04-07-2003 01:12									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Will history (the viewpoint that counts imo) see that as correct, whereas the contemporaries do?

The 'history' viewpoint is useless. What matters is who decides what is right in the here and now. When 'history' looks at the past, the ruler and the ruled are usually dead, and their pronouncements matter not.

Furthermore, the powerful also write the history, so it usually takes a very long time for someone for people to objectively look at the situation (since they are detached from it) and decide if it really was logical or not.

	04-07-2003 01:13									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

*repeats to self* "shoulds not woulds, shoulds not woulds"

	04-07-2003 01:14									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I would even argue that common moral values cannot be easily ignored by those who are eg. in the government. The common moral values were instilled by those that are powerful.

But historically you can´t say these values were always "introduced" by those who are in power. Think of Christianity - values were adopted by ordinary people, because people thought them as good. Only if the religion was already widely spread it became official religion of the Roman Emire.
And certain modern "western" rights or moral beliefs are deeply rooted in that religion.

I don´t say power plays no role, but it is not always the primary source for moral values. It certainly transfers already accepted values into law. I would also agree that it _can_ enforce values in some cases, but not generally.

	04-07-2003 01:15									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The 'history' viewpoint is useless

On the contrary, I see history as (a) the lesson of the past, so we dont make the same mistakes as we have, like the might is right philosophy for example, and (b) the means by which we can judge our actions. In other words, we should take the actions that history will judge to be "good".

In terms of the powerful writing history, see my post on the retrospectoscope .

	04-07-2003 01:17									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Like I said, he wasn't Absolutely powerful. The religion itself has might as well (probably more might than Saddam)

Then noone is absolutely powerul, since there are always other factors (how strong is another question). But if noone has absolute power, the line "might makes right" gets weaker.

	04-07-2003 01:21									#36
	Suffering from ads?

BeBro: Agreed, and also consider the nature of large powerful nations and empires - the people usually have the might.

They generally go the way of the Spartans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, the English, the Spanish, the French, the British, the Nazi's and the thatcherites.

	04-07-2003 01:21									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Think of Christianity - values were adopted by ordinary people, because people thought them as good. Only if the religion was already widely spread it became official religion of the Roman Emire.

Yes, as Christianity was accepted by more people, the mightier the movement became. They gained power and might by adding to their ranks.

Christianity really took off after Constantine decided to convert to the religion. One reason was probably because the Christians were getting too powerful and he didn't want them to take him down.

quote: And certain modern "western" rights or moral beliefs are deeply rooted in that religion.

Because it is still powerful.

	04-07-2003 01:24									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Just to clarify - I´m not a relativist But power is not only something that you have when you´re in office. I would even argue that common moral values cannot be easily ignored by those who are eg. in the government. Not even in a dictatorship -that´s why you find Saddam portraits as holy muslim, despite he didn´t was much the religious leader. But he couldn´t ignore religion as a force in his country, and he simply could not repress it - so he tried to use it. If Might makes (always/morally) right, he simply could destroy it.

Your definition of power is too narrow. Popular recognitiona and support are also types of power. Power is not only about political offices and gun barrels.

	04-07-2003 01:24									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Then noone is absolutely powerul, since there are always other factors (how strong is another question). But if noone has absolute power, the line "might makes right" gets weaker.

Why is it weaker? Those that are mighty and powerful run things. They make morals and law. I see it as stronger if no one has absolute power... because then those that have might must be considered (like the Christian Coalition must be considered in US politics).

quote: On the contrary, I see history as (a) the lesson of the past, so we dont make the same mistakes as we have, like the might is right philosophy for example, and (b) the means by which we can judge our actions. In other words, we should take the actions that history will judge to be "good".

It's still useless. History means nothing to those who have might in the present.

	04-07-2003 01:25									#40
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Your definition of power is too narrow. Popular recognitiona and support are also types of power. Power is not only about political offices and gun barrels.

The Communists in Latin America had a lot of power because of popular support.

	04-07-2003 01:28									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Yes, as Christianity was accepted by more people, the mightier the movement became. They gained power and might by adding to their ranks.

In doing so, did they gain logic for their position and did they can "rightness" or validity?

Of course not, lets divorce the notions of ability to impose ones views, and the quality of those views. Its like the payload and the method of delivery.

quote: History means nothing to those who have might in the present

Explain

	04-07-2003 01:33									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

One big problem here is that might is defined negaitvey by al those who disagree with "Might makes right" and by most people who agree as well.

Might is simply an ability, the ability to overcome, whether it is others, of neutral powers, whatever. Now, I think Imran is mostly correct: the law is the creation of the state, and one of the basics of any state si to gain the legitimate authority of the use of violence within itself.Without one final authority there can be no law, and this final authority is final becuase they are the most powerfull ones or the ones capable of calling on the powers that be.

Oh, and no one se murder as an example. As we all should know by now, murder is "illegal killing". Since laws can change, so can what murder means.

	04-07-2003 01:34									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: In doing so, did they gain logic for their position and did they can "rightness" or validity?

