Does Might make Right?

[Kharak]

Tell me what differs between American liberalism and other forms of liberalism. I want to get an agreed upon set of terms for a discussion.

Liberalism, by traditional definition, simply means a respect for individual liberty. Hence, to liberalize an economy is to remove government restraints. Adam Smith is an example of a liberal in this respect. Our government is also essentially liberal. If it were conservative, the sovereign or state would be given more due authority with fewer restrictions.

It has nothing to do with the American definition, which is pretty much meaningless it is so incredibly vague. It can mean socialist, it could mean atheist, it could mean libertarian, it can mean Democrat, it can mean independent, it can mean anything. The American usage of the word is simply a replacement for the word Democrat in most cases: It's nothing more than a poor attempt at trying to press party association and trying to pin fluctuating views on an equally poor 'political spectrum'. Sort of like the "[Instert noun here] Agenda" fallacy, or "It's just a theory" argument.

 

[Verv]

Liberalism, by traditional definition, simply means a respect for individual liberty. Hence, to liberalize an economy is to remove government restraints. Adam Smith is an example of a liberal in this respect. Our government is also essentially liberal. If it were conservative, the sovereign or state would be given more due authority with fewer restrictions.

It has nothing to do with the American definition, which is pretty much meaningless it is so incredibly vague. It can mean socialist, it could mean atheist, it could mean libertarian, it can mean Democrat, it can mean independent, it can mean anything. The American usage of the word is simply a replacement for the word Democrat in most cases: It's nothing more than a poor attempt at trying to press party association and trying to pin fluctuating views on an equally poor 'political spectrum'. Sort of like the "[Instert noun here] Agenda" fallacy, or "It's just a theory" argument.

Well, you are referