙂
Do you think The 48 Laws of Power is evil? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
You may also enjoy the following posts:
6 thoughts on “Is “The 48 Laws of Power” Evil?”
I haven’t read the book, but by the sounds of it, I wonder if improvements could be made to make it more tastefully serve as a general-purpose guide to acquiring power as a tool (which would make it a more useful resource). After all, power is necessary to enact good in the world. Would the book then be in a better place in your mind?
Absolutely! But I suspect Greene wrote it the way he did because he knew it would attract more attention (Law 6) and sell better.
You quoted the part “Your opponent sits opposite you.”, is this a typo in the book you think? Or does it make sense? English isn’t my first language so maybe I’m missing something here. Great summary!
Thanks Alde! I think the quote makes sense in context – Greene is saying that it’s a game, and your opponent sits opposite you as if you are both facing each other across a chessboard or something.
Hello tosummarise.com owner, Thanks for the well-organized and comprehensive post!
Yes the book can be called evil because it encourages the seeking of power for its own sake without consideration of the moral and ethical angle. Some cautioning on a good number of laws was indeed necessary.