17 May '07 03:27>
Speculations?
Originally posted by pawnhandlerBut if might actually has the capacity to overcome all objectors and not merely give an appearance of overcoming such objectors then does it not make right in the end?
Might doesn't make right, but it can give the appearance of winning for quite a while.
Originally posted by whodeyNo, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd propose that the Nazi military certainly had the might for a long time to do quite a bit, but I've not seen anything objective to say they were right, nor have I ever seen or heard anyone I'd even consider respecting who said they were right. They were simply disciplined and powerful. If the confederate army had not fallen but been successful, does that objectively change whether or not slavery is acceptable?
But if might actually has the capacity to overcome all objectors and not merely give an appearance of overcoming such objectors then does it not make right in the end?
Originally posted by Zander 88Partially. I just got to thinking, what makes God, if he exists, "right" and not "wrong"? The natural tendency is to say NO! to such a question. I think this is because the natural tendency is to abhor coersive manipulation of our free will in any form because it is an innate reaction to do so. After all, God gave us free will and we abhor all who violate it.
I take it you are talking about morality, correct?
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI am glad you brought up the Nazi regime. It reminds me of a quote from Herman Georring right before he was hanged for his war crimes. He said something to the effect that the loser in a conflict is ALWAYS vanquished in every way and the winner is ALWAYS victorious. In other words, had Hitler won the war they probably would have simply changed roles. In many respect he was right. Those who sit in judgement simply have the power to do so. That is what distinguishes the judge from the judged. In the end, the judge decides what morality based judgements to judge the accused and not the accused.
No, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd propose that the Nazi military certainly had the might for a long time to do quite a bit, but I've not seen anything objective to say they were right, nor have I ever seen or heard anyone I'd even consider respecting who said they were right. They were simply disciplined and powerful. If the confederate army ...[text shortened]... not slavery is acceptable?
If I'm not understanding your point, please give an example.
Originally posted by whodeyI have been reading up on Buddhism, and I will bring to your attention a definition of basic morality that I like:
Partially. I just got to thinking, what makes God, if he exists, "right" and not "wrong"? The natural tendency is to say NO! to such a question. I think this is because the natural tendency is to abhor coersive manipulation of our free will in any form because it is an innate reaction to do so. After all, God gave us free will and we abhor all who violate ...[text shortened]... l others in the end. After all, if our free will should not be violated why should God's?
Originally posted by whodey"Right" and "wrong" are feelings produced by the conscience. Might has nothing to do with it. Unless of course someone's conscience tells them that might IS right, or people kidnap you and open your brain up and change it so you feel "rightness".
How so?
Originally posted by whodeyBetter read that chapter again or you're going to miss that one on the big test friday. Cpuld be the difference between a C- and a D.
I am glad you brought up the Nazi regime. It reminds me of a quote from Herman Georring right before he was hanged for his war crimes. He said something to the effect that the loser in a conflict is ALWAYS vanquished in every way and the winner is ALWAYS victorious. In other words, had Hitler won the war they probably would have simply changed roles. In m ...[text shortened]... h such speculations. Perhaps we see that might makes right on the chess board by no where else.