Does might make right?

Originally posted by LemonJello
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. T ...[text shortened]... iderations related to, maybe for example, the truth conditions of the types of claims at issue.

If you are indeed powerful enough, you can make right whatever you wish. If necessary you can change reality if need be.

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.

No, you haven't shown it. You have merely stated it. I think the biggest problem in this thread is that you have a different definition of 'morality' than the rest of us. You believe that if someone does something, and gets away with it, then that is their morality, and that they are right. But I think you are alone in this belief. I don't think anyone else thinks morality means that, or even close to that.

Originally posted by whodey
If you are indeed powerful enough, you can make right whatever you wish. If necessary you can change reality if need be.

So God, if he so wills it, could declare the act of rape good and righteous? But how would that declaration change the act itself, the damage it causes, its short and long term effects, or the malicious intent of the rapist? Or perhaps God could make rape pleasurable for women; even something positive in their lives? This sounds absurd to me. It seems obvious that we arrive at our understanding of right and wrong based on a rational evaluation of an act, not whether or not an act is in conformity with some sort of divine declaration (or guideline, e.g., the golden rule). It's not a mystery stamped on the human heart, it's simply the exercising of our capacity for rational thought.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So God, if he so wills it, could declare the act of rape good and righteous? But how would that declaration change the act itself, the damage it causes, its short and long term effects, or the malicious intent of the rapist? Or perhaps God could make rape pleasurable for women; even something positive in their lives? This sounds absurd t ...[text shortened]... y stamped on the human heart, it's simply the exercising of our capacity for rational thought.

Why do we even evaluate that rape is wrong? Is it not due to our intellectual capacity to do so? Have we not been wired to judge it as wrong? Guess what, God did the wiring, so it would stand to reason that he probably agrees that rape is wrong. Again, it is the "Do unot others as you would have them do to you" morality that is hard wired into us. We are wired that way because I believe that is the very nature of God. The only other possibility is that he enjoys watching us suffer and really approves of rape. I prefer to believe the former, however. After all, if God is not benevolent it matters little what we do, in the end, we will suffer eternally, but if God is benevolent and that is his nature, then we have hope.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you haven't shown it. You have merely stated it. I think the biggest problem in this thread is that you have a different definition of 'morality' than the rest of us. You believe that if someone does something, and gets away with it, then that is their morality, and that they are right. But I think you are alone in this belief. I don't think anyone else thinks morality means that, or even close to that.

I think there are ample illustrations throughout history of men going it alone in terms of their morality, only to be proven right in the end. Such men as Christ and Ghandi come to mind. We also have ample illustrations of men who were wrong and were with the majority moral consensus. All I will say is that those who are in the majority usually do not suffer for their stance as where those that went against the majority suffered. In the end, history will be the judge as the supreme morality that is written on our hearts will win in the end even though those with power may sway many to their way of thinking temporarily.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So God, if he so wills it, could declare the act of rape good and righteous? But how would that declaration change the act itself, the damage it causes, its short and long term effects, or the malicious intent of the rapist? Or perhaps God could make rape pleasurable for women; even something positive in their lives? This sounds absurd t ...[text shortened]... y stamped on the human heart, it's simply the exercising of our capacity for rational thought.

There are usually sound naturalistic (rationally understandable) reasons for the existence of a moral rule in a society, having to do with its stability and survival. But I think it is an overstatement to say that "It seems obvious that we arrive at our understanding of right and wrong based on a rational evaluation of an act, not whether or not an act is in conformity with some sort of divine declaration (or guideline, e.g., the golden rule)." Even if such rules are arrived at by rational evaluation, society's response to them can be out of proportion to the harm, and they can outlive their rational basis.

I think it is an overstatement for two reasons:

1. Our emotional responses to things are biological shortcuts, that develop to kick in when the calm deliberate exercise of reason among those involved will take too long to develop a response to a given situation. The act will be compete before all the implications have been considered. So the response has to be extreme, to discourage the act in advance.

2. A learned moral injunction against an act may continue to control behavior long after the social benefits and costs have flipped poles and the act has become dangerous to the survival of the society. This is in part due to the fact that we use conservative reinforcers such as religion where our moral rules are enshrined and given added staying power.

Originally posted by whodey
I think there are ample illustrations throughout history of men going it alone in terms of their morality, only to be proven right in the end.

Then give us one. The one you gave earlier (FDR) was not such an example. He was not right then, his actions are not right now.

