Might makes Right! ....or not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Will history (the viewpoint that counts imo) see that as correct, whereas the contemporaries do?

The 'history' viewpoint is useless. What matters is who decides what is right in the here and now. When 'history' looks at the past, the ruler and the ruled are usually dead, and their pronouncements matter not.

Furthermore, the powerful also write the history, so it usually takes a very long time for someone for people to objectively look at the situation (since they are detached from it) and decide if it really was logical or not.

[Whaleboy]

*repeats to self* "shoulds not woulds, shoulds not woulds"

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by 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.

But historically you can´t say these values were always "introduced" by those who are in power. Think of Christianity - values were adopted by ordinary people, because people thought them as good. Only if the religion was already widely spread it became official religion of the Roman Emire.
And certain modern "western" rights or moral beliefs are deeply rooted in that religion.

I don´t say power plays no role, but it is not always the primary source for moral values. It certainly transfers already accepted values into law. I would also agree that it _can_ enforce values in some cases, but not generally.

[Whaleboy]

The 'history' viewpoint is useless

On the contrary, I see history as (a) the lesson of the past, so we dont make the same mistakes as we have, like the might is right philosophy for example, and (b) the means by which we can judge our actions. In other words, we should take the actions that history will judge to be "good".

In terms of the powerful writing history, see my post on the retrospectoscope .

[BeBMan]

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

Then noone is absolutely powerul, since there are always other factors (how strong is another question). But if noone has absolute power, the line "might makes right" gets weaker.

[Whaleboy]

BeBro: Agreed, and also consider the nature of large powerful nations and empires - the people usually have the might.

They generally go the way of the Spartans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, the English, the Spanish, the French, the British, the Nazi's and the thatcherites.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Think of Christianity - values were adopted by ordinary people, because people thought them as good. Only if the religion was already widely spread it became official religion of the Roman Emire.

Yes, as Christianity was accepted by more people, the mightier the movement became. They gained power and might by adding to their ranks.

Christianity really took off after Constantine decided to convert to the religion. One reason was probably because the Christians were getting too powerful and he didn't want them to take him down.

And certain modern "western" rights or moral beliefs are deeply rooted in that religion.

Because it is still powerful.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by BeBro
Just to clarify - I´m not a relativist



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.

Your definition of power is too narrow. Popular recognitiona and support are also types of power. Power is not only about political offices and gun barrels.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then noone is absolutely powerul, since there are always other factors (how strong is another question). But if noone has absolute power, the line "might makes right" gets weaker.

Why is it weaker? Those that are mighty and powerful run things. They make morals and law. I see it as stronger if no one has absolute power... because then those that have might must be considered (like the Christian Coalition must be considered in US politics).

On the contrary, I see history as (a) the lesson of the past, so we dont make the same mistakes as we have, like the might is right philosophy for example, and (b) the means by which we can judge our actions. In other words, we should take the actions that history will judge to be "good".

It's still useless. History means nothing to those who have might in the present.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your definition of power is too narrow. Popular recognitiona and support are also types of power. Power is not only about political offices and gun barrels.

The Communists in Latin America had a lot of power because of popular support.

[Whaleboy]

Yes, as Christianity was accepted by more people, the mightier the movement became. They gained power and might by adding to their ranks.

In doing so, did they gain logic for their position and did they can "rightness" or validity?

Of course not, lets divorce the notions of ability to impose ones views, and the quality of those views. Its like the payload and the method of delivery.

History means nothing to those who have might in the present

Explain

[GePap]

One big problem here is that might is defined negaitvey by al those who disagree with "Might makes right" and by most people who agree as well.

Might is simply an ability, the ability to overcome, whether it is others, of neutral powers, whatever. Now, I think Imran is mostly correct: the law is the creation of the state, and one of the basics of any state si to gain the legitimate authority of the use of violence within itself.Without one final authority there can be no law, and this final authority is final becuase they are the most powerfull ones or the ones capable of calling on the powers that be.

Oh, and no one se murder as an example. As we all should know by now, murder is "illegal killing". Since laws can change, so can what murder means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In doing so, did they gain logic for their position and did they can "rightness" or validity?

It doesn't matter! Logic definetly doesn't matter in this context because they sold Christianity on 'faith' (brilliantly, btw). Logic does mean jack as long as you have people backing you... for whatever reason.

Explain

Why should rulers today really care what history will say about them in the future? Unless they are narcissistic. If they have power, then they can impliment their views or structure policy. They get to decide what happens. History be damned! You really think that mighty really consider how history will treat them? For example, I don't think Bush cares one iota how history is going to look at him. That Clinton 'legacy' thing was a product of his narcissism.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah


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

Because that is what happens, and will always happen. By definition, those that decide what to do, are those with power and might. Might doesn't make right, but neither does it make wrong. Just because someone has power doesn't make what they do wrong (a la US). They may be wrong (IMHO obviously) about some things, but just because they are poweerful and use it does not make what they do wrong either.

The amount of power someone has does not make what they do any more or less right. However society is best when it is engineered that those that are more often right are those that have might. Those in power should be right, because they should be the best at what they do. However the fact they have power does not make them right, it just means they influence what the future thinks more.


LM: You wrote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Your definition of power is too narrow. Popular recognitiona and support are also types of power. Power is not only about political offices and gun barrels.

yet you quoted:

But power is not only something that you have when you´re in office

Thus you both seem to agree. Power is not just about politics or guns, but about much more.

[Whaleboy]

A degree of narcissism is healthy in a leader (not to the level that blair has taken it, but still), because it gives them that extra objectivity.

Remember I dont give two ****s about reality! Its what should happen that matters to me.

Imran I dont doubt that you are correct in this matter, I am merely saying that it sucks.