17 May 07
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.
17 May 07
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?
If I'm not understanding your point, please give an example.
17 May 07
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?
On the other hand, despite our excercising our free will we are finite beings who will perish on our own power. Thus our concepts of right and wrong will perish along with us. All that will then remain is God's concepts of right and wrong because he is eternal. Also, he is mighter than all else thus his will, will prevail above all others in the end. After all, if our free will should not be violated why should God's?
17 May 07
3 edits
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.
I am also glad you brought up slavery. Before slavery was made illegal the general consensus was that it was morally acceptable. However, when the powers that be declared it unacceptable then the general consensus gradually swung the other way. Now slavery is viewed as socially unacceptable.
I imagine that I am making those of faith and those who have no faith rather uncomfortable with such speculations. Perhaps we see that might makes right on the chess board by no where else.
17 May 07
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?
"The principle of equality holds that all living beings are the same in their basic orientation and outlook. In other words, all living beings want to be happy, to enjoy life, and to avoid suffering and death. This is just as true of other living beings as it is of us. The principle of equality is at the heart of the universality of the Buddha's vision. Understanding the principle of equality, we are encouraged to act in light of the additional awareness of the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity means that, just as we would not like to be abused, robbed, injured, or killed, so all other living beings are unwilling to have such things happen to them. We can put this principle of reciprocity quite simply by saying, "Do not act toward others in a way you would not want them to act toward you." Once we are aware of these principles of equality and reciprocity, it is not hard to see how they form the foundation of the rules of good conduct in Buddhism."
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/ch5.html
An Introduction to the Major Traditions of Buddhism
Now to some of your questions...
I just got to thinking, what makes God, if he exists, "right" and not "wrong"?
Thus our concepts of right and wrong will perish along with us.
These are difficult questions. I will take some time to think about them. I will get back to you when I have a good response.
17 May 07
1 edit
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?
My conscience agrees with utilitarianism (as does everyone's deep down I believe). In utilitarianism, might is irrelevant to morality.
17 May 07
What makes God right or wrong?
We judge with our own morals if God is right or wrong. (though I'm short of argument, this response seems natural so I will post it to give you something to think about.)
Will our concepts of right or wrong perish along with us?
Yes. Our morals cannot be forced onto others. With power we can enforce our will over others, but it doesn't mean they believe in it. Even if we did exist for an infinite amount of time, it is up to God to decide which morals he wants to follow.
17 May 07
1 edit
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.
..................
"It reminds me of a quote from Herman Georring right before he was hanged for his war crimes. "
...........
It was Herman Goring, and the prick managed to kill himself a few hours before his scheduled execution ... cyanide cap.
It's true, the winners write history and to the victor goes the spoils .. and don't forget the "golden rule", he who has the gold makes the rules.