It is rare, bear.
COPD is tough: not good news, but mom has a safe place?
I want to get to the question but I have an angle that your input in discussion helps greatly with these arguments over good and bad.
I think your help allows me to answer the question definitely from many angles but more importantly I think it is important to point out the very stark difference between those who argue over good and bad, because they find a need to do so, and those who actually find agreement on accurate measures of good and bad.
The Power to disagree (make sure that we cannot ever agree) works for those who desire disagreement, argument, etc.
The Power to agree (make sure that we can agree) works for those who desire agreement.
Now your question:
Does power corrupt, and does absolute power corrupt completely?
The question is not specific enough to lead to an accurate answer, so the question fails the test of enumerated accurate observations listed above.
Take out POWER and add a qualifier as such:
Does moral conscience (power) corrupt, and does absolute moral conscience (power) corrupt completely?
I think the obvious answer is no.
Does criminal behavior corrupt, and does absolute criminal behavior corrupt completely?
If the idea is to never answer the question, then the question can be missing the needed qualifiers required to actually answer the question and then any individual having no answer can argue with any other individual who also has no answer - by design.
I'm not saying that any one (accurately identified individual) willfully designed a specific question so as to fail to get the accurate answer on purpose, but the facts are what they are, and then a simple question (seeking an accurate answer) can easily uncover motive when dealing with honest people.
Honest (moral conscience) POWER tends to be good (yes or no)?
Deceptive (criminal) POWER tends to be bad for the victims (criminals default to no)?
bear, did you ask the question the way you did so as to purposefully avoid getting an accurate answer?
Please consider asking a more specific question and we may both combine our power, for good, to find the accurate answer to our mutual agreement.
That brings me to the point at which much of our work, bear and I, has continually pointed to God's Law, or what I call Natural Law, such as an example known as The Golden Rule, which is not so much a commandment to be followed or else, not in my opinion, it is a method of operation, and it works as a litmus test for anyone wanting to know the difference between a friend who will help and a foe who will harm on purpose.
If a person says that good and bad cannot ever be universally understood, then they are trying to fit that shoe onto their victims, or they are merely parroting a lie, as if their own moral conscience is missing, or their own moral conscience is dead from lack of use.
The easy way to find out if someone knows right from wrong is to ask and then to find out if what the other person says: "this is right" if that works for the speaker as well as anyone else in that same way or not, and if that person says something along the lines of "do as I say, not as a do", or says things are wrong, and then goes ahead and does those things that are wrong, and then lies about having done wrong, and then blames the victim for being a victim, then obviously, and accurately measurably, that person does wrong, by their own confession of actions.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If that isn't right, then someone, a reasonable person, could demonstrate the wrong of it.
The Sound of Silence again?
God power, something I know to be a fact, the power of creation, with our without the specific measure of it, other than the output of it, does not corrupt, so the answer to the question is again, in that way, no.
God power creates, and absolute God power creates absolutely.
That is my opinion, but the evidence is everywhere, and where things are being destroyed, that may be a case of making room for even better creations. I don't know.
If it is NOT true, life is not good, power to create is not good, and I am wrong, then soon, or eventually (time being relative), there will be nothing anywhere, no life, no rocks, nothing, not even a universe, no light, nothing.
If there are more creations, even after human beings are no more, assuming that that is on the list of things to be done, with POWER, then my feeble opinion remains true as each new creation proves the fact and does so accurately. Perhaps the next creation can measure things even better than this human creation.
More good is better by definition, when life is the measure of good, it seems to me.
Play acting scene 1
Bill: How are you?
Bill: Good and bad can never be accurately measured.
Henry: If you say so, but it isn't that tough if there is a will to measure good engaged in the process.
Bill: You are stupid
Henry: I get that a lot.
Bill: Everyone is bad.
Henry: Didn't you just say that good and bad can never be accurately measured?
Bill: Well, I can do it, but only me, you are stupid.
Henry: Until I met someone who was willing to find out, I thought so too.