The might is always just

Syzygys said:
The Might is Always Just

So slaveowners were Just because they had the power. It was justice to have taken the slaves.

Later when they had them taken away slave owning was no longer just. But we can't treat this retroactively and say it WAS unjust to have the slaves, because the slaves had less power.

Is that it?

And slaves who thought it was unjust to be owned, they were wrong? Their ideas about this were incorrect because they had less power?

Abolitionists when they had less power than the slaveholders were making unjust assertions about the morality of slavery?

It sound like you think we should all think like some collective mind.
Click to expand...
 
Grantywanty said:
Is that it?
Click to expand...

Yeap.

And slaves who thought it was unjust to be owned, they were wrong? Their ideas about this were incorrect because they had less power?
Click to expand...

There is no objective morality.

What you or others THINK of an event as just or unjust really doesn't matter as much as what the powerful DOES about it.

The might is just = The powerful evaluates/writes history
 
Syzygys said:
Yeap.



There is no objective morality.

What you or others THINK of an event as just or unjust really doesn't matter as much as what the powerful DOES about it.

The might is just = The powerful evaluates/writes history
Click to expand...


He has put forward an objective definition of morality. He says that might defines it. He is saying that we can determine what is just by looking at the winners. If you are correct than basically he is saying the winners won. Where does morality enter the picture? I could just as easily say might is unjust. Where does he get the right to determine morality, given your objections to mine? Morality should logically fall out of the picture. It adds nothing to the discussion.

A further question is who cares? What possible use is his definition of justice?
The abolitionists should of course have ignored such definitions.

History is written by members of dominant groups and members of other groups.
 
History is written by historians. Humans whom can make mistakes and have an agenda. The best of them have a truth agenda.

The problem is, some ego maniac eventually comes along and burns/destroys books/ideas he doesn't like. This is how the "strong" write history.
 
nietzschefan said:
History is written by historians.

The problem is, some ego maniac eventually comes along and burns/destroys books/ideas he doesn't like. This is how the "strong" write history.
Click to expand...

Or punishes (threatens to punish) publishers who go against official history.
Or who engage in massive legal, propaganda etc. campaigns against the writers or publishers.
Or who control the vast majority of the 'channels' so that alternate and especially accurate views are swallowed and drown in the signal to noise ratio. (to mix metaphors horribly)
 
nietzschefan said:
History is written by historians.
Click to expand...

And unfortunatelly historians can be wrong or have an agenda A simple example is today's general evaluation of the civil war and Lincoln's role in it.

Most historians think that it was fought for freeing the slaves and Lincoln was a hero, although real/objective historians know it better...

Just because his agenda happens to agree with today's political correct view, it doesn't mean he was right or just by starting the agression against the Southern states....
 
Syzygys said:
Just because his agenda happens to agree with today's political correct view, it doesn't mean he was right or just by starting the agression against the Southern states....
Click to expand...

But since he won, doesn't that necessarily mean he was right and just?
I don't get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top