Philosophy Might In The End Unfortunately Decides What Is “Right”
- Thread starter CarlManvers2019
- Start date
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
What plowshares do is a sort of might in itself
Needs=Economic Values=Bargaining Power=Pseudo-Force=Force=VIOLENCE!!!!
Terthna
Professional Lurker
My point is that if the threat of violence is the only thing your society is built on; your foundation is one of sand.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
You did see how I count voting or even "non-violence" as being a use of force, if not violence itself
Might does not make right, might enforces right. Except when it enforces wrong.
And plenty of people seem to think that the ability to enforce your opinion of things with might means that your opinions have something going for them.
It's known as the argumentum ad baculum.
And plenty of people seem to think that the ability to enforce your opinion of things with might means that your opinions have something going for them.
It's known as the argumentum ad baculum.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
To the contrary. If you consider all government violence, then good governance - violence used for a good end - creates the conditions necessary for safety, freedom, and prosperity.
I actually do agree with Scottty here. Might enforces right. That's why we need the state or some other form of institutionalized violence to implement the right policies.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
even if might did make right, I doubt most of humanity will go quietly into the night or laugh into it. Humans for the most part are inherently selfish and won't accept the phrase GAME OVER until forced to (and even then not always)
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Yeah, though I think that's why I in part consider "soft power" a form of violence as well alongside the ability to in various ways make people apathetic or control the narrative
Using a whip on someone is nothing compared to getting someone to give the whip to you
Doomsought
Well-known member
The fundamental confusion here is the conflation of morality with law.
Might does not make right, but might does make law.
Morality, like mathematics, is an uncountable set of intrinsically true axioms.
Might does not make right, but might does make law.
Morality, like mathematics, is an uncountable set of intrinsically true axioms.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
That’s kinda why I put quotation marks on the word
Plus, with time, I think lots of people will be socially pressured, brainwashed, self-brainwashed, and so on to think a particular way so they avoid committing suicide over something which if they think over after a few minutes or hours was incredibly horrifying
Abhishekm
Well-known member
Well yeah I kinda though that was obvious. Sure most pursuits into the matter are to find an objective right but thats because most of the 'might' in this day and age consider that 'right'
Morality is whatever enough people believe or some people believe enough in it to be.
Whats morality to one isn't by default moral to another. And what one considers immoral in others won't necessarily get that designation when you yourself indulges. And both the mob and the individual can be morally justified to themselves if they believe it enough.
Have you seen civilians make something without the might to back it up? Does not last that long.
Half agree half disagree with that. Might does make law. But Morality isn't some mathematica axiom or something in my view. Most morality boils down to peoples opinions at the end of the day. Any objective statistic placed on it is in the end just an consensus of public opinion based scale.
Morality is whatever enough people believe or some people believe enough in it to be.
Thats kinda might too you understand. Thats the might of numbers demanding their right be considered moral.
Whats morality to one isn't by default moral to another. And what one considers immoral in others won't necessarily get that designation when you yourself indulges. And both the mob and the individual can be morally justified to themselves if they believe it enough.
Last edited:
Doomsought
Well-known member
I have to disagree completely. Morality must be intrinsically true in order to have value. If it is only an opinion it is meaningless.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
Thats your believed value yes. But it doesn't mean all share it and to them morality is based on what they belive as intrinsically true. Even to those who consider it something intrinsically true that truth differs. Thats fine, because that's how people are. That also scales with groups and at the top level to publiclaly accepted values. Those shift and change as publically accepted too.
Here is a biased example. Ther was some comment before to the effect of 'the right side' being what could garner the most sympathy. But thats not always been the case has it? Or atleast not the most prevalent judge. But to ones that use sympathy as the base standard for how they judge the morality of a situation every historic situation is tinted by what actions were most sympathetic and which weren't. That almost certainly wasn't what those events were base don but thats the length it would be looked under and judged by.
Probably blowing that attempt at trying to explain my opinion but be kind with the reading I guess.
Trying again. Your morality is true to you and a groups is true to the group. That will effect how you judge the morals of others but that doesn't guarantee they follow the same or conform to the same 'axioms' whatever they are.
Doomsought
Well-known member
You are completely missing the point.
Reality is that which remains true when you cease to believe in it.
Ignorance does not affect absolute moral truth. People having different opinions only makes them wrong. As soon as people's opinions matter, then Hitler did nothing wrong. For Every test that relies on culture or opinion, Adolf Hitler was able to shape those qualifications to fit his actions. In order for Hitler to be evil, then morality must be an absolute truth that people cannot change, only discover and obey.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
From a strictly carnal perspective hitler is evil because hitler lost the war, and frankly i'm very happy he lost because chances are the kind of people I love would not be around had his political policies been implemented. but trust me pal had he won we'd all partially be speaking german while viewing Hitler as some kind of german nepoleon or Alexander the Great because the education system would no doubt be filled by his deciples much like how communist have ruled over our education system today.
Doomsought
Well-known member
The strictly carnal perspective is wrong, because math exists.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
That is the point. Objectively speaking without people, there are no morals because reality doesn't care. You could make a case for morals being evolutionary traits based on what is of greatest benefit but again that goes into it being the people those traits evolved or became entrenched in being the ones making them real. A view of morals are a constant of reality isn't wrong, there are far worse things have as your core but its good to not forget that is the people that keep that constant what it is.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
math teaches cause and effect, not the interpretation of good and bad (or right and wrong)
Math says 4+3=7. it doesin't say anything about whether 7 is a lucky number or not.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Wrong. Because morality is intrinsically true. It is always true. Even if the universe does not exist. Even if time does not exist. Morals would still exist, because they gain their reality from being intrinsically true.
the carnal perspective is wrong because it dismisses things that exist without material substance. Because we can show that math exist without substance, the carnal perspective is ontologically incomplete.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
and what is this thing that is intrinsically true? to quote pilot