Might makes Right! ....or not?

[Whaleboy]

Power is not just about politics or guns, but about much more

Absolutely, power does not necessarily make you correct. It just means you can force you views on others. (btw, thats the difference between active and passive power, passive power cant do that).

I take "might" to mean the familial term, military might.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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).

Because if those in power are influenced by other factors (and I say they are always somehow) then how much of the "right" is their own idea, and how much is a result of those who have at least so much importance that they cannot be ignored.

Also - if you have a certain system of law those in power have (in democratic systems) to follow. I doubt Germany´s or US leaders could simply decide to rewrite their constitutions. So at least in democratic states, power is shared, and those in power, eg. the president or chancellor cannot simply make what they want - which the line "might makes right" seems to imply.

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

Of course it does, history shaped the present. Those who are in power today aren´t totally free - there are strings everywhere even for the mightiest, and historic decisions cannot be ignored today. "Historic experience" and "collective consciousness" are not only intellectual bull****, they are real factors. Such things (of course also others), made Germany what it is today, helped to shape the EU, etc, etc. And those in power today cannot simply ignore this.

Because it is still powerful.

But as religion "it" is no executive force. And Christianity wasn´t such a force at the beginning (it was somehow during certain medieval times, but that´s another story).

My point is that today, and at the beginning, things like religion aren´t "powers" which can enforce anything - they are accepted, if people think they benefit from that, even when in non-material ways (paradise idea in several religions).

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Like I said, the difference between the idealistic view and the practical outlook on the world .

[GePap]

Originally posted by elijah


Absolutely, power does not necessarily make you correct.

Correct? what absolute correct is there in the world of ethics?

You can be correct or incorrect when it comes to describing an occurrence in the real" world, like how a killing took place. BUt what is the correct punishment? is punishment even correct in sucha case? what decides that?

[BeBMan]

GePap: while I don´t agree (fully) with "might makes right" I agree that might itself is not neccessarily negative.

[Ecthy]

I for myself have lost all idealism, and being 100% practical is quite fun at times... you get a little unpopular, but hey, at least they can't use their might to decide what's right for you

[Whaleboy]

Like I said, the difference between the idealistic view and the practical outlook on the world

meh! Which one is going to change the world? *takes anti-dillusion pill*.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because if those in power are influenced by other factors (and I say they are always somehow) then how much of the "right" is their own idea, and how much is a result of those who have at least so much importance that they cannot be ignored.

Those that have might are involved in the creation of law. Of course this includes different people, because not one person has all the might and power. This isn't that difficult, yah?

Also - if you have a certain system of law those in power have (in democratic systems) to follow. I doubt Germany´s or US leaders could simply decide to rewrite their constitutions. So at least in democratic states, power is shared, and those in power, eg. the president or chancellor cannot simply make what they want - which the line "might makes right" seems to imply.

US leaders don't have all the might. There are various special interest groups that have great might, and of course the people have might as well.

'Might Makes Right' means that those that have power (or might) make the law and define what is right. How is having to share power whittle that down any?

And those in power today cannot simply ignore this.

Yes they can, if it has no powerful adherants today. However, all you've said DO have powerful adherants today. So those that rule cannot ignore the powerful adherants to various historical movements.

But as religion "it" is no executive force.

But it is mighty, because those that have power believe in it and follow it. I never said that ideas can't have power... their power comes from those who follow the dictates.

My point is that today, and at the beginning, things like religion aren´t "powers" which can enforce anything - they are accepted, if people think they benefit from that, even when in non-material ways (paradise idea in several religions).

Religion itself can't enforce anything, true. But powerful people (or the power of the people) that follow that religion CAN enforce things (and do).

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Those that have might are involved in the creation of law. Of course this includes different people, because not one person has all the might and power.

I already said it is not a problem about making the law - of course this is done by those in power. But the link law = moral is way too simple. While it is essentialy true the law is "written" moral, it is total illusion to think that a certain moral value can only be a product of written law.

When we see murder as illegal, it is not primarily because of it is written down by some mighty guy (or several groups, if the power is shared) at some point, but because we accepted it as useful. The written law in our societies is just the consequence of this acceptance. Generally I would argue that moral values shape the law (and influence those who make this law), not the other way around. You can make the most beautiful system of law, if it doesn´t match at least somehow with peoples moral beliefs or real needs it will fail.

While it is true that repressive regimes can perhaps torture or murder people how they want, it still doesn´t mean that torture or murder are accepted moral standards then there, not to mention that those who torture or murder are totaly inconsistant, since they most of the time don´t want to be tortured or murdered.

Edit: have to go off now.....

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the link law = moral is way too simple.

It may not be as simple as you believe. After all morality is defined either by the people or the ruler (if there is no democracy). Now of course they have to take into consideration others with power, but they, in the end, define morality.

Those with power are involved in the discussion of what is our morality. Those that do not have power are not.

Any system of law in a democracy will match moral beliefs of the people because that is who makes the law. In a repressive society (like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany) torture and murder CAN be moral, especially when justified as being necessary for the security of the state. Of course there are those that have power, even in repressive regimes (such as those with some sort of following), that say certain acts are immoral, and they must be listened to (or their power taken away from them, either or).

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Those with power are involved in the discussion of what is our morality. Those that do not have power are not.

But individuals can choose their moral values. I could today decide to become a Christian (and adopt Christian values), and no authority could hinder me to believe that. Many of those heretics in the middle ages rather died before changing their beliefs.

Sure totalitarian regimes may try to impose their moral standards, but that doesn´t mean people accept them always. Even when they behave according to those values to avoid repressive measures, many of them could still hold their individual views.

In a repressive society (like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany) torture and murder CAN be moral, especially when justified as being necessary for the security of the state.

Yes, it can, that´s the point, because it is not the only way to come to moral values. Those in power can easily define their law - that means they define what is legal. But whether people adopt those values as their own is a completely different question. Often those regimes who act with extreme repression to impose their will face a lot of resistance because of people who do not accept those imposed standards.

For Nazi Germany, you can easily argue that the Nazis didn´t enforce anti-semitism (as moral) but took advantage of anti-semitic views already in place in Europe since the middle ages. So their "might" didn´t make anti-semitism morally "right", it already was a common view. I agree that they strenghten such beliefs, but they didn´t created them in the first place due to their power.

A last point to the law: a lot of people´s moral views aren´t even part of the written law of a society. There is no law that Germans have to be pacifists now, still a lot are. Nonone has enforced it, they decided this on their own. Similar cases you can find everywhere, from the most simple moral norms (eg. "you should help this old woman to cross the street") to more general ideas ("we should protect the nature"). All those are part of our moral system, and are not primarily power-related. Some of them are traditional values, some not, but as long people act according to such views they do matter.

[Kuciwalker]

You may not agree with might makes right, but it is tautologically true - there's nothing anyone, or even EVERYONE, can do about it.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by skywalker
You may not agree with might makes right, but it is tautologically true - there's nothing anyone, or even EVERYONE, can do about it.

Of course I can

Since the discussion is now about wether might makes in general morally right, I just have to show that parts of our moral system aren´t mainly related to power relations, which I did above

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, they can all be reduced to power equations. If you want to really simplify it, say that it's a result of the Revolutionary War (for U.S. law)

[BeBMan]

Nah, those moral values of our modern western constitutions are enlightenment values. They were hold by people before they were turned into laws (otherwise fighting for them wouldn´t make any sense)