>It is not the role of "Rightness" to normalize human behavior only to measure it.<
Very well then. No thing (except Might) measures objectively and in all instances, and this is the point. There is no ultimate standard by which all things are measured with authority. You may claim “it just is” until you die, but this is utterly meaningless because whatever “it” is is perceived and defined by you and Neocon and me, etc. Neither of us has Might to give a declaration of the nature of “It” any ultimate meaning. You claim there exists an objective essence to things. I agree, and that essence is Might and it exists by varying degrees in all things. That which has it to a degree sufficient enough to will things with impunity, renders every declaration outside itself meaningless. It is Reality or rather Ultimate Relevance. This notion of essence is really meaningless coming from you. You just can't say “It just Is.” (Well actually, you see, you have no choice BUT to say this, and this is precisely where I knew you would run).
>I said: “there exists no thing to declare some behaviours right and wrong…”
You said: “[Ah but Johannes,] you just nullified your definition of "right." And in doing so have made your entire point moot. By your own stance you repeatedly declared the ability of greater Might to declare behaviors right.”<
You are missing the point here. When I claim there exists no thing to declare some behaviours right and wrong, I merely claim precisely what I have always claimed, namely, that there exists no ultimate standard of measurement, no ultimate authority to make meaningful declarations or measurements concerning every moral action. You seem to think otherwise. Very well then. Who or What is It? If something declares every moral action Right or Wrong, and yet those moral actions occur without regard for the declaration, it is really nothing at all. It is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the action that takes place without regard for anything but itself. It is Might, and as such it is possesses authority to declare itself Right.
>Rightness does not need judgement it just is.<
Complete and utter meaninglessness.
>ME: “Well, we may pluck a morality out of our own heads based upon our perceptions of nature. But none of this will be objectively apparent to all.”
YOU:”And by so doing you may imagine, discover, or determine through your intellect something that is right.”<
And in every instance my every moral imagining, discovering or determining based upon my perception of nature will be right for you too. I think not.
>You may also declare something to be right through what ever might or authority you have which in fact later is found to be wrong. Ex: Aristotle and spontaneous generation of frogs.<
Dear me, brees. Look at this. This describes but a microcosm of Might. Even though Aristotle has been supplanted (by Might of perception and presentation I should add) yet no one even today “knows” of any essence that “just is.” What do they “know?” They do not “know” anything. They merely have what they have perceived as better and/or more detailed “theories” than Aristotle's and Newton's.
Now I do not deny that we can by human logic perceive certain patterns and parameters in nature with which we must contend. And these may present forces Mightier than we in many instances. But these forces in many cases may have nothing whatever to say about my killing a man. And even if they say something, they may be rendered silent by some deficiency or lack of authority over my behaviour. In either case it is really quite meaningless.
>What is correct simply "is" right.<
“Correct??????!!!!!” Is there an objective authority claiming anything is “correct?” This is completely without meaning. Only Might can give meaning. Nature sometimes has it, in the form of death and gravity for example. These are authoritative forces. They do their “thing” regardless of who says what. In a sense they declare “You will expire and you will be pulled on,” and regardless of our perceptions and beliefs, we expire and are pulled on. Does nature ever claim “Thou Shalt not Murder?” It does not, and if it does it does not do it with any sort of meaning.
>The fact that we may discover it or know it in some other way doesn't change its essence. We can declare what ever we want. It means nothing in and of itself. Go ahead and declare a chair to be a potted plant.<
Hehe. The problem is, brees, no one can even declare the thing is a chair or anything else. Surely we all know what a chair is. Even so, the attribute of “chairness” is no objective ultimate thing, and I here speak of such ultimate things. None of us has authority to claim the nature of an essence. Again, I do not deny Nature has its own Might in many circumstances, and that sometimes this Might is greater than ours. But we at times can and have accomplished our will even over the perceived Might of Nature. Does nature have anything to say and do regarding abortion?
>You seem to be concerned here with human judgement, which is a different argument. Human judgement is known by us all to be fallible. Declare what you like. That in no way makes you right.<
I am not concerned with merely human judgement. I am concerned with judgement from any source. If I cannot be judged by any thing in a particular instance, and I declare myself right, then by golly that is precisely what I am. Let us say a man kills a bunch of Jews, while conquering nearly all of Europe. Let us say he continues to form his country without hindrance. By what authority can this fella be declared wrong? By none. He is the authority. He claims he is right and there is not a thing anyone else can say about it with meaning. He is the most relevant thing going.
>ME: “Whatever the circumstances, whether Might rests with me or elsewhere, the entity with greater Might renders all challenges to its declarations and/or existence meaningless.”
YOU: ”And so, if a mountain is before you, refusing to obey your will that it move, it is mightier than your will to remove it. So you can blow on it, shoot it with your gun, have an election in which voters agree with you that it should move, take a poll of your friends, what ever, and it still stubbornly remains. It proves you wrong, and you declare it mighty and right.”<
Yes. In this instance the declaration is no moral judgement. It is merely an observation of existence, a statement of relative weakness. As far as my will is concerned, claiming anything against the mountain is ridiculous. By nature it thwarts my will.
>Along comes [forces that bear upon the mountain over] time, which removes it completely. Your declaration once again, is meaningless. And once again I prove my point that there is an essential rightness whether we always perceive it or not that confirms might without dependence or judgement.<
This presents a basic fallacy. Assuming free will, merely because Nature forces us in certain directions in some circumstances, does not necessarily mean it does so in all circumstances. You prove nothing. You merely observe that like all things, nature possesses force. You have not shown that nature governs an essential rightness that objectively measures all things with authority.
>If it is absolute might then it is essentially right without a cause and effect relationship. <
(grin) Precisely. It is Right by Essence – no cause, or effect. “It just Is Right” because of Its Might, and all meaning flows from It. You now find yourself at the top of the principle. This principle in fact works all the way down to the individual. Were Absolute Might not to exist, then Whatever exists directly beneath Absolute Might is by definition the Greatest Might, and just as was the case for Absolute Might (which now does not exist), It is Right. “…the mere fact that its will is implemented gives it more meaning than anything else.”
I'm sorry, brees. I will have to cut this short, as I unfortunately have not Might enough to overcome the tyranny of my schedule. Surely “Might makes Right” sounds offensive to some, but I believe it describes reality. You believe otherwise. Very well, I would certainly like to better understand this natural essence of yours that “just is” and that judges all things meaningfully. You claim it “just is,” a thing that is certainly not objectively apparent in my opinion. |
