Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (48605)	5/20/1999 6:20:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Neocon, I took Johannes' concept of "might makes right," especially since it was brought up in the discussion of morality, to be predicated on his belief in God, and the notion that God is, by definition, infinitely mighty. Especially since he at least implied that in order to understand what is "amongst the ultimate reasons of my Might Makes Right campaign," one should "Cut God out of the picture completely, and then consider my point." But I don't know, I was just passing through. Personally, with a nebulous definition of the word "right," I tend to agree with Johannes. If you sit and think and decide definitively that A is correct, but everyone else in the world believes that B is correct, then your two choices are to either cling tenaciously to A in the face of the opposition, or to shrug your shoulders and say, "Okay, what the hell, B it is." This is of course complicated by the fact that my natural inclination is to cling tenaciously to A, but that has more to do with my hubris than any consideration for getting along in the world. -BLT

To: Neocon who wrote (48605)	5/20/1999 12:15:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Anyway, while it is true to say that to the victor belongs the spoils, including the ability to impose his definitions, that is still not the same as saying that Might Makes Right. Nor is the fact that there are moral disagreements a sufficient rebuttal of the objectivity of some judgments.< You must understand if a value cannot be discerned objectively because of Deficiency of Being, then regardless of its existence it is not objective unless there exists a Might to declare its reality. If such a Might does not exist, then the value is meaningless, at best as meaningless as any other value. Authority is a necessary part of morality. Without it, every dang thing is possible. >If Might really made Right, then there would be no basis for criticizing any fait accompli, and therefore no dynamic for reform.< The only basis upon which we might criticise a fait accompli is Might. Otherwise, we merely sing in the wind just as does any other bird. >The assertion of "right" involves the expectation of acquiescence. Slavery would still flourish if that were the case...< Not at all, it was because of the successful implementation of Might that slavery ended. If there is no objective law supported by authority, then slavery is just as possible as it ever was and there may exist no one with sufficient Authority to declare it wrong. If no one can declare it wrong, then simply because it exists, it is right. In other words, regardless of what nature whispers to us concerning slavery, if we have sufficient Deficiency not to perceive Nature (and this is the lot of man), and if we have Might to do what is contrary to nature (which we indeed have in many instances), this, even for a time and without retribution that can be directly associated with our contrariness, then slavery and any other debauchery is possible in the world. And since there would exist no Authority with the ability to overcome the slaveholders' misperceptions of Nature's Law, they are by their ignorance and Might, Right. >Suppose that someone with little knowledge tells me a nonsensical version of Descartes philosophy. Is the fact that a doofus can garble something in a confident tone of voice supposed to lead me to acknowledge the equal validity of an uninformed view to an informed view?< It is done all the time. Might is fluid, flowing not only between time, but also between circumstances. Perhaps you will one day garner enough Might to overcome the doofus, but he will one day overcome you. Now where is the Authority to declare either of you finally Wrong for all eternity? Your reliance upon logic is insignificant if the doofus can rely upon something else. We see this all the time. Abortion, for example, relies upon total illogic and barbarity that runs contrary to the decrees of Nature. The doofus is now Right across the whole world, and those of us who demand he apply his deficient mind to logic merely sing to the wind. We are now irrelevant. What will make us releavent? Might will, and this is precisely what we now do. We are attempting to garner to ourselves sufficient Might to overthrow the doofus. Will we be successful for all eternity? Only if there exists Ultimate Might Who with finality will lay before the world a final Judgement. >Even if an informed opinion can be wrong sometimes, it is still better than an uninformed opinion, which is right only by accident. That is all of the objectivity needed...< It is only better because of your infatuation with reason. The doofus may think otherwise and possess Might enough to give his determinations meaning. Human reason is not necessarily the final arbiter of Rightness. Might is.