right should be determined and upheld through philosophy and law rather than the mailed fist of war but some people favor the mailed fist because they can't win any other way.
Might = Right
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
The other criterion is "answers to reason".SAM said:
Don't overlook the kind of influence "might" has, real world. How many people think it's "wrong" - seriously wrong - to eat pigs, swim naked, dance, play cards or musical instruments, drink alcohol, have sex without permission, etc.
I have a few reactions to this.
1) as far as children, pretty much everyone, de facto, agrees that might = right. Parents decide for their children. Teachers do. We may quibble about the full scope of this might = right, but the basic principle is unviersal.
2) on the other hand, no one believes might makes right in all cases, whatever they may say. When they get on the wrong end of a bully, a tax assessor, an invading power, the opposite sex withholding sex, love or something else,
they will express themselves as wrong victims, a concept that will not be an oxymoron to them. If they fully believe might = right, then wronged victim is an oxymoron.
3) how does God fit into this issue? It seems we must accept the conditions and possibly the rules made by God. Why? Because God has the power.
Or?
Oh, sure, the victims might view it that way. But, Doreen, you'll notice, won't you, that the "crime" still happened, didn't it? And thus, might was once again proven as "right" ...regardless of what others might think about it.
See? You seem to be trying to lump everyone on Earth into this and trying to show that not everyone thinks something is "right". It doesn't take everyone. In fact, it takes damned few! If one man has a machine gun pointed at a bunch of people, they're going to say that he's right ...no matter what he says! See? The machine gun makes them agree. The machine gun makes him right. But, sure, on the other side of the world, someone might not agree. But, well, that person doesn't count, do they????
And God? Well, the story isn't over yet, so....
Baron Max
You seem to think that "might" necessarily means armed conflict or military war. No, it's not. "Might" could very well be a large, orderly group of protestors who intimidate the leader or leaders into changing some policy. The leader could very well kill all the protestors, but he can easily see that giving in to a few demands might be far more advantageous than mass murder.
Gandhi used "might" to help India gain independence from Britian. "Might" in the form of millions of "peaceful" marchers and supporters.
Baron Max
So if you were being forcibly sodomized in front of your family and the man behind you asked you if he was in the right, you would have to answer, in all honesty, 'yes, you have the right to do this to me.' You would believe this?
Nope, never did that.
Merely pointing out that everyone gets outraged and potentially seen as whiny about something.
You seem to think I have contradicted this. But they won't believe he is right.
1) not always 2) only in what they say
I guess you don't, since you would be one of those people.
So when you determine who is right, you wait until after they have struggled with those they disagree with. How do you know when it is over?
The struggles around state's rights are still going on, how do you know who is right?
But when, around a certain issue, the individual states or local communities do not have or fail to get this right, you know you supported the wrong side? correct?
...LOL!!! No, Doreen, that's not the issue at all. But let's view it that way anyhow, okay? If the man was powerful enough to be butt-fuckin' me or was holding a gun to my head, then, yes, he's obviously the one in control. If he asked me, and threatened to kill me if I didn't agree, then I'd say "Yes, sir, you're right!"
Don't matter what they believe, Doreen, as long as they don't come right out and say it. But you must believe that if he asks them, then they'll agree and say that he's right. You know it, I know it, the UN knows it,.......
Baron Max
Look. Are you going to be an honorable conversation partner or not. I said 'honestly'. Would you actually think he was right?
Hello. I said no one believes might makes right in all situations. I did not say that people won't lie about what they believe. Please respond to what I am saying in the future or I will ignore you.
No, not necessarily. People, any people, can make claims of "right" any time they want to. But it's when that determination makes a difference is where and when it counts.
For example, the UN passes resolutions all the time about right and wrong. They've passed numerous bullshit resolutions about human rights and child rights, etc. But those bullshit words don't mean shit, and didn't change a freakin' thing! The "might" is still abusing humans and little kids all over the world. See? Might makes right. The UN has no power, so nothing they say has any meaning at all to anyone who doesn't care.
Doreen, what's right today might well ultimately be wrong tomorrow. You or anyone can make your determinations of right and wrong any time you wish, usig any criteria that you want. But when you're in teh thick of things is when it matters ......and that's when might makes right. You can think that it's wrong, but when the man with the power asks, you'll agree with him or you won't be around tomorrow. See? Might makes right.