It doesn't matter! Logic definetly doesn't matter in this context because they sold Christianity on 'faith' (brilliantly, btw). Logic does mean jack as long as you have people backing you... for whatever reason.

quote: Explain

Why should rulers today really care what history will say about them in the future? Unless they are narcissistic. If they have power, then they can impliment their views or structure policy. They get to decide what happens. History be damned! You really think that mighty really consider how history will treat them? For example, I don't think Bush cares one iota how history is going to look at him. That Clinton 'legacy' thing was a product of his narcissism.

	04-07-2003 01:36									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by elijah Could someone possibly explain why this idea has any merit whatsoever?

Because that is what happens, and will always happen. By definition, those that decide what to do, are those with power and might. Might doesn't make right, but neither does it make wrong. Just because someone has power doesn't make what they do wrong (a la US). They may be wrong (IMHO obviously) about some things, but just because they are poweerful and use it does not make what they do wrong either.

The amount of power someone has does not make what they do any more or less right. However society is best when it is engineered that those that are more often right are those that have might. Those in power should be right, because they should be the best at what they do. However the fact they have power does not make them right, it just means they influence what the future thinks more.


LM: You wrote:

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless Your definition of power is too narrow. Popular recognitiona and support are also types of power. Power is not only about political offices and gun barrels.

yet you quoted:

quote: But power is not only something that you have when you´re in office

Thus you both seem to agree. Power is not just about politics or guns, but about much more.

	04-07-2003 01:41									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A degree of narcissism is healthy in a leader (not to the level that blair has taken it, but still), because it gives them that extra objectivity.

Remember I dont give two ****s about reality! Its what should happen that matters to me.

Imran I dont doubt that you are correct in this matter, I am merely saying that it sucks.

	04-07-2003 01:45									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Power is not just about politics or guns, but about much more

Absolutely, power does not necessarily make you correct. It just means you can force you views on others. (btw, thats the difference between active and passive power, passive power cant do that).

I take "might" to mean the familial term, military might.

	04-07-2003 01:47									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Why is it weaker? Those that are mighty and powerful run things. They make morals and law. I see it as stronger if no one has absolute power... because then those that have might must be considered (like the Christian Coalition must be considered in US politics).

Because if those in power are influenced by other factors (and I say they are always somehow) then how much of the "right" is their own idea, and how much is a result of those who have at least so much importance that they cannot be ignored.

Also - if you have a certain system of law those in power have (in democratic systems) to follow. I doubt Germany´s or US leaders could simply decide to rewrite their constitutions. So at least in democratic states, power is shared, and those in power, eg. the president or chancellor cannot simply make what they want - which the line "might makes right" seems to imply.

quote: It's still useless. History means nothing to those who have might in the present.

Of course it does, history shaped the present. Those who are in power today aren´t totally free - there are strings everywhere even for the mightiest, and historic decisions cannot be ignored today. "Historic experience" and "collective consciousness" are not only intellectual bullshit, they are real factors. Such things (of course also others), made Germany what it is today, helped to shape the EU, etc, etc. And those in power today cannot simply ignore this.

quote: Because it is still powerful.

But as religion "it" is no executive force. And Christianity wasn´t such a force at the beginning (it was somehow during certain medieval times, but that´s another story).

My point is that today, and at the beginning, things like religion aren´t "powers" which can enforce anything - they are accepted, if people think they benefit from that, even when in non-material ways (paradise idea in several religions).

	04-07-2003 01:47									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Imran I dont doubt that you are correct in this matter, I am merely saying that it sucks.

Like I said, the difference between the idealistic view and the practical outlook on the world .

	04-07-2003 01:49									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by elijah Absolutely, power does not necessarily make you correct.

Correct? what absolute correct is there in the world of ethics?

You can be correct or incorrect when it comes to describing an occurrence in the real" world, like how a killing took place. BUt what is the correct punishment? is punishment even correct in sucha case? what decides that?

	04-07-2003 01:49									#50
	Tired of ads?

GePap: while I don´t agree (fully) with "might makes right" I agree that might itself is not neccessarily negative.

	04-07-2003 01:49									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I for myself have lost all idealism, and being 100% practical is quite fun at times... you get a little unpopular, but hey, at least they can't use their might to decide what's right for you

	04-07-2003 01:50									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Like I said, the difference between the idealistic view and the practical outlook on the world

meh! Which one is going to change the world? *takes anti-dillusion pill*.

	04-07-2003 01:55									#53
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Because if those in power are influenced by other factors (and I say they are always somehow) then how much of the "right" is their own idea, and how much is a result of those who have at least so much importance that they cannot be ignored.

Those that have might are involved in the creation of law. Of course this includes different people, because not one person has all the might and power. This isn't that difficult, yah?

quote: Also - if you have a certain system of law those in power have (in democratic systems) to follow. I doubt Germany´s or US leaders could simply decide to rewrite their constitutions. So at least in democratic states, power is shared, and those in power, eg. the president or chancellor cannot simply make what they want - which the line "might makes right" seems to imply.

