Does might make right?

Originally posted by josephw
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.

Clearly it's a rhetorical question and clearly the answer is no; might bears no relationship to right, the stronger person may be better able to enforce their will but it is not an advantage when it comes to judging what is objectively right.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Clearly it's a rhetorical question and clearly the answer is no; might bears no relationship to right, the stronger person may be better able to enforce their will but it is not an advantage when it comes to judging what is objectively right.

Was FDR right about imprisoning Japanese Americans during WW2? No, however, he had the might and he made it right. In fact, no one challenged him and did not suffer whatsoever for his crime. In fact, he is revered as one of America's greatest presidents.

Conversely, if Nazi Germany had won, then those responsible for the genocide would not have payed a price for their crimes. In fact, even though some might later shrink from such crimes against humanity, more than likely the leaders of that era would still be revered as FDR is to a large degree.

Of course, later both would be seen as "criminals" by various degrees. Why? It is because we have stamped on our hearts a larger moral code which will eventually crush all others. It may take a large chunk of time to pass before such morality is vanquished, but it will be vanquished nonetheless.

I would say that this moral code is largely the Golden Rule, which is to do unto others as they would do unto you. You can fight it, but in the end it will crush you.

Originally posted by whodey
What makes it an "idiotic" rule? Maybe I think that the speed limit is an idiotic rule.

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!!

What makes it an "idiotic" rule?

Maybe it is idiotic because there are no good reasons for its existence; indeed, perhaps there are good reasons for its non-existence. Who cares? Do you not understand the point of a hypothetical? We suppose that it is idiotic (it does not matter why it is as such). The point is, just because there is a lot of might to enforce it, that does not somehow change the fact that it is idiotic. Right? I mean, this point seems pretty obvious to everyone in this thread except, apparently, you (and I cannot speak for josephw, he has a lot of wacky ideas).

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]What makes it an "idiotic" rule?

Maybe it is idiotic because there are no good reasons for its existence; indeed, perhaps there are good reasons for its non-existence. Who cares? Do you not understand the point of a hypothetical? We suppose that it is idiotic (it does not matter why it is as such). The point is, just because there is a lot ...[text shortened]... thread except, apparently, you (and I cannot speak for josephw, he has a lot of wacky ideas).[/b]

I see what you are trying to say, but all I'm saying is that anything can be given reasons and argued. I know after spending a long time here debating.

In the end opions are like arses. But only one has the right to punish you for opposing them.

Originally posted by whodey
I see what you are trying to say, but all I'm saying is that anything can be given reasons and argued. I know after spending a long time here debating.

In the end opions are like arses. But only one has the right to punish you for opposing them.

Wait, what are you trying to say? I thought you were trying to argue that might makes right. Your train of thought leaves something to be desired.

Opinions are not like arses, since not all opinions stink. Some are right and actually backed by good reasons. This is of course regardless of the question of how much might one has to force his opinion on others or to press it into policy.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Opinions are not like arses, since not all opinions stink. Some are right and actually backed by good reasons. This is of course regardless of the question of how much might one has to force his opinion on others or to press it into policy.[/b]

Now we are getting somewhere. I would agree that there is a natural order to the universe that is "right". For example, 2+2 always equals 4 and we survive by breathing oxygen and the Golden Rule reigns supreme. Therefore, you can fight the natural might of what "is", or you can agree with it and move on. In the end, if you fail to accept the natural order, it will crush you.

Originally posted by whodey
Now we are getting somewhere. I would agree that there is a natural order to the universe that is "right". For example, 2+2 always equals 4 and we survive by breathing oxygen and the Golden Rule reigns supreme. Therefore, you can fight the natural might of what "is", or you can agree with it and move on. In the end, if you fail to accept the natural order, it will crush you.

I would agree that there is a natural order to the universe that is "right".

I never said "there is a natural order to the universe that is right", so I do not understand why you say you agree with me on that. I do not even presume to know what that means.

I said, basically, that might does not make right (as I thought you were arguing the contrary). And I said that some opinions are right and backed by good reasons.

Beyond that I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Originally posted by whodey
True, 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.

As for fighting God, however, that would be futile.

I still don't think there is any connection whatsoever between might and right. I think the only reason you want a connection is you want to claim that God is right, what ever he does (because you know he is wrong).

Originally posted by whodey
Was FDR right about imprisoning Japanese Americans during WW2? No, however, he had the might and he made it right. In fact, no one challenged him and did not suffer whatsoever for his crime. In fact, he is revered as one of America's greatest presidents.

Being able to do something without opposition does not make you right. Being revered does not make you right. And no, FDR did not 'make it right'. He just did it. And it was wrong.

Your kind of thinking is what lead to Nazi Germany. Essential they believed in 'survival of the fittest' and ignored morality. But when you confuse survival with morality, you are making a grave error.

Originally posted by whodey
I see what you are trying to say, but all I'm saying is that anything can be given reasons and argued.

Odd then that you have not yet given any reasons whatsoever for your stance in this thread. Give us a reason why might might make right.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I said, basically, that might does not make right (as I thought you were arguing the contrary). And I said that some opinions are right and backed by good reasons.

Beyond that I do not understand what you are trying to say.[/b]

Let me try and splain it again.

You presume that someone with enough might could stand for things that are untrue. Although this may be true to a certain degree in this present world, it is fleeting. In the end, truth will crush them.

What is right simply "is". Opposing what "is" is futile in the end.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't think there is any connection whatsoever between might and right. I think the only reason you want a connection is you want to claim that God is right, what ever he does (because you know he is wrong).

What gives someone might? Is it money? Is it power? Is it truth etc? I would say those who have the most might would possess all of these things and those that don't have all of these things are not that mighty and can be beaten by those that do. In the end, the one who possess all of these things will prevail against all others.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Odd then that you have not yet given any reasons whatsoever for your stance in this thread. Give us a reason why might might make right.

In this temperal world, might makes right temporarily. That is why I used the FDR example. Due to his power and influence he was able to act with impunity even though he cleary was unjust.

So why is this success temporary? Why do succeeding generations see the gaping hole in his armor that was not visible during that time? It is because there is a power far greater than FDR that will eventually force us to see his injustice because such a power stands against such injustice and will crush it.

Originally posted by whodey
What gives someone might? Is it money? Is it power? Is it truth etc? I would say those who have the most might would possess all of these things and those that don't have all of these things are not that mighty and can be beaten by those that do. In the end, the one who possess all of these things will prevail against all others.

Ha ha. Your deliberate naivety about politics are amazing. Hitler possessed 'truth'? Obama possesses 'truth'?
Possessing 'power' gives you 'might'? Aren't those synonyms? Or am I missing something?

I still don't see how any of this leads to the claim that 'might makes right'

Originally posted by whodey
In this temperal world, might makes right temporarily. That is why I used the FDR example. Due to his power and influence he was able to act with impunity even though he cleary was unjust.

But why do you call it 'right'? You admit it was unjust.

So why is this success temporary?
Success in terms of what? How was FDRs success temporary?

Why do succeeding generations see the gaping hole in his armor that was not visible during that time?
What? You honestly think people at the time did not see the gaping hole? Next you will be telling us that nobody thought Bush was wrong about WMDs until after the war. I can assure you that most of those Americans of Japanese descent rounded up by FDR knew perfectly well it was wrong, and a lot of other Americans did to.

It is because there is a power far greater than FDR that will eventually force us to see his injustice because such a power stands against such injustice and will crush it.
No.