Baron Max
I was being honest! I said he was wrong ....but the important thing is that it doesn't matter what I think at the time that it's happening .......because it's still happening!! Right or wrong, it's still happening.
I believe that might makes right in all situations, all the time. The problem you're having is translating that to mean that once such a decision is made, then it can't ever be changed. That's wrong!
Look at it this way; if I'm being butt-fucked as you mentioned above, while it's going on and while the man has the gun to my head, he's right! But then when the cops show up and disarm him, then I'll tell the cops what that guy did and that it was wrong. Ahh, and now, since the cops have the guns (the might), then they (and me) are right. Same issue, different time, different idea of "right" by the same people.
Baron Max
You did not answer the question. The question is, when a state or local community lose a right you think they should have do you then believe you were wrong. You want to discuss this issue on an objective level. My whole point is that whatever people say objectively, when it comes down to it they can believe they were wronged. And I doubt you are an exception.
Sure, I don't disagree with that. It just has nothing to do with the point I was making earlier.
No, you don't. See your response above.
I am making no such judgment. I am talking about how people think.
And you contradicted yourself again.
So if the cops fucked you and the DA believes them when they say they did not, you would believe they were right.
Maybe later if you get the FBI to look into and they agree with you then you would start believing you were right again.
Come on.
My point is that everyone, including you will, in some situations feel they are right even when they cannot enforce this rightness. That's it. It is very simple. You want to shift this to a discussion of objective right and wrong,which is another topic. Anyone who says might makes right will find themselves in a situation, sooner or later, where they do not agree. They will believe they are a wrong victim. And hell, the very powerful and rich tend to be rather easily put in this situation.
But if the leaders of a society or community take something from the people, then that something is gone ....and thus might makes right. The people can all think and talk amongst themselves and claim that it was wrong for the leaders to take that something from them. But if they do nothing to get that something back, then again, might makes right.
Now, ....if the people get together and kick leaders out of office and restore that something to the people, then it looks like all is well, doesn't it? Ahh, but notice that the people used force/power to get that something back. See? Might makes right.
Now if the leaders go out and get some vicious mercenaries and come back and kill a bunch of the people and take away that same something again, then .....yep, once again, on the same issue, just a differnt time, ...might makes right.
Notice, Doreen, that it doesn't matter what someone on the other side of the world might think about the issue ...they don't count!
Baron Max
Again...
you act like this in some way contradicts something I have said. It does not. If you are simply sharing ideas that do not contradict something I said, fine. If you think they contradict something I said, you are wrong.
And yet they're still the victim!!! Which means, conclusively, that might makes right. ...regardless of what the victim thinks. What happened is due to the might of the perpetrator. What happened to the victim is due to the might of the perpetrator. Until that might has switch to someone else, then the might has still won ....and is right.
Baron Max
The (social) “institutions” are the ones like marriage, trade, military, education/schools, and governance/political parties, etc.
Slavery and apartheid are not institutions in any scale of definition. They are regimes, ideologies, political and/or social “programmes”. They are designed to activate social institutions according to their model.
Simply: because they became useless, immoral, and inefficient for the system. At the end of the day, “people in power” are not immune from the system and/or from their contemporary elements.
Slavery was "normal" thing, when slavery was effective. Because "normal" thing was defined as such, and there was no universal "norms" and principles yet. Might could not stay "out there" being ignorant about general understanding of its citizens. Not for long, at least. Every regime, every ideology or model can be modified (slowly or radically), so do roles and percepeptions of ordinary people. Slavery was normal, might was built on this; slavery is not normal now, no might can be established on slavery today. Because it's not an institution, it's just a model.
You really don't understand my point. You cannot seem to understand that I am not saying there is objective right and wrong in the situation. I am saying what people believe, including you, as verified above. I'm sorry. You are wasting my time.
Yes, but when? When do people believe whatever it is they believe? Or are you suggesting that once someone believes something, that they can never change their minds??? That's what it seems to me that you're saying -- that once a person believes something, that's it, never can that change.
Baron Max