Might makes Right! ....or not?

[Whaleboy]

But neither do I think that a moral relativist has got something to complain about

On the contrary, I am arguing from my own point of view, my own position etc. Just because I accept that my views are subjective is no basis for me not having views, and no eyes to see the world from my own window.

It just means that my views, your views, everyones views are equally valid, hence debate. It doesnt make my view inherently right when dealing with nation states, although I think that it does, others will disagree.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by elijah


So has rape and murder, just because its human nature, the politics of the schoolyard become no more rational, logical, or healthy.

If you don't like something, you can work towards changing it. But you won't get anything done if you don't have the might/power.

[TCO]

I vote not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Does's" are for pragmatic cowards!

Does's are for those that see reality, instead of those lost to ideological idealism.

Imran: Why do you believe it?

Because that is the reality of the situation. The powerful make the law, and the morality that wins out is one backed by those who are strong.

It is BECAUSE I'm a moral relativist that I think might makes right. No morality is better than any other. Just the one with the strongest backing wins out in the competition that naturally results when two or more moralities meet each other.

So has rape and murder, just because its human nature, the politics of the schoolyard become no more rational, logical, or healthy.

Yet they still exist. You can't close your ears and eyes and say rape and murder don't exist because they are immoral acts. Say whatever you want about morality and immorality, there are practical considerations you must deal with.

Don't think it is moral to rape or murder? Then put them in jail. After all, your morality that it is wrong to do those things is the more powerful one.

[BeBMan]

Evil poly knocked me out (server too busy) after I started the thread. Conspiracy!

Originally posted by Gangerolf
the victors write the history books

Then why we still debate if the bombing of Dresden was a crime or not

It basically means that the powerful make law. The ones in power decide how things are done. Also the powerful aren't usually challenged. Their justifications are usually accepted.

Well, I think a) is not disputed - those who are in power make the law. But I doubt that this has (always) impact on morality. just look in Iraq now, US in power, but their views aren´t accepted easily.

Or think of Saddam´s Irak - sure, people had probably no chance to act against him without risking their lives (some eben did so), but I doubt his moral values were accepted that much, because most of the Iraqies (is said) were happy about the end of his regime.

IMO, moral beliefs are much more difficult to influence as simply generating law, because many of them developed over a very long time. It is not impossible, but it cannot simply be achieved only by power.

[Whaleboy]

If you don't like something, you can work towards changing it. But you won't get anything done if you don't have the might/power

Thats a very good point!

Indeed, even a relativist can work to change things, and express ones own views. One does need power to do so of course, but then, is it psuedo objective power? In the case of one nation vs the UN, objective (at least on paper ) is the UN.

In that case of myself, who will never achieve any position of power (nor would I want it), I can work to change things as a writer, but thats what I call passive power, not active power like politicians and warmongerers.

But in terms of one person with the bigger gun, that just means he can beat everyone, not that he is correct. In a town where the thief is more powerful than the policeman, the thief is king.

[Whaleboy]

Then why we still debate if the bombing of Dresden was a crime or not

Because we're starting to develop a greater sensibility, and the cognetive (as a culture) ability to analyse our history more objectively. The retrospectoscope is becoming less of a kalaidascope.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But in terms of one person with the bigger gun, that just means he can beat everyone, not that he is correct. In a town where the thief is more powerful than the policeman, the thief is king.

And thus the thief becomes 'correct' simply being powerful . The person with the biggest gun wins, suddenly he's in charge. He writes the laws, gives the orders, and soon thereafter is seen as correct. He's got the power, so what he does is law.

[Ecthy]

I'm confronted by so much right made by might (mine included), I just refuse to believe there's any reason to think the statement is wrong.

the powerful will never restraint just for moral reasons. at least not on a small scale.

[BeBMan]

Just to clarify - I´m not a relativist

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
If you don't like something, you can work towards changing it. But you won't get anything done if you don't have the might/power.

But power is not only something that you have when you´re in office. I would even argue that common moral values cannot be easily ignored by those who are eg. in the government. Not even in a dictatorship -that´s why you find Saddam portraits as holy muslim, despite he didn´t was much the religious leader. But he couldn´t ignore religion as a force in his country, and he simply could not repress it - so he tried to use it. If Might makes (always/morally) right, he simply could destroy it.

[Eli]

Might makes right. But is it right that might makes right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would even argue that common moral values cannot be easily ignored by those who are eg. in the government.

The common moral values were instilled by those that are powerful. In the Iraq example, the religious leaders and the religion as a whole is very mighty!

If Might makes (always/morally) right, he simply could destroy it.

Like I said, he wasn't Absolutely powerful. The religion itself has might as well (probably more might than Saddam)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by elijah




Could someone possibly explain why this idea has any merit whatsoever?

As Mao said "Legitimacy flows from the barrel of a gun".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Commies have all the cool quotes for some reason .

[Whaleboy]

is seen as correct

Ah I think we have different viewpoints. Will history (the viewpoint that counts imo) see that as correct, whereas the contemporaries do? Not necessarily so. Objective, logical positions are more likely to be the "right" decision in the socio-historical context (ignore the grandfather paradox there, you know what I mean ).