Does might make right?
While Machiavellianism is usually either frowned upon and/or found to be ..unsettling most members of the philosophy community as well as the public at large the concepts and the tactics taught by such a system of belief are more or less still being employed by those who have power as well as those who wish to obtain it.
Although I personally find Machiavellianism distasteful I realize it is often closer to the truth than I want to believe and regardless of anything else it serves as a counter weight against beliefs that can be too idealistic. I often wonder if too many people were machiavellianistic , selfish, overly competitive, etc. that society might collapse and that would mean that such beliefs could be counter productive, but I guess that could be said of any religion or beliefs in certain situations.
At any rate I wonder if anyone on the forum as any input on this issue. For example, it seems that nobody wants to fight in large world wide conventional wars like WW II anymore, but the major powers in the world seem to either be always involved a small scale conflict and/or participating in aggressive posturing/brinkmanship to better their own nationalistic agendas and/or profits for them and their supporters.
Although I personally find Machiavellianism distasteful I realize it is often closer to the truth than I want to believe and regardless of anything else it serves as a counter weight against beliefs that can be too idealistic. I often wonder if too many people were machiavellianistic , selfish, overly competitive, etc. that society might collapse and that would mean that such beliefs could be counter productive, but I guess that could be said of any religion or beliefs in certain situations.
At any rate I wonder if anyone on the forum as any input on this issue. For example, it seems that nobody wants to fight in large world wide conventional wars like WW II anymore, but the major powers in the world seem to either be always involved a small scale conflict and/or participating in aggressive posturing/brinkmanship to better their own nationalistic agendas and/or profits for them and their supporters.
Comments (60)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181704?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I think I agree with Socrates analysis in that "raw power/desire" isn't always the BEST way to resolve what should and shouldn't be done, but there needs to be some kind of temperance of one kind or another to better understand what OUGHT to be done. Or another way to put it, raw power+nothing= less power when compared to power+temperance. It is the same as the idea as a battle or war will not always go to the country with more men and resources but instead it MAY go to the country who is best able to use such resources.
But Machiavelli already takes this into account when he talks about two aspects of the prince needs to take on: the first one is a gentle and kind person he portrays to the general public and the other one is described as the "fox"/animal which is the one who..is willing to break a few eggs to make an omelette so to speck. If you have the first without the second the prince is either a fool and/or just another pleb an may not have what it takes to rule. If they are the second without the first they become monster and too much of a threat so others who will likely work together to bring them down.
But other than that what are you own opinions on this subject? Since we are discussing "morality" and what are the proper judgement calls to make your opinion is likely just as valuable as the people your quoting. :D
Well I guess I agree that having an academic discussion with someone pointing a gun to your head will not work: unless perhaps you are someone like Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction.
In order to understand your position better could you specify the certain ideals of Socrates you are referring to? I have not had a lot of experience with either ancient and/or Greek philosophy so my knowledge of it is a bit limited.
When challenged with how people know what such law should be, Socrates later said some people discover it by finding a state of internal harmony. the test of whether the knowledge is true is whether the inner harmony results in outer harmony, which can only be known to those who are by nature philosophers. That was his second assumption, and over time most people have decided that was wrong, but as Plato wrote, only a few people ever discover that, so that was in fact in agreement with what Socrates actually said too.
Socrates' own conclusions as to an ideal political system were however based on everyone accepting that philosophers were wise enough to know when inner and outer harmony are achieved. That has not been shown the case, because people who are not philosophers, as per Socrates' definition, assert that they are, but disagree with Socrates. So the system failed on that case. And that is a very rough summary of the Platonic view on politics.
I believe that most plebs have agreed that justice should be equal for all, however this is not the case for those who have power and can use it in order for themselves to get some leverage. In George Orwell's "Animal Farm" the animals come up with the phrase "All animals are equal", which is then changed to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." when the pigs secure their position of power. The "Animal Farm" I believe is a commentary of the state of society as well as a bit about the human condition.
Whether or nor there can be "justice" when the plebs believe (or forced to believe) in it, but those in power use their resources to circumvent it is debatable. However I believe it is at least noteworthy to point out the why it may be true that "majority" of people may respect the idea of justice, the people with power (and perhaps the only one's who CAN choose to accept or reject justice) more often than not reject the idea of justice when it suits their needs and undermines any justice that may of been had. Which also undermines the whole theory of most people CHOOSING to accept justice be dished out equally, although it doesn't completely undermine it and is more of just an issue with the idea.
If the first principle is undermined then it is unlikely that the others would be obeyed either. I think it is kind of a mixed result because there is no standard definition of a "philosopher" as it is not a title that anyone can give themselves. There are those of us who study philosophy and perhaps write about it, but try to avoid claiming to be a "philosopher" as it is only something that someone can say that you are and not something you can declare yourself to be.
However even if those in power don't always use philosophers, they do employ advisers who sort of fill a potential position for a philosopher. Also some people in power choose to either be educated or learn enough to be a philosopher themselves, but I'm sure this is not the same thing as getting council by a philosopher. Whether or not advisers or being educated/self-taught are "close enough" to having advice from real philosophers (since rulers even before Socrates's time already used these tactics), I thought it is worth mentioning that although they may not use actual "philosophers" it isn't true that they don't use anyone who fills a sort of similar capacity when those in power rely on some kind of adviser who is often an expert in one or more fields.
Socrates ideals work when people more or less have no choice but to accept them, but doesn't work so well when people have a chance at of creating double standards for their own advantage.Whatever this means if one was to compare what Socrates believes when compared to what Machiavelli says, I leave that to you and anyone reading this to decide.
Agreed
On the other forum account I had as one of my quotes on my footer the following
“Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied,
And vice sometime by action dignified.” ? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
Virtue blindly followed can become vice if one isn't careful, and vice when used properly or the right time could be acceptable (even if it isn't virtuous). I wish I could find the quote I'm looking for where
Kierkegaard mentions that certain ethical choices are like "walking a tight rope", but I was unable to do so at the moment. I guess that I can leave it at that simply doing 'good' or 'evil' actions themselves are either 'good'/'evil' but it is the context that such actions on done that determines such things; and unfortunately we are not always privy to which is which under every circumstance.
If you ever seen the movie "Primer" (where two guys invent and create a time machine in their own lab), who decide to use their time machines under certain rules and end up having to break their rules as well as their friendship in order to do what they felt was "right" even if it wasn't what was ideal for either of them. I guess such a dilemma is a situation where normal ethics don't really work, and instead they end up having to walk Kierkegaard's tight rope between ethics and faith, or perhaps something else.
What do you think Dawkins was countering? His was hardly a work of philosophy let alone of ethics.
The modern world is full of apologias for selfishness, especially 'enlightened' (ha!) self-interest. The primary one for me was Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, an 18th century explication (in verse) of how the morality of the self-centred dandy and self-admiring narcissist lay at the core of modern enterprise, i.e. how vice has become purported virtue in the modern age. It was recommended by Joan Robinson, an armchair Communist and economist at Cambridge, who lectured me in my youth, as the ethical key to capitalism.
Mariner on the old forum explained this rather well in religious terms. If goodness was always rewarded and evil always punished, then it would be mere selfishness to be good, and even evil people would be good. It is the business of government to try and arrange things in this way, so that there is less evil in the world, but it is not natural, or God's will. God will not purchase our virtue by bribery, nor compel it with punishment. The law of nature is that the scum always floats to the top, and the precious metals sink to the bottom.
Unsurprisingly it can be in the interest of the mighty and their lackeys to make everyone believe that might makes right, as a means to maintain their might.
Another kind of might, however, is the might of being right: when right makes might.
The scum has all the precious metals so that means everything is at the top
... or at the bottom
Let us address the most basic issue.
The only reason I ponder over definitions and meaning is to learn. The reason I wish to learn is to gain more control over my affairs. The reason I want to control my affairs is to become happier. So in the end my purpose is to be more happy.
When a person, greedy for wealth or power puts me into a disadvantage position, I have no control over his attitude. But whether I do such things to others, when I have the opportunity, is the question in front of me. Would my greed add to my happiness, or subtracts from it?
We all know that fear reduces happiness. Now, greed is the flipside of fear. It is fear of not having enough. What we feel is what we become. Nursing the fear of future increases it. A gain of million makes us feel bigger, in that, we could buy more than before. Once we test the fruit of the million, we may want to get ten million, and then a hundred, and so on. You see, greed is a fire that spreads as we feed it. Once we get enough for sustenance, to crave for more makes us unhappy. This does not mean that we reject what comes over way in the rightful manner. But greed makes us deceitful. Deceit results from fear.
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you' are not just empty words. What goes around does come around. Arrogance always outreaches it self in the end, bringing misery.
Machiavellianism made Europe hungry for power, culminating into devastating world wars, which basically produced nothing but losers. The greed sent them conquering the world, to acquire wealth and resources. That made the left-out belligerent nations (Germany. Italy, Etc.) feared the winners in the game. In the game of greed, all involved lose.
This was a much earlier work of Dawkins. I did eventually find the model for the interaction on the Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory#Hawk_Dove
That is of course assuming that there is a "God" as well as assuming that is his will in which neither one is really a given when one considers all the other potential possibilities. Also IF God exists and what Mariner says is true then morality is merely "arbitrary" then even following God's will is neither here nor there, because God happens to be bi-polar and some days decides to punish those that wish to obey him and reward those that rebel and other days vice versa. It is also ironic that supposedly he didn't wish to reward those that tried to make morality consistent yet that is EXACTLY what he happened to do with science making it so that people that can follow the rules of SCIENCE be able to get whatever rewards they they need IF the obey the rules of nature and physics well enough to build factories and what not if one tires of having to pray to a God who one moment wants you to pray to him and the next minute will punish you for doing so.
Or maybe the whole bi-polar God thing is just an excuse created centuries ago in order to deal with questions and issues that where to complex at the time, and they merely left it at that because it was too difficult to accept that the world , as well as morality, is often FAR more complicated than we wish it to be. Although when I think about it, having to deal with either a very, very complicated universe or a bi-polar/mad God neither option sounds that great. Perhaps it is best for me to just leave this post with Nietzsche's "fellow creators" quote since I'm sure he was able to put it into words more eloquently than I can:
"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." ? Friedrich Nietzsche
Well not really, it's just a convenient way of putting it - rephrase it all in terms of nature if you like. The point is, if crime didn't pay, criminals wouldn't commit it; if kindness was rewarded, they'd do that instead.
Quoting dclements
Well that explains why morality is not science or economics. There is no choice about the rules of science, step off a cliff, and you will obey the law of gravity - believe it or not.
Someone can point a gun at me and give me the choice of accepting that the Earth is flat or not, killing me if I say the Earth is round. But that doesn't make them right - just someone who is wrong that happens be holding a gun.
This idea of "might makes right" only becomes a dilemma for those that believe that the power behind a belief is more than the actual relationship between the belief and the way things actually are.
Truth cannot be realized by means of tradition, authority or revelation - only by logic and reason.
That's a little too simplistic as well. If one has might that makes them right, right up to the point when when an angry lynch mob has MORE MIGHT and and gets a hold of your sorry backside and strings you up, at which point THEY ARE RIGHT. Or as some people sometimes put it, live by the sword - die by the sword. Which may (or may not) be the best circumstance given certain situations.
I think you have to elaborate as to how "right makes might", since in my experience might can take many forms and although might obviously "makes might", it is in no way a given that right does unless one is using the would "right" as a synonym for one of the various forms of might; such as I used for the lynch mob; which of course may or may not actually be 'right' under various circumstances.
I think I can sort of agree, every person in their own way does what they think is right (criminals committing crimes to punish the weaker and/or strong for whatever reasons, and the valuables they steal is their just payment for the work/risks they take) as well as people NOT being kind because they feel that such actions will likely create more problems as well. However this begs the question as to whether this is the will of God or if it is caused by nature.
To this I have something I like to call the virus theory in that the perceive/moral agent can never know whether their actions are really "good" or "bad" but still has to be moral agent of some sort. The idea is that since life itself is dependent on DNA/RNA but errors with some of these slices of code are the cause of viruses (ie the DNA/RNA and their duplication mechanisms have no idea of what they are for other than a cells duplication mechanisms knows in it's own way that it is their job to duplication certain part of the DAN/RNA code to support a cells function) it stands to reason that beyond a certain threshold we can only speculate as to what certain unknown knowns and unknown unknowns mean and we are unable to really account for such things. That plus human fallibility as well as the human condition as well should be enough to give most human beings pause in deciding what their actions should be, given of course said person knowns enough about such issues and has time to pause while making a decision.
I think Kierkegaard referred to this as part of the reason man is afraid/does not want his own freedom is at any moment the could become "unhinged" for whatever reason and become a Frankenstein type monster, just as Bruce Banner would change into the Hulk when he got too angry/stressed out. I think many people would be more than willing to sell their souls and/or whatever they can do to make the world a better place, but at the same time they are hindered at the idea as what they may become once they step outside of the world they are use to and potentially becoming some kind of monster that they fear if they for some reason are ungrounded.
I don't know if this is the same thing as you are referring to as God not making it easy to know what is or isn't God's will but from what understand of the bible, God gave Abraham one of the greatest trials he could give a human being and from what I understand about what you are saying and from the things I just said, these things more or less apply the same way to the ordeal that Abraham went through.
Quoting unenlightened
Or it could also mean we are still too ignorant for it to be used as we would like science. At the moment "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it" (ie. morality is somewhat arbitrary in regard to certain issues), but THEORETICALLY at least if we had better understanding of our universe and a better hedonistic calculus/game theory to work off of perhaps we could do a little better. Perhaps Nietzsche said it best with this quote:
""Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under..." --Nietzsche
We may not be the end process of that which has come before us, but hopefully we will all for something to come after which will be able to overcome SOME of our shortfalls to some degree. Of course, this is not a given either but merely a hope.
Sure, for example, when the explanatory power of an argument trumps someone's will power, then right makes might.
Does might make right? It depends if you are asking with respect to description or prescription. A descriptive statement is simply saying what is, making a mere observation. A prescriptive statement is saying what ought to be.
Machiavellianism is correct as a description of human history, as you pointed out; but it is wrong as a prescription for moral behaviour, because it violates the golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you want them to do onto you.
But even if the "explanatory power of an argument trumps someone's will power" that DOESN'T mean it is a GIVEN that it WILL be ENOUGH to overcome one's INDIFFERENCE AND/OR IGNORANCE.
Yes, under certain conditions the ability for one to be diplomatic and persuasive can be used INSTEAD of BRUTE force, but it isn't a given that it can ALWAYS be used instead. As Ted Roosevelt was know for saying "I speak softly, but carry a big stick" (ie I can use words or force depending on what is required for a situation). However this is merely a FORM of MACHIAVELLIAN ideals and not something to replace them.
Big Stick ideology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
You see, Machiavellianism ( as well as Sun Tzu's The Art of War) already considers the POSSIBILITY of there being advantages of using diplomacy instead of war because going to war when it isn't needed could be a waste of resources, and the loss of such resources could in theory cause one to not be able to fight ANOTHER conflict if that conflict is unavoidable. However avoiding wars for such reasons isn't about being a NICE guy but more about using cold blooded calculations to maximize one's own security.
If I'm missing something or my analysis is incorrect please let me know.
I like to think of myself as a nice guy and since I was a kid I think I have been taught that it is best to be nice whenever I can, and perhaps sometimes even when it doesn't seem like the best thing for me to do. However I often find myself in situations where other people do not behave the same way and I wonder if it is best to just be an a-hole right back at them, or as they say "when in Rome do as the Romans do" (not that I'm implying that Romans are a-holes or jerks, or at least any more than the rest of us are).
I guess what I'm getting at is although there are some metrics that can be used to determine what description statement and/or actions are, the same is not true of prescriptive statement and/or actions which are merely arbitrary moral rules/behavior created by society as a sort of "rule of thumb" behavior to deal with the occasional break down of normal communication/negotiations, but are COMPLETELY ineffective when dealing with a there is a total social breakdown, people that wish to use brinkmanship, social manipulators, etc, etc.
If I'm missing something or you need to elaborate on your previous post let me know.
Can you expand on your position more than that in order so we know WHY you disagree instead of merely knowing that you do disagree?
At least since Machiavelli's time and earlier, [May 3, 1469 - June 21, 1527 -- an opportunity to celebrate his birth or death is coming up] several mighty groups have been in a position to define what is right for themselves and for us: property owners (especially those with a lot of property), the rulers put in place or supported in place by property owners (lords, kings, bishops, presidents, prime ministers, Hauptfuhrers, etc.), money lenders (to whom do we lend and to whom do we not lend), capitalists, factory owners, legal departments, and so on.
The Rights of The People are protected in principle, and in some areas in fact, but are often undermined by the same mechanisms (legislatures, legal systems, etc.) that protect the people's rights.
Were "The Revolution" to succeed, the might of The People would be turned against the might of property and wealth, stripping them of wealth and power and with no more right than the proles once had. It seems right, does it not, that if The People can overcome their oppressors, they should dispossess the wealthy of their power to oppress?
It would appear that might does make right.
If everyone were only out for their own self interest, then culture & society could not exist (one of Socrates responses to Thrasymachus). Honor among thieves is required in order for society to cohere, which is why we have laws (the might) to suppress those nogoodniks.
Your concern about dealing with a-holes is noted. I will give you my full position on this: The golden rule is an absolute in morality, and is an effective tool in conflicts, even with a-holes. There is always a way to deal with any situations without breaking the golden rule, even if the solution is not always easy to find. I will try to explain how it is so.
Let's unpack the rule: It is not synonymous to being an extreme pacifist or a push-over. It simply answers "yes" to the question "Would I like a similar treatment under a similar situation?". Thus a-holes can be penalized, but justly, not by being a-holes back at them. Example: You murder my wife. I could murder your wife in return, but this would be responding to an unjust act with an unjust act. Instead, I will catch you and put you in jail for a long time. This does not break the golden rule because out of justice, I would like to be treated the same way if I murdered someone.
This is true, but the laws themselves are based on justice and not the opposite way around, aren't they? When the laws allowed for slavery and apartheid, they were unjust laws. Therefore right makes might. Otherwise, the phrase "unjust law" is logically meaningless.
Can might get you what you want and make people believe you? Sure it can. Can the money in your bank account, your ten million soldier army, 75 thousand nuclear warheads, and freakin laser beams from space make your math equations correct? The memory of where your left your keys accurate? Your perception of those around you and their feelings towards you more true? You metaphysical positions more factual?
In any real sense of "right", then of course not. But, yeah, you certainly will find it easier to get what you want and make people believe you.
True, society could not exist without at least minimal cooperation among the members. But that is neither right or wrong: it's just a requirement. Coherence and non-coherence have to be approximately in balance for the society to go on. Many little, sub-societies come and go as these two factors swing too far out of balance.
When do right, might, strong, and wrong become issues? When we get past the minimal requirements of coherence and non-coherence.
So, the honorable band of thieves preying on caravans settles down into a small village (because the caravan-robbing business dried up) and starts growing non-GMO kale, organic quinoa, and unmedicated free range chickens. The necessity for cooperation is now much higher; the old regime of honor among thieves was too anarchic.
Early settlement is roughly the moment when people begin to need organization that is more complicated than honor among thieves. It's possible that the former thieves will democratically coordinate the kale, quinoa, and chickens, divide up the proceeds in a completely proportional manner, and allocate left-over resources for research and development. It's also possible that a strongman will emerge who will provide the new community with a system of organization that suits him and his clique. The kale, quinoa, and chicken operation will be about the same either way.
