2 edits
Originally posted by whodeySorry; not trying to play dumb here; but I just do not understand what you are trying to say. This post offers no clarification as far as I can tell.
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.
What is right simply "is".
I do not understand the propositional content of this claim.
Not really sure what else to say: I cannot figure out what exactly you are trying to argue.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's not often we agree so we must be 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 ...[text shortened]... o unto others as they would do unto you. You can fight it, but in the end it will crush you.
6 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloSort of. You can be the ultimate authority and force everyone to agree with you and still be "wrong" about something. However, being the authority figure you tend to have more people side with your position than otherwise would. In short, you begin to twist reality in a way into your way of thinking. Of course, the kicker is that if you are indeed powerful enough, then you should be able to reshape reality to be molded to what you say is right or wrong in order to make it fit.
I see. Is this what you are arguing, whodey?
As human beings we tend to attain our moral compuss from positions of authority. This can be seen from historical examples. When slavery was the law of the land, many agreed with the morality, however, centuries after it being banned, now the moral compass of the nation has swung the other way. Abortion is another example. Before it was made legal many said that it was immoral, however, years after it was made legal the moral compass has swung the other way.
As human beings, this seems troubling. It would almost seem as though we are but sheep so that if one sheep jumps off a cliff, they all jump. However, I believe humans were also born with a moral compass of sorts that we must contend with. I think the moral code is the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you. If we break this rule, it makes our lives miserable, so counter measures must be made. So in the examples of slavery and abortion, what counter measures were made? Basically you must first devalue a segment of society so that the Golden Rule no longer applies. If the other person is not your equal, the the Golden Rule becomes null and void. That way, the slave becomes but livestock, the unborn is but a fetus, the Jew is but vermon, the non-muslim is but an infidel etc. These mental gymnastics are vital if you are attempting to circumvent our innate inner voice of right and wrong.
Originally posted by whodeyAs human beings we tend to attain our moral compuss from positions of authority. This can be seen from historical examples. When slavery was the law of the land, many agreed with the morality, however, centuries after it being banned, now the moral compass of the nation has swung the other way. Abortion is another example. Before it was made legal many said that it was immoral, however, years after it was made legal the moral compass has swung the other way.
Sort of. You can be the ultimate authority and force everyone to agree with you and still be "wrong" about something. However, being the authority figure you tend to have more people side with your position than otherwise would. In short, you begin to twist reality in a way into your way of thinking. Of course, the kicker is that if you are indeed powerfu ...[text shortened]... stics are vital if you are attempting to circumvent our innate inner voice of right and wrong.
You're confusing correlation with causation. This statement simply cannot be true; indeed in a population A, with majority X supporting policy Y, then your statment being true implies that there is a greater probability that some person x not in X will conform with the majority (thus establishing now an even bigger majority of X+1) instead of rebelling against it.
As such how in blazes do changes happen if all people blindly follow the masses?
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBut if whodey's logic is correct then we require more black sheep than "white sheep" before a change will happen - but then in this case, probability would suggest a person is more likely to become or remain a white sheep than they will become a black sheep.
black sheep
Originally posted by AgergDid I say following the masses? No, I said following authority figures. This means teachers, parents, law makers, preists etc.
[b]As human beings we tend to attain our moral compuss from positions of authority. This can be seen from historical examples. When slavery was the law of the land, many agreed with the morality, however, centuries after it being banned, now the moral compass of the nation has swung the other way. Abortion is another example. Before it was made legal many ...[text shortened]... against it.
As such how in blazes do changes happen if all people blindly follow the masses?
Originally posted by AgergNo, what you have to do is target authority figures to "change". As they do so will society change.
But if whodey's logic is correct then we require more black sheep than "white sheep" before a change will happen - but then in this case, probability would suggest a person is more likely to become or remain a white sheep than they will become a black sheep.
Originally posted by Agergthe black sheep are always the minority and they are always the ones that cause major shifts in society, for good or for ill. all they have to do is convince enough of the regular sheep to follow along and the rest to ignore them.
But if whodey's logic is correct then we require more black sheep than "white sheep" before a change will happen - but then in this case, probability would suggest a person is more likely to become or remain a white sheep than they will become a black sheep.
Originally posted by whodeySort of. You can be the ultimate authority and force everyone to agree with you and still be "wrong" about something. However, being the authority figure you tend to have more people side with your position than otherwise would. In short, you begin to twist reality in a way into your way of thinking.
Sort of. You can be the ultimate authority and force everyone to agree with you and still be "wrong" about something. However, being the authority figure you tend to have more people side with your position than otherwise would. In short, you begin to twist reality in a way into your way of thinking. Of course, the kicker is that if you are indeed powerfu ...[text shortened]... stics are vital if you are attempting to circumvent our innate inner voice of right and wrong.
As far as I can tell, this argument of your is self-contradictory. On one hand you say that one can force everyone else to agree with him and yet still be mistaken on the topic at hand. On the other hand, you say that in getting everyone else to agree with him, one bends reality to align with his view (such that, presumably, it is not the case that one is mistaken on the topic at hand). You need to figure out exactly what you intend to argue. Either it is the case that might makes right; or it is not the case that might makes right. But it surely ain't both.
Of course, the kicker is that if you are indeed powerful enough, then you should be able to reshape reality to be molded to what you say is right or wrong in order to make it fit.
No, not without some very, very significant and substantial ancillary assumptions that you have not bothered to justify or support in any way. For example, not if some version of realism is true; not if, for example, there are objective facts that are simply the facts of the matter regardless of what attitudes any observers have on the matter; not if, for example, propositions in the area of discourse at issue have objective truth values that are constitutively independent from observer attitudes.
What you say is incredibly implausible, and you have not presented any support for your very substantial underlying meta-ethical assumptions. What's much more plausible is that if you have some mighty person who is mistaken on some topic; and, pursuant to his might, he is able to persuade many other persons to adopt his same view; then you just end up with a whole bunch of persons who are mistaken on the topic.
When slavery was the law of the land, many agreed with the morality, however, centuries after it being banned, now the moral compass of the nation has swung the other way....As human beings, this seems troubling.
That's not troubling...that is called progress. It's disturbing, yes, that persons can be collectively so mistaken at times, but this is problem that presumably extends to many areas of discourse. You should take up this issue with your God: He could have simply made us better cognizers in such areas, such that we converge on the facts more quickly. But, none of these anthropological facts that you point out (the prevailing social climate was this, now it is that, etc) have anything even remotely to do with showing that might makes right or that prevailing consensus makes right, or etc. You're confusing the descriptive and the normative.
Originally posted by LemonJelloDon't leave the site. This forum needs you.
[b]Sort of. You can be the ultimate authority and force everyone to agree with you and still be "wrong" about something. However, being the authority figure you tend to have more people side with your position than otherwise would. In short, you begin to twist reality in a way into your way of thinking.
As far as I can tell, this argument of you ...[text shortened]... iling consensus makes right, or etc. You're confusing the descriptive and the normative.[/b]