Does might make right?

Originally posted by whodey
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.

But right and wrong aren't created by general consensus. Yes, history books are written by the winners. In the US, had the revolutionary war turned out differently, Washington et al would be taught as being traitors rather than heroes. But whether or not slavery is wrong has nothing to do popular opinion. Whether it is right to lock entire groups in camps and commit genocide or simply leave them there for the duration of a war because of their ancestry is wrong, no matter what a group decides.

Currently there are a majority of people in one location who believe that it is OK to hold people without trial or access to lawyers for many years and torture them into confessing. If this group has the power does that make their actions and beliefs right? There are exponentially larger numbers of people who disagree with the premise but don't have the power at the moment to end it, or haven't tried. Are they wrong in their beliefs of what's ethical and what isn't?

Originally posted by jammer
Better 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.
..................
"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 e ...[text shortened]... es the spoils .. and don't forget the "golden rule", he who has the gold makes the rules.

I stand corrected. 😳

Nevertheless, I think my points are equally as valid in light of these corrections.

Originally posted by Zander 88
[b]I have been reading up on Buddhism, and I will bring to your attention a definition of basic morality that I like:

"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
An Introduction to the Major Traditions of Buddhism

Now to some of your questions...

I would agree with these traditions. After all, Christ said to do unto others in terms of how you want to be treated. If Christ is part of the trinitarian God or who could be referred to as "Might" is saying these things then perhaps Might makes right. It boils down to free will once again, in my opinion. We know we can pick and choose which direction to go in life and laws are for the most part made to help avoid others violating your free will such as murdering you, or stealing from what you have, etc. Such freedom is ingrained in us and is innate. Therefore, to violate such freedom flies in the face of God himself. After all, if God give us free will who is man to take it away? In the end, God will have his way over those who choose to violate the freedoms he has chosen to bestow on us. In the end, Might will make right.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
But right and wrong aren't created by general consensus. Yes, history books are written by the winners. In the US, had the revolutionary war turned out differently, Washington et al would be taught as being traitors rather than heroes. But whether or not slavery is wrong has nothing to do popular opinion. Whether it is right to lock entire groups in ...[text shortened]... nd it, or haven't tried. Are they wrong in their beliefs of what's ethical and what isn't?

I agree with what you are saying. For example, had Hilter won the war I think in the end he would have been declared a monster once again at some point. Granted, this would probably would have been done much, much later than when it was done immediatly following the war. We see this in relation to Stalin and the USSR. Eventually, as much as it pains them, they recognize on some level that he too was a monster years later. However, I would argue that the propensity to recognize such atrocities such as Hitlers and Stalins genocide is a result of them both being in direct opposition to the true power governing the universe. In the end Hitler and Stalin must bow to their Judge and be judged according to God's morality. Because mankind has an innate sense of this morality, mankind will more than likely come to the same conclusions in terms of their wickedness. In the end, Might will make right.

Originally posted by whodey
I agree with what you are saying. For example, had Hilter won the war I think in the end he would have been declared a monster once again at some point. Granted, this would probably would have been done much, much later than when it was done immediatly following the war. We see this in relation to Stalin and the USSR. Eventually, as much as it pains them, ...[text shortened]... de is a result of them both being in direct opposition to the true power governing the universe.

You talk as if there is a single entity that declares whether someone is a monster or not. Do you mean the general consensus of the west? Do you mean God? Many people thought Hitler was a monster even before the war started. I know of no official declaration after the war as you imply was the case. The same applies to Stalin.

Whether we believe that someone was good or bad can be affected by our knowledge of them, and that often means that the victor who gets to write the history can fool us into thinking he is a better person. But the fact that he modifies the history shows that he himself believes his actions to be wrong.

Originally posted by whodey
Speculations?

Would the implication be that all successfully executed acts are at least morally permissible? After all, if you act successfully, then apparently you had the power to do so. And if you had the power to do so, then on your suggestion what you did was right. Surely there are counterexamples to this conclusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You talk as if there is a single entity that declares whether someone is a monster or not. Do you mean the general consensus of the west? Do you mean God? Many people thought Hitler was a monster even before the war started. I know of no official declaration after the war as you imply was the case. The same applies to Stalin.

Whether we believe that so ...[text shortened]... ut the fact that he modifies the history shows that he himself believes his actions to be wrong.

I see what you are saying, but consider this. Stalin murdered far more people than Hitler. Yet Stalin ended up on the side of victory with the Allies. At the end of the war, who was villified the most? Hitler was, no? There were problems in regards to saying the truth about Stalin. Politically the topic was a hot potato. The onset of the Cold War had begun and people were careful with what they said as a result. The last thing that was needed was another world war. Also within the USSR if you spoke out against Stalin publically you may have well just jump in front of an oncoming train. Therefore, he was tolerated for the most part and people were very careful in what they said about him. There was an uneasy air of legitamacy to his reign as a result.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Would the implication be that all successfully executed acts are at least morally permissible?

Yes, or at least for the short term. Those who are successful will then attempt to justify their actions or make it moral. This is because God's morality overshodows our actions via our consceince. Really, anything can be justified or rationalized. For example, Hilter referred to the Jews as vermon. This is because the conscience of man could in no way justify doing harm to their fellow man who is their equal. Another example is slavery. Slaves were simply referred to as monkeys. Today many are referred to as infedels in much the same way. Once someone has been "dehumanized" then one may then side step ones conscience in perpatrating evil acts against others. This step is VITAL. However, in the end such side stepping will eventually be unmasked and the truth will reign supreme.

You have a hierarchy of successfully executed acts, if you will. Those executed by God, however, are successful for the long term and will reign supreme in the end. If the morality of man counters the morality of God, in the end God's morality will crush that of man.

Originally posted by whodey
I see what you are saying, but consider this. Stalin murdered far more people than Hitler. Yet Stalin ended up on the side of victory with the Allies. At the end of the war, who was villified the most? Hitler was, no? There were problems in regards to saying the truth about Stalin. Politically the topic was a hot potato. The onset of the Cold War had b ...[text shortened]... ul in what they said about him. There was an uneasy air of legitamacy to his reign as a result.

But you are implying that right and wrong are based on public opinion. Why not make that your argument instead of the two in one where public opinion is based on who the victor is and other forms of censorship. I have never doubted the power of censorship in all its forms on shaping public opinion, but as public opinion changes over time as you pointed out then the implication is that right and wrong change too. So Hitler actions were right in 1944 but wrong by 1946 and right in Germany amongst his supporters but wrong everywhere else.
I on the other hand base my judgment of right and wrong on my own moral compass. Even though that itself may be swayed by public opinion and other forms of censorship, it is not the same thing, neither is it an absolute. Hitler was not inherently right or wrong but only as judged by me or somebody else and our judgments may differ from each other or over time.

Underlying all this is, I suspect, the question of theodicy: God’s moral rightness. Is God righteous because God acts in ways that we judge as morally right, or is God deemed righteous simply because God is the powerful creator who has the “right” to do whatever he chooses with his creatures?

Now, the Hebrew Scriptures attribute some downright awful things to God—such as commanding, or even committing, the genocidal slaughter of certain people.

First of all, one needs to keep in mind that the compilers and redactors of the various stories of the people who became Israel simply kept all of them—the good, the bad and the ugly.

Second, just because someone says in a story that God commanded certain actions does not mean that it was so. That in itself may have been an attempt at “blame-shifting.”

Third, I do not think that one can properly abrogate one’s own moral sense when reading these texts—and there is, I think, scriptural support for that, depending on interpretation.

Two examples—

(1) Abraham’s arguing with God over the destruction of Sodom (read that text carefully).

(2) The command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

The first command comes from ha elohim, which can be translated either as God (in the common plural form) or “the gods.” The second command comes from an angel of Yahweh. [Elohim is sometimes taken to be the name of God associated with power and judgment, Yahweh with compassion.]

One rabbi I knew said simply: “Yes, God tested Abraham’s faith—and this time Abraham failed. No righteous man (tzaddik) would commit such a crime, even if commanded by God. God does not want blind obedience in the face of immoral commands.”*

Another rabbi that I read said that Abraham passed the test—when he listened to the second voice, rather than the first. In the face of seemingly conflicting divine commands, Abraham chose the morally correct action.*

The fundamental rabbinical view, based on the notion of covenant rather than submission, has been that God expects to be challenged. In the Zohar (and perhaps the Talmuds as well; I don’t remember) Noah is criticized for not arguing on behalf of his fellow humans.

From a Christian point of view—

>> Matthew 22:37 He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

And, as “this God is love” (1st John 4:8 & 16), that in itself suggests a moral lens through which to read various accounts, and bring a moral sense to them—rather than simply submitting to the text...

______________________________

* This, of course, does not jibe with the “midrashic” interpretation on the Abraham/Isaac story by James and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews....

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"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".

My conscience agrees with utilitarianism (as does everyone's deep down I believe). In utilitarianism, might is irrelevant to morality.

In utilitarianism, might is irrelevant to morality.

...tell that to the Americans !

Originally posted by knightmeister
In utilitarianism, might is irrelevant to morality.

...tell that to the Americans !

Which Americans?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are implying that right and wrong are based on public opinion. Why not make that your argument instead of the two in one where public opinion is based on who the victor is and other forms of censorship. I have never doubted the power of censorship in all its forms on shaping public opinion, but as public opinion changes over time as you pointed ou ...[text shortened]... only as judged by me or somebody else and our judgments may differ from each other or over time.

I am not saying that Hitler was right in 1944 but wrong in 1946. What I am saying is that power has a tendency to give the appearance of being right. Whether something actually is right depends if it withstands the test of time. For example, if Hitler had won the war then the truth regarding his wicked morality would have come out much later than it did, but it would eventually be revealed. In the end, God will be the judge and will reveal what people may do in secret. On the other hand, if Hitler held all of the power in the universe and he ultimatly decided what was right or wrong then he would be right in the end. Lucky for us, however, this is not the case.

Originally posted by vistesd
Underlying all this is, I suspect, the question of theodicy: God’s moral rightness. Is God righteous because God acts in ways that we judge as morally right, or is God deemed righteous simply because God is the powerful creator who has the “right” to do whatever he chooses with his creatures?

Now, the Hebrew Scriptures attribute some downright awful thi tation on the Abraham/Isaac story by James and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews....

Can one judge God? It seems to me that one must first have the power to stand in judgment to begin with as well as having the capacity to internalize the data with which to make a "righteous" judgement. As God's creation, however, we fall woefully short in both categories. If we are honest with ourselves then we will admit that we are incapable of such judgements yet we continue just as the rabbi's you mention. We then get placed in the position of Job questioning God as to why he allowed certain "bad" things to take place. God would then takes us aside and asks us to tell him first how the foundations of the world were fashioned. Once we were finished giving him the correct answers he then would give us an answer to our questions.

Originally posted by whodey
Can one judge God? It seems to me that one must first have the power to stand in judgment to begin with as well as having the capacity to internalize the data with which to make a "righteous" judgement. As God's creation, however, we fall woefully short in both categories. If we are honest with ourselves then we will admit that we are incapable of such jud ...[text shortened]... finished giving him the correct answers he then would give us an answer to our questions.

You’ve answered with Job.

I answer once again with Abraham, arguing with God over the fate of (the unmentioned children children of) Sodom.

Sorry, Whodey, got to be gone for awhile... Be well.