It's more likely that strong-man rule will emerge because democratic decision making is less efficient (if not less effective), requires sophisticated thinking among all the participants, and is time consuming. Strongman rule is faster (if less effective), requires sophistication among only a few participants, and for the community, takes no time at all--just the time it takes to hear their marching orders.
The interests of the strong man and his clique, and their ability to enforce their decisions, are the kernel of autocratic "might makes right". If democratic decision making prevails, then the basis of rightness will rest in the might of the whole group. Democratic or autocratic might will define what is right, and as many have discovered, democratic might can be as unfavorable to outliers as autocratic might can be.
Martin Luther King, as well as Socrates submitted to the might of the law (I am not sure Socrates was not guilty of the charges against him, but Plato does not present that view), both made examples of themselves, to demonstrate to society the unfairness of its laws:
King's bid for social justice became the law of the land, with a huge social upheaval which is still with us, there is great strength in weakness.
[of course only certain types of weakness]
To whom were they unjust? The owners of slaves? No. The slaves? Since when do slaves have rights? Slavery is just if the slave society defines it as just. Apartheid is just if the apartheid regime says it is just. And they did.
What changed the "justice" of slavery and apartheid in slave and apartheid regimes was either overwhelming opposition to slavery and apartheid in other regimes, expressed through legislation, trade embargoes, or armed resistance. In all cases, those who had the most might were able to define what was right.
Might deciding what is right often results in an expansion of liberty (emancipation, desegregation, integration) and a redefinition of what had been deemed morally wrong. Gays can't be discriminated against in hiring and housing, (if such rules are locally in effect), and marriage between gays is now legal in some countries. "Physically weak and defective persons" have been granted protection by the might of the state, such that buildings must install elevators, ramps, and wider doors so that people in wheelchairs can have access. Were these changes brought about by the might of wheelchair users? Hardly.
Hardly, but cripples, the blind, the retarded, the deformed, etc. have another sort of power: the ability to place a claim on the attention of the fit and able-bodied. This hasn't always existed, of course: Per Dickens...
I won't take anything away from any of the leaders and marchers who strove mightily to overcome southern resistance to the legitimate demands of very disadvantage blacks, but the civil rights campaign won to a large extent because the Federal Government finally decided to use federal power to force the south to accept change.
Federal power was exercised through Supreme Court Decisions (not just decisions to rule segregation illegal, but court orders to integrate, or else), armed federal or national guard troops lined up at the entrances to high schools, FBI investigation of murders and bombings, federal civil rights law, and so on. The same thing happened in the north - Boston, for instance, would never have agreed to various busing schemes to achieve integration if they hadn't been forced by the Supreme Court to do so. [Busing was a very cumbersome solution.]
That being said, if it hadn't been for King, the Southern Christian Leadership Committee, and various other groups, the federal government (like, during the Kennedy administration) probably wouldn't have done much.
God Himself loses His keys.
I know, right? I think that when it's me though, it's just that Mandela effect, where I've like quantum jumped to a parallel reality where my keys are somewhere different than I remember. See, the universe is wrong, never me.
Social justice has a conscience. King's genius lied in his ability to align and weave the Declaration of Independence with the Bible into a very christian/nationalistic theme (after all it was the religious who gave the colonists the 'right' to treat blacks and natives as subhuman), King aligned human law with de facto human justice, and judges and politicians were forced to realize their unfairness to blacks and others. They jonesed for the might of his rhetorical approach (ha!) and adopted it as their own, quickly rereading the Constitution. Weakness that rests on justice has might, in the right hands it is hard to beat down, or stay beaten down for long. Gandi, Christ, et al.
Who are these religious who granted the colonists the right to treat blacks and natives as subhuman? Good Christians didn't need permission to engage in slavery. Slavery, after all, was an acknowledged condition in the New Testament, it had existed in England in post Roman times, and it existed elsewhere in the world.
