Does might make right?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok well you really need to watch the video I linked on the last page on what science can say
about morality.

I saw it a few weeks ago when someone linked to it. Unless you can quote an argument from it that supports you here, I don't think I will bother re watching it.
If I recall correctly, he starts with the premise that morality is about the well being of human beings. So, this doesn't solve the problem of what exactly a 'human being' is.

The questions are clearly NOT purely philosophical or moral questions,
I think they are. Please explain how they aren't rather than stating that they clearly aren't. It sure isn't clear to me.

and even if they were, science is still the best tool for answering them.
Again, if they are purely philosophical or moral questions, how can science answer them?

Morality is about creating rules and guidelines for governing interactions between people and
groups of people that best promote the well-being of those people.
But first you must decide who is a 'person'.

If you want to analyse whether the rules and guidelines you have devised are generating outcomes
that maximise well-being then again you have to use science and the scientific method to do so.
But science cannot answer the question of whether the good of the individual is greater than the good of the group.

Thus Morality is totally a valid scientific domain.
You have not shown this. You have assumed morality, then pointed out that science can help us implement it.

however you define your terms you MUST use the scientific method and findings to map your philosophical
concepts onto reality.
Sure, but how you define your terms is what is being discussed, and not how to map your philosophical
concepts onto reality.

Thus it is not in the least bit ridiculous to say that these questions not only can but MUST be addressed
scientifically.
It is in fact ridiculous to claim that they can be addressed by anything else.
You are making the error of going from 'science is required as a tool' to 'science is everything' - without justification.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not clear on your views than.
You have morals we don't have to follow and yet those that don't follow them
are cheaters, so why is that they don't have to follow them? The morals if they
are not rules to be followed, why bother?
I have more questions but this is a good start.
Kelly[/b]

I am not clear what you mean by 'do not have to follow'. If people don't always follow them, then surely they do not have to follow?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not clear what you mean by 'do not have to follow'. If people don't always follow them, then surely they do not have to follow?

As I understand your (morals) are they are static morals that an evolving
race of people look at, but are not bound by them, and you call some people
cheaters that do not follow them as if they were supposed to. So are they
supposed to follow them as in there is some kind of 'rule' in place here, or no?

If no, than they sound more like a meaningless wish list nothing more that
some like and want to hold others to.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I understand your (morals) are they are static morals that an evolving
race of people look at, but are not bound by them, and you call some people
cheaters that do not follow them as if they were supposed to.

I see morals as a rules that aid living in society. You could call it 'cooperation'. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. There are always some people who get their backs scratched, but don't do any scratching in return. If too much of this takes place, society breaks down.

So are they supposed to follow them as in there is some kind of 'rule' in place here, or no?
No, I don't believe in some ultimate 'supposed'. I think we have evolved an internal moral compass that encourages us to follow morals, but there is no rational argument that leads one to always follow them. Its rather like the will to live. We all want to live, but we do not have to. Nobody forces us to live. It is not a 'rule' that we must follow. We just do.

If no, than they sound more like a meaningless wish list nothing more that some like and want to hold others to.
It benefits society. If you want society, and you want to do well, then it is far from being a 'meaningless wish list'. If you don't want society and don't want to live or do well in life, then you don't have to follow them.

Why do you want to hold other people to a moral standard?
Your previous explanation for why you follow morals seems no more meaningful than mine, and doesn't explain why you would hold anyone else to a moral standard.

Why do you love?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I saw it a few weeks ago when someone linked to it. Unless you can quote an argument from it that supports you here, I don't think I will bother re watching it.
If I recall correctly, he starts with the premise that morality is about the well being of human beings. So, this doesn't solve the problem of what exactly a 'human being' is.

Well that would be an issue if I was posting the video as an argument for how you define a human being.

Which would be dumb because that's not what it's about so you can assume, if your not being dumb yourself,
that that is not why I posted it.

The video deals specifically and in detail with how science can and must inform us on morality.

And thus is a refutation of your argument that science has no bearing on 'purely' moral questions.

