26 Feb 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIf you break the law of the land, is it wrong? You may not think so, but if you break the law you will pay a price. In the end, those in power over you will see to it that you pay the price and the only one who may think otherwise is you.
elaborate.
26 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo what? All it shows is that we can have prudential reasons to obey. If there is, let's suppose, some idiot who threatens to punish you if you fail to obey some idiotic rule of his; and if you know he has the power to back up his threat; then, yes, perhaps you ought to obey his idiotic rule. But he's still just an idiot with an idiotic rule, right? Such considerations confer prudential justifications over your conceivable courses of action or response; they do not somehow confer justication or legitimacy over the rule in question, the question of which is wrapped up in what justifying reasons there are for the rule, not in the amount of might available for enforcing it. You may be getting these two confused.
If you break the law of the land, is it wrong? You may not think so, but if you break the law you will pay a price. In the end, those in power over you will see to it that you pay the price and the only one who may think otherwise is you.
26 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyokay, now ask the next logical question in the line;
If you break the law of the land, is it wrong? You may not think so, but if you break the law you will pay a price. In the end, those in power over you will see to it that you pay the price and the only one who may think otherwise is you.
are the laws of the land right?
if yes, then there is no longer any need to adjust and change laws. one can then argue that enforcing them is right, ergo might is right.
if no, then laws are being disputed, changed new ones added and old ones removed. no argument can be made that the laws of the land are right, ergo might is not right.
26 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyOf course not. Is there any reason to think that it does?
Does might make right?
Such a view would almost lead to a view that 'whatever happens, is right' a form of fatalism.
Many people believe that every event has some 'greater good', but even they suggest that there is a hidden greater good, rather than saying every event is good simply by the fact that it happened.
26 Feb 12
Originally posted by josephwi doubt there can be consensus on that since the idea of what's right varies significantly from culture to culture. but there are things they can agree on.
Agreed. What makes one right if not might?
so the goal then is not to be 'right' but to approach what is 'right'
even that is a slippery slope since it brings forth moral questions such as; is it right to sacrifice one human life to save two? how about sacrifice one to save 10? 100? 1000? all other life (the jesus question)?
an alternate goal is non-interference. if you can't be right by interfering, you can
be right by non-interference. this is the principle of the tao.
of course, philosophers weren't happy with that one either. now we have the condition: what if you have the power to help someone in need, but you don't? some famous quotes can be drawn here.
this question is also taken up in a very well written computer game, "knights of the old republic 2"
therein you're faced with that very moral dilemma. but whichever decision you make; weather you help or ignore, the result turns out bad.
many have tackled this problem. a decent principle exists adopted by many different philosophies (including the bible)... do unto others as you would have done onto you.
given a condition of good mental health, that philosophy is probably the most decent to adopt.
26 Feb 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo you're saying the one with a moral philosophy is the one in the right, and therefore has the might? That the one with a moral code has the might that makes him right?
i doubt there can be consensus on that since the idea of what's right varies significantly from culture to culture. but there are things they can agree on.
so the goal then is not to be 'right' but to approach what is 'right'
even that is a slippery slope since it brings forth moral questions such as; is it right to sacrifice one human life to sav ...[text shortened]... ondition of good mental health, that philosophy is probably the most decent to adopt.
Philosophically speaking that makes sense, but in practical terms that's not how the world works.
If everyone that ever forced their will upon another through might had instead 'done unto others', we would be living in paradise.
26 Feb 12
Originally posted by josephwwe're not talking about how the world works. we can see that right or wrong, might is the preferred method of resolving problems.
So you're saying the one with a moral philosophy is the one in the right, and therefore has the might? That the one with a moral code has the might that makes him right?
Philosophically speaking that makes sense, but in practical terms that's not how the world works.
If everyone that ever forced their will upon another through might had instead 'done unto others', we would be living in paradise.
however, we have at least determined that might does not make right in and of itself. how the might is used (or misused) determines if it is right or wrong.
26 Feb 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat makes it an "idiotic" rule? Maybe I think that the speed limit is an idiotic rule.
So what? All it shows is that we can have prudential reasons to obey. If there is, let's suppose, some idiot who threatens to punish you if you fail to obey some idiotic rule of his; and if you know he has the power to back up his threat; then, yes, perhaps you ought to obey his idiotic rule. But he's still just an idiot with an idiotic rule, right? S ...[text shortened]... not in the amount of might available for enforcing it. You may be getting these two confused.
Of course, Obama and company think that the Federal laws on immigration are idiotic and racist, so they ignore them and sue those who try to enforce them. However, he is the power of the land, so screw it!!
26 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadTrue, unless you think that there is a power higher than the one your violating. For example, if you were in Nazi Germany and you opposed the state for its genocide, you could conclude that God is a higher power and will ultimately crush them at some point. It would then not be futile to resist. In fact, it would almost be a mandate to resist.
Of course not. Is there any reason to think that it does?
Such a view would almost lead to a view that 'whatever happens, is right' a form of fatalism.
Many people believe that every event has some 'greater good', but even they suggest that there is a hidden greater good, rather than saying every event is good simply by the fact that it happened.
As for fighting God, however, that would be futile.