Slavery existed in England before the North American colonies were established (prior to 1600). English ships began the African slave trade -- again before 1600. Aside from outright slavery, labor as punishment for criminal convictions came very close to slavery. Indentured or 'transported' workers could be bought and sold. They did have some minimal rights, while slaves had zero rights
Slavery made good business sense, as long as slaves were the cheapest most malleable labor one could get. It didn't need a religious cover. My guess is that few slave owners actually believed that their slaves were not pretty much human. They needed to distance themselves from the people they owned and (fairly often) with whom they interacted sexually. One could argue that their hatred of blacks after the civil war might stemmed in part from the guilt they bore as slave owners.
I'm not trying to let religious people in the North American colonies off the hook. They were not just complicit, they were actively involved, in northern colonies like Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well as in the south. The Bible is long enough to provide cover for all sorts of things--like the liberation of slaves, as well as enslavement.
I agree, however ancient Romans & Greeks were not racist (as I understand it). It took Christianity to start racism, the curse of Ham.
How did Christianity do that? Are there any other factors in Western Civ that might have a leading role?
If the Greeks or Romans were not racist, what kept them from it?
Yes, that is my understanding and there appears to be plenty of online references to back it up.
That Old Black Magic, got them in a spell, they saw black as evil.
I don't think it occurred to the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians et al...Ham was the father of the black people, he and his descendants were cursed to be slaves because of his sin against Noah,and some Christians said, "Africans and their descendants are destined to be servants, and should accept their status as slaves in fulfillment of biblical prophecy."
In which case, was it a just act for the nazis to kill the jews in Germany under the nazi regime?
Quoting Bitter Crank
And why were the other regimes and armed resistance in opposition to slavery and apartheid, if not because they thought that these laws were unjust? If so, then right judges might, or a priori justice determines if the laws are just or not.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are now arguing for "right judges might" instead of "might makes right", as seen in the following quotes. Am I correct?
Of course it was not just. However...
The Nazis, born into a nation noted for its thorough systematic methods, were careful to establish a judicial cover in accordance with their racial hatreds. What they were doing was "authorized" and "legal" and for "the good of Germany". Whether individuals fell into the hands of the Gestapo for being pessimistic about the war, whether they were Jews discovered in a cellar, or whether they were an entire Jewish ghetto, procedures were followed, more or less.
Had the Nazis prevailed (they could have, had everything gone according to plan) the might of the Third Reich would have validated the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Jehovahs Witnesses, homosexuals, Slavs, criminals, asocials, etc. We would not now, 70+ years later, be debating this--just like Turkey is not debating the Armenian genocide a century ago. Just like Americans are not debating the American Indian exterminations which were concluded around 125 years ago.
Regardless of who wins, though, people are free to judge others by their own standards. Israelis feel imminently justified in the establishment of Israel. The Palestinians are not obliged to agree with them. We are not obliged to agree with the Turkish people that there was no Armenian genocide. No one had to approve of the apartheid regime of South Africa. The white rulers of South Africa thought it was appropriate. Lots of people didn't.
Most communities follow a a double standard: The winners generally get away with their crimes. The losers are punished for theirs. No one has punished the United States for exterminating Indians. We won. The Germans were punished for killing the Jews because they lost.
Communities usually give themselves moral cover. Americans did not (many do not) generally think that we were exterminating Indians. We were defending ourselves from the Indians, or moving the Indians out of the way of progress, or just killing a lot of buffalo for the hides, or just clearing the land. We certainly weren't committing a crime against humanity.
Yes, I guess so, good pick up.
Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union Address
February 27, 1860
I found the following note fascinating, regarding Lincoln's speech from an observer:
I agree that under certain conditions when someone needs to do what needs to be done and/or break a few eggs to make an omelette, certain lesser evils by those who have power can be used to undermine someone else who potentially will do something worse as well as lynch mobs are justified under certain conditions to overthrow there oppressive leaders with violence if necessary.
But even under Machiavellianism/Sun Tzu's Art of War there are'right' and 'wrong' ways of using power. IMHO people that have power often use it to remain in power and to have leverage over others, and that can be worse then intelligently applied Machiavellianism; if there is such a thing.
It may be a little idealistic but I believe there may be a middle way between tyranny and utopia (or some other kind of society that is too nice/peace for it's own good) where people are experienced and skilled enough to do what needs to be done when it comes to security but also open and free enough to allow for most of it's people to reach their full potential. Supposedly the industrial countries of the world are a model of this but I believe this is more of a facade then the actual truth.
Sometimes the noble bearers of goodness, truth, and light have arranged to be well armed, and manage to vanquish the forces of darkness, falsehoods, and evil. At other times the nobles end up in a gulag somewhere, or worse. Ecclesiastes says, "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Whether we are right or wrong, strong or weak, we can't be altogether sure of how we will fare in the conflicts to come.
There are clearly advantages to being mighty, and having the prerogative to write history, at least for a while. We have to decide whether we'd rather be right (whether we win or not). Personally, I'd rather be right, even if it means a trip to the gulag.
I think you are saying that might makes these acts legal, authorizes them, calls them good, and gets away with them. To this, I agree. But I think "might makes right" translates to "might makes an act objectively just", and to that, I disagree. We can determinate the justice of an act by testing if it passes or fails the golden rule: Do onto others as you want them to do onto you.
- Nazis exterminating the Jews, Gypsies, Jehovahs Witnesses, homosexuals, Slavs, criminals: fail.
- Apartheid regime of South Africa, even if the white rulers of South Africa thought it was appropriate: fail.
- Armenian genocide: I am guessing fail. I don't know much about this one.
- Israelis feel imminently justified in the establishment of Israel: maybe, this is a matter of facts I think.
- The United States exterminating Indians: fail, unless they attempted every other possible ways to make peace, which I doubt.
I too like to think that the (modern) man-made laws of justice are based on the natural laws of objective justice. Also when in doubt for a particular act, there is always the good old golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you want them to do onto you.
The English, Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish explorers and colonists could have treated the native peoples of the western hemisphere as tribes, communities, and individuals with an established right to hold their lands securely, but that would have conflicted with their own intentions as a people. They didn't go to the new world on holiday -- they were there to make money, and as much of it as possible as fast as possible.
Individual explorers often got on rather well with the native peoples, partly because they were no more than a small canoe full, and not a big ship worth. But en masse, no -- not much chance of the golden rule kicking in.
I think we agree enough and you are aware enough of the issue(s) for me not want to argue with you more than I have already. :)
I think the golden rule applies to all groups: individuals, companies, states, etc.
Of course, the complexity is increased when more members are involved, and so this makes its application challenging, but not impossible. When it comes to conflicts between states, the Just War Theory applies, which is an adaptation of the golden rule specific to wars. It is summarized as such:
- Just cause: Reason to go to war must be justified.
- Competent authority: The government must know the facts correctly.
- Right intention: The goal is to restore peace in the long run.
- Last resort: All alternative peaceful measures to prevent the war have been exhausted.
- Proportionality: The war-option may not cause more evil than the no-war option.
This is the theory. In practice, I am sure there can be really sticky situations like being an honest german soldier during the nazi regime; in which case the 'right thing to do that will result in a successful outcome' is not easy to find.
Wouldn't we have to start with a known wrong and then demonstrate that the application of force makes that know wrong... right.
For example. In what situation does the application of force make 2 = 6 objectively right?
[B]Might is Right[/b]
The above phrase probably means physical power in terms of the military/police that can be used to enforce a moral doctrine on people. You might want to add the power of psychological manipulation to that.
However, philosophically, the ideal form, morality isn't about such things. Moral philosophy is about rationaly analysis of the subject of ethics. A convincing argument or a counter-argument is what morality should be based on.
So, while it may be true that might is right, that physical force and psychological manipulation work in imposing a particular brand of ethics, such a situation doesn't last. The mind is a powerful thing and once it starts thinking it'll eventually see through all the tricks and games of power play. Hasn't this happened already? Yes, in some countries and no in others but it is inevitable.
Might is right but only temporarily which implies that might never really was/is right.