Such men as Christ and Ghandi come to mind.
Those are surely counter examples? They were both on the receiving end of might.

We also have ample illustrations of men who were wrong and were with the majority moral consensus.
OK, now I am confused. Are you arguing against your own stance?

All I will say is that those who are in the majority usually do not suffer for their stance as where those that went against the majority suffered.
Surely thats obvious?

In the end, history will be the judge as the supreme morality that is written on our hearts will win in the end even though those with power may sway many to their way of thinking temporarily.
So you dispute your own claims? Am I misunderstanding you or have you done a complete turn-around?

Originally posted by whodey
Why do we even evaluate that rape is wrong? Is it not due to our intellectual capacity to do so? Have we not been wired to judge it as wrong? Guess what, God did the wiring, so it would stand to reason that he probably agrees that rape is wrong. Again, it is the "Do unot others as you would have them do to you" morality that is hard wired into us. We are ...[text shortened]... we will suffer eternally, but if God is benevolent and that is his nature, then we have hope.

Again, it is the "Do unot others as you would have them do to you" morality that is hard wired into us.

The golden rule is an imperfect guideline. For instance, a drug addict, according to the golden rule, would be justified in handing out free marijuana to school kids. Why? Because he would want people handing free drugs to him, of course. Isn't he doing to others as he would have others do to him? Of what possible significance or use would it be to hard-wire such an imperfect moral guideline into human beings? It doesn't make sense.

We are wired that way because I believe that is the very nature of God. The only other possibility is that he enjoys watching us suffer and really approves of rape.

This is a classic example of a false dichotomy: either God hard-wired us with the golden rule, or God approves of rape. I honestly don't see why we must commit ourselves to one or the other. It is entirely possible, after all, that God did not hard-wire human beings at all, but rather we discovered the desirability, benefits and rightness of treating others positively on our own. In which case, God did not hard-wire us, but neither does He approve of rape.

Originally posted by JS357
There are usually sound naturalistic (rationally understandable) reasons for the existence of a moral rule in a society, having to do with its stability and survival. But I think it is an overstatement to say that "It seems obvious that we arrive at our understanding of right and wrong based on a rational evaluation of an act, not whether or not an act is in c ...[text shortened]... inforcers such as religion where our moral rules are enshrined and given added staying power.

Our emotional responses to things are biological shortcuts, that develop to kick in when the calm deliberate exercise of reason among those involved will take too long to develop a response to a given situation.

I doubt that we can have an emotional response in the first place without the rational understanding that a given act is wrong. The emotions proceed from the understanding, not vice versa. We may not be able to verbalize that understanding, but it must be there in order to have the emotional reaction.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Again, it is the "Do unot others as you would have them do to you" morality that is hard wired into us.

The golden rule is an imperfect guideline. For instance, a drug addict, according to the golden rule, would be justified in handing out free marijuana to school kids. Why? Because he would want people handing free drugs to him, of course. ...[text shortened]... it be to hard-wire such an imperfect moral guideline into human beings? It doesn't make sense.

If the drug addict could see what the drugs were doing to him or her, then they would not want free drugs, they would not want any drugs.

Like it or not, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong, the only question is where does it come from?

Of course, if you were a black widow once you mated you would kill and eat your mate. Why the black widow and not human beings evolutionary speaking?

Originally posted by whodey
If the drug addict could see what the drugs were doing to him or her, then they would not want free drugs, they would not want any drugs.

Like it or not, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong, the only question is where does it come from?

Of course, if you were a black widow once you mated you would kill and eat your mate. Why the black widow and not human beings evolutionary speaking?

If the drug addict could see what the drugs were doing to him or her, then they would not want free drugs, they would not want any drugs.

Regardless, that is not a stipulation of the Golden Rule. Nowhere in the GR does it say that we ought to only do those things to others that cause no harm.

Like it or not, we all have an innate sense of right and wrong, the only question is where does it come from?

It is not a question of "like", and it is not obvious that we "all" have an innate sense of right and wrong. Many people lack a conscience altogether (e.g., sociopaths), and some are too cognitively challenged to understand right and wrong (e.g., those with severe mental retardation).

Of course, if you were a black widow once you mated you would kill and eat your mate. Why the black widow and not human beings evolutionary speaking?

I'm not defending moral relativism, whodey, so I don't see what relevance this critique has.