This was an important point that I wanted to deal with separately.


I will assume that you wrote your post late at night while not paying attention and thinking strait.

Try again this time not starting by assuming I am an idiot.

Originally posted by JS357
Such aspects could be properties or behaviours.

Take two examples: skin colour and ability to converse in English. These need some degree of "science" to determine, but many people think these should have no bearing on intended use and outcomes of the determination that an object is a person. Others would say and have said that they are valid indicators.

So the matter is not settled simply by reliance on scientific tools.

I don't think you comprehend what the full range and bearing of scientific tools are.

A system of morality's basic purpose is to facilitate the running of a society in such a way as to maximise the happiness
and well-being of the largest number of people in it.

In trying to determine what moral rules and guidelines you follow and how they interact when there is a conflict between
those rules you need to use scientific methodology to determine how well you current moral code is functioning and how
you might improve it.

We are our brains, physical networks of neurons interacting electrically and chemically according the the laws of physics.
We can analyse any and every feeling and thought from a scientific standpoint to determine how our brains work and
detail the ways we can best design society and it's rules to enable the greatest number of people to be happy and well.

Now whether or not you also have philosophical debate on the subject is not relevant to my point that science MUST be
a part of, and the bedrock of, any discussion of morality [or anything and everything else that takes place in the reality we
live in].

Science can not only inform us of the way the world is, without which any discussion of things and actions within it is
meaningless, but also science can inform us on how successful a given policy is and how it might be improved.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that would be an issue if I was posting the video as an argument for how you define a human being.

Well you certainly seemed to be.
I said that science cannot answer the question of "what constitutes a 'human being", and your response was

Whoa, I couldn't disagree more.

The questions "what constitutes a 'human being'" and "who has the right of person-hood"
can't be answered or addressed in any meaningful way without science.

Followed shortly by

Ok well you really need to watch the video I linked on the last page on what science can say
about morality.

Which would be dumb because that's not what it's about so you can assume, if your not being dumb yourself,
that that is not why I posted it.
I don't think I was being dumb, I think you were very unclear about what you were arguing. You say you couldn't disagree more, then argue some unrelated point? Seriously, I am dumb for misunderstanding you?

The video deals specifically and in detail with how science can and must inform us on morality.
And I say it deals with how science can help us work out the details once morality is already decided. It doesn't tell us what morality is. That is assumed at the very beginning and is not based on science.

And thus is a refutation of your argument that science has no bearing on 'purely' moral questions.
Again, it is not a refutation because it does not in any way refute my claim. Please quote something in the video that constitutes a refutation of a purely moral question.

I will assume that you wrote your post late at night while not paying attention and thinking strait.
I have read through the posts, and still think that it was you that was being far from clear about what you were refuting.

I quote you again:

The questions "what constitutes a 'human being'" and "who has the right of person-hood"
can't be answered or addressed in any meaningful way without science.

Where do you substantiate this claim? Or do you just state it?

Originally posted by JS357
So it sounds like your stance is NOT that might makes right, because you say in effect that might can cause people to sincerely support as right, something that is wrong.

This leaves hanging the question of what, if anything, makes something right or wrong.

What makes something right or wrong? Well I suppose it is the supreme power that has the final say. In fact, this has even been stamped on our hearts by this higher power.

The fact that right and wrong has been stamped upon our hearts I think is indicative of why there is so much protest to the thought that might makes right. After all, God has created free will and afforded us the power to reject what is right and even show us grace and mercy when we do. So when we hear the words, "might makes right" we automatically conclude that this violates what is right, which is free will and mercy.

Originally posted by whodey
What makes something right or wrong? Well I suppose it is the supreme power that has the final say. In fact, this has even been stamped on our hearts by this higher power.

The fact that right and wrong has been stamped upon our hearts I think is indicative of why there is so much protest to the thought that might makes right. After all, God has created ...[text shortened]... ght" we automatically conclude that this violates what is right, which is free will and mercy.

So when we hear the words, "might makes right" we automatically conclude that this violates what is right, which is free will and mercy.

That's because the the historical usage of the phrase contrasts might and right: "brute force...crushes truth and right." The idea that might coincides with right, is not the usual implication.

"The first known use of might makes right in the English language was in 1846 by the American pacifist and abolitionist Adin Ballou (1803–1890), who wrote "But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomfited error, and crushes truth and right into the dust. 'Might makes right,' and hoary folly totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies." (Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important Bearings, Illustrated and Defended, 1846.)" -- Wikipedia

Originally posted by whodey
What makes something right or wrong? Well I suppose it is the supreme power that has the final say. In fact, this has even been stamped on our hearts by this higher power.

The fact that right and wrong has been stamped upon our hearts I think is indicative of why there is so much protest to the thought that might makes right. After all, God has created ...[text shortened]... ght" we automatically conclude that this violates what is right, which is free will and mercy.

Yes, you keep just supposing that power has the final say, but that is question-begging, remember? Weren't you the one who started this thread with the intention of initiating debate on the topic of whether or not it is the case that might makes right? Was that just a guise or pretense?

Do you have any actual argument for the conclusion that might makes right?

Originally posted by whodey
What makes something right or wrong? Well I suppose it is the supreme power that has the final say.

You suppose wrong. But then the whole thread is a poorly veiled attempt to claim God dictates morals. However, any such conclusion then leads to the logical follow on conclusion that any claim about God being 'good' or 'right' is meaningless, or at best a tautology.

Originally posted by JS357

[b]So when we hear the words, "might makes right" we automatically conclude that this violates what is right, which is free will and mercy.

That's because the the historical usage of the phrase contrasts might and right: "brute force...crushes truth and right." The idea that might coincides with right, is not the usual implication.

"Th stance: In All Its Important Bearings, Illustrated and Defended, 1846.)" -- Wikipedia[/b]

Evil is merely a twisted replication of the truth. It then stands to reason that evil attempts might to achieve its ends just like it mixes lies in with the truth.

However, strength does not come from twisting the truth, but embracing it and understanding it. Therefore, the most powerful will function within reality instead of trying to overcome it.

I will conclude by saying that if an all poiwerful God exists, there is no reason to defend ones power, rather, it simply is. At such a point, sacrifice becomes a gift and not a threat to ones power as well as allowing others power independent of your own. If you think about it, perhaps this is the only real point of interest in creation to an all powerful and all knowing God. Perhaps it is enough just to share what you have power over rather than exercise full control over it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, you keep just supposing that power has the final say, but that is question-begging, remember? Weren't you the one who started this thread with the intention of initiating debate on the topic of whether or not it is the case that might makes right? Was that just a guise or pretense?

Do you have any actual argument for the conclusion that might makes right?

As I have shown, when any power comes to be, their "morality" tends to dominate and dwarf those that are at odds with that power who are of a lesser power. It is a natural progression.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You suppose wrong. But then the whole thread is a poorly veiled attempt to claim God dictates morals. However, any such conclusion then leads to the logical follow on conclusion that any claim about God being 'good' or 'right' is meaningless, or at best a tautology.

If there is no God, then you have the final say as to what is moral, and/or the society in which you live. At that point you and the society in which you live become the ultimate power to decide what is moral. You could then make the same argument which is such morality because meaningless and at best a tautology.

Originally posted by whodey
As I have shown, when any power comes to be, their "morality" tends to dominate and dwarf those that are at odds with that power who are of a lesser power. It is a natural progression.

Okay, then I see you clearly do not even understand what sorts of considerations actually bear on the question of whether or not might makes right. The descriptive fact (supposing here that it is a fact) that when two groups are at odds, the more powerful group can foist their own moral commitments onto the less powerful group, is really not relevant. That has nothing to do with whether or not might makes right, and it just leaves completely open the further question of which group's moral commitments are actually correct (if any).

To present some relevant argument toward the question of whether or not might makes right, you would need to present some meta-ethical considerations related to, maybe for example, the truth conditions of the types of claims at issue.