Might might make right, but it doesn't build anything that lasts. Eventually, someone has figure out how to turn swords into plowshares.
My point is that if the threat of violence is the only thing your society is built on; your foundation is one of sand.What plowshares do is a sort of might in itself
Needs=Economic Values=Bargaining Power=Pseudo-Force=Force=VIOLENCE!!!!
My point is that if the threat of violence is the only thing your society is built on; your foundation is one of sand.
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.Might might make right, but it doesn't build anything that lasts. Eventually, someone has figure out how to turn swords into plowshares.
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.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.
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)
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.
Have you seen civilians make something without the might to back it up? Does not last that long.Might might make right, but it doesn't build anything that lasts. Eventually, someone has figure out how to turn swords into plowshares.
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.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.
Thats kinda might too you understand. Thats the might of numbers demanding their right be considered moral.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)
I have to disagree completely. Morality must be intrinsically true in order to have value. If it is only an opinion it is meaningless.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 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.I have to disagree completely. Morality must be intrinsically true in order to have value. If it is only an opinion it is meaningless.
You are completely missing the point.Even to those who consider it something intrinsically true that truth differs. Thats fine, because that's how people are.
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.
The strictly carnal perspective is wrong, because math exists.From a strictly carnal perspective hitler is evil because hitler lost the war
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.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.
The strictly carnal perspective is wrong, because math exists.
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.Objectively speaking without people, there are no morals because reality doesn't care.
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.math teaches cause and effect, not the interpretation of good and bad (or right and wrong)
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.