Might = Right

S.A.M.

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
I read some posts here on how might makes right. They were scattered across different fora and referred to various disparate conditions such as statehood, morality and the legality of enforced gratuitous tipping.

One of the major issues I have with this principle is that I have seen the same principle at work in the institution of the caste system, slavery, child marriage, the abandonment or sati of widows, colonialism/apartheid as well as child labour and abortion[who is more powerless than a child that is yet to be born?]

So I have a question: what do the people who recognise this principle [whether morally or pragmatically] think of these institutions? And what is their opinion on whether the same principle can be used to justify them?

What is their ethical vs pragmatic position?
 
Last edited:
There is a French saying that goes like this " La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure ". I learned this in grade 5 and I still remember it because all actions in our lives prove it true .
 
Sometimes "right" isn't so easy to define, so might settles the matter on a pragmatic level.
 
No one has told me if they think that might justifies any of the issues I mentioned.

Do any of you think slavery, child labour and apartheid is justified by might?

Should power equations determine if women are burned alive with their dead husbands or untouchables killed if their shadow falls on the upper caste?

If might = right, would you accept that these are right in their times?

If yes, why?

If not, why?
 
Might is all ways right but only if you are the one with the might how is that for an answer.
 
In a sick way, might does make right.

On a purely philosophical level, "right" is what we define it as being. There is no static, unbending universal rule on what "right" is. The Universe and Mother Nature have no laws on the matter as they are non-sentient concepts. Nothing matters except that which matters to us. Nobody will mourn our horrors or celebrate our successes but us. In the end, there are those who solemnly believe that the infidels should be put to death, they are certain that they are right. If they were to succeed in their mission, they would teach every succeeding generation how they won over the evil doers, and those generations would believe that they were right. Had the Nazi's won, and exterminated the Jews, each generation afterward would be convinced that the Jews were evil and deserved destruction.

As there is no fixed definition of "right", and it is left to us to decide what right is; it is only logical to conclude that in the end it is might that makes right. We like to think that we are different now, but our "might" is merely applied a bit more softly now (social pressure, education) but the net result is the same: the current moral and ethical trend (the might) has indoctrinated us into thinking what right is.

If there was some moral code that taught us that all women were beasts, to be kept in cages; we would all (or most of us) be convinced that, that was the right way for things to be. In the same way, we are becoming a society where it is required to think of females and males as equals and as such any divergence with that philosophy is attacked readily. Might in the West of forcing gender equality on the East. It's slowly winning out. The East is loosing NOT because its system is obviously wrong, but because the more powerful system of the West is forcing its will upon the East.

~String
 
So you believe anything is right or wrong only because the powers that be decide it is.
 
superstring01 said:
There is no static, unbending universal rule on what "right" is.
Click to expand...


sure there is
it is one of borne out of the application of logic and rationale....would you want the same to be done to you?

answer with honesty and integrity, put it into practice and watch the dawning of a new era in human relations
 
S.A.M. said:
So I have a question: what do the people who recognise this principle [whether morally or pragmatically] think of these institutions? And what is their opinion on whether the same principle can be used to justify them?

What is their ethical vs pragmatic position?
Click to expand...

Pragmatically, SAM? Yes, obviously.


"ethical vs pragmatic position?"
Diametric opposites... :rolleyes:
 
Gustav said:
pragmatism is myopic bullshit
Click to expand...

I agree, Gustav. But just like "imagine a world without any religion", the myopic bullshit is often "just the way it is". We can all wish that it wasn't, do what we can to change it, but meanwhile... :shrug:
 
S.A.M. said:
So you believe anything is right or wrong only because the powers that be decide it is.
Click to expand...

I can come up with formulae for what is right and wrong. I can support the logic of my ideology. I can even demonstrate how such logic is "universal", but that doesn't make it absolute. It would only hold sway if enough people gave it weight over all others.

If the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church had their way, I'd be in prison or dead. To them it's totally logical that me being gay is a horrific sin, deserving of death or mental treatment. This is also the truth for people in many parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East. If their philosophy held sway over the world, they'd be teaching how "logical" it is and demonstrating how right and self-evident it is.

Might usually makes right because, again, there is not single authority on what right is. The universe doesn't give a shit what "right" is. It'll go on creating stars and snuffing them out whether we're here or not. We are inconsequential in the grand scheme of cosmic events. We decide what right is. We always have. Hopefully we'll come to some conclusions about mutual respect and fair (by my definition) treatment of others, but whether we do or do not really doesn't effect the ultimate outcome of events. And while our non-effect-ness on the universe doesn't negate the possibility of a static truth, it certainly doesn't bode well for people trying to establish some cosmic rule of morality that applies to all things.

~String
 
S.A.M. said:
What does that say about institutions like slavery and apartheid?
Click to expand...

It says that we are moving in what you and I think are the right direction--albeit slowly--in abolishing those institutions. I think it will make the world better. I'm sure, however, that there are some credible studies done on what kind of peace could be brought to the world if everybody converted to Islam or if the world were ruled under one fascist state.

~String
 
So people in power have given up these institutions because of what reasons?
 
S.A.M. said:
So people in power have given up these institutions because of what reasons?
Click to expand...

Because, eventually, there came along groups of people with MORE power (or significant enough power) to pressure them into abolishing these institutions. The North won the Civil War against the South. Might certainly made right there. The USA pressured Saudi Arabia to officially ban Slavery mid 20th century. The industrialized world pretty much cut South Africa off which forced that nation to abolish its practices. The West outspent and out maneuvered the Warsaw Pact in almost every way, which forced that system to collapse.

"Good" didn't just prevail. We lucked out, in most cases. If the other guys won. . . "Good" would have prevailed too, because they would have defined good.

~String
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top