US leaders don't have all the might. There are various special interest groups that have great might, and of course the people have might as well.

'Might Makes Right' means that those that have power (or might) make the law and define what is right. How is having to share power whittle that down any?

quote: And those in power today cannot simply ignore this.

Yes they can, if it has no powerful adherants today. However, all you've said DO have powerful adherants today. So those that rule cannot ignore the powerful adherants to various historical movements.

quote: But as religion "it" is no executive force.

But it is mighty, because those that have power believe in it and follow it. I never said that ideas can't have power... their power comes from those who follow the dictates.

quote: My point is that today, and at the beginning, things like religion aren´t "powers" which can enforce anything - they are accepted, if people think they benefit from that, even when in non-material ways (paradise idea in several religions).

Religion itself can't enforce anything, true. But powerful people (or the power of the people) that follow that religion CAN enforce things (and do).

	04-07-2003 02:16									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Those that have might are involved in the creation of law. Of course this includes different people, because not one person has all the might and power.

I already said it is not a problem about making the law - of course this is done by those in power. But the link law = moral is way too simple. While it is essentialy true the law is "written" moral, it is total illusion to think that a certain moral value can only be a product of written law.

When we see murder as illegal, it is not primarily because of it is written down by some mighty guy (or several groups, if the power is shared) at some point, but because we accepted it as useful. The written law in our societies is just the consequence of this acceptance. Generally I would argue that moral values shape the law (and influence those who make this law), not the other way around. You can make the most beautiful system of law, if it doesn´t match at least somehow with peoples moral beliefs or real needs it will fail.

While it is true that repressive regimes can perhaps torture or murder people how they want, it still doesn´t mean that torture or murder are accepted moral standards then there, not to mention that those who torture or murder are totaly inconsistant, since they most of the time don´t want to be tortured or murdered.

Edit: have to go off now.....

	04-07-2003 02:28									#55
	Put an end to popups!

quote: But the link law = moral is way too simple.

It may not be as simple as you believe. After all morality is defined either by the people or the ruler (if there is no democracy). Now of course they have to take into consideration others with power, but they, in the end, define morality.

Those with power are involved in the discussion of what is our morality. Those that do not have power are not.

Any system of law in a democracy will match moral beliefs of the people because that is who makes the law. In a repressive society (like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany) torture and murder CAN be moral, especially when justified as being necessary for the security of the state. Of course there are those that have power, even in repressive regimes (such as those with some sort of following), that say certain acts are immoral, and they must be listened to (or their power taken away from them, either or).

	04-07-2003 17:59									#56
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Those with power are involved in the discussion of what is our morality. Those that do not have power are not.

But individuals can choose their moral values. I could today decide to become a Christian (and adopt Christian values), and no authority could hinder me to believe that. Many of those heretics in the middle ages rather died before changing their beliefs.

Sure totalitarian regimes may try to impose their moral standards, but that doesn´t mean people accept them always. Even when they behave according to those values to avoid repressive measures, many of them could still hold their individual views.

quote: In a repressive society (like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany) torture and murder CAN be moral, especially when justified as being necessary for the security of the state.

Yes, it can, that´s the point, because it is not the only way to come to moral values. Those in power can easily define their law - that means they define what is legal. But whether people adopt those values as their own is a completely different question. Often those regimes who act with extreme repression to impose their will face a lot of resistance because of people who do not accept those imposed standards.

For Nazi Germany, you can easily argue that the Nazis didn´t enforce anti-semitism (as moral) but took advantage of anti-semitic views already in place in Europe since the middle ages. So their "might" didn´t make anti-semitism morally "right", it already was a common view. I agree that they strenghten such beliefs, but they didn´t created them in the first place due to their power.

A last point to the law: a lot of people´s moral views aren´t even part of the written law of a society. There is no law that Germans have to be pacifists now, still a lot are. Nonone has enforced it, they decided this on their own. Similar cases you can find everywhere, from the most simple moral norms (eg. "you should help this old woman to cross the street") to more general ideas ("we should protect the nature"). All those are part of our moral system, and are not primarily power-related. Some of them are traditional values, some not, but as long people act according to such views they do matter.

	04-07-2003 18:07									#57
	Support Apolyton

You may not agree with might makes right, but it is tautologically true - there's nothing anyone, or even EVERYONE, can do about it.

	04-07-2003 18:11									#58
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You may not agree with might makes right, but it is tautologically true - there's nothing anyone, or even EVERYONE, can do about it.

Of course I can

Since the discussion is now about wether might makes in general morally right, I just have to show that parts of our moral system aren´t mainly related to power relations, which I did above

	04-07-2003 18:15									#59
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yes, they can all be reduced to power equations. If you want to really simplify it, say that it's a result of the Revolutionary War (for U.S. law)

	04-07-2003 18:17									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Nah, those moral values of our modern western constitutions are enlightenment values. They were hold by people before they were turned into laws (otherwise fighting for them wouldn´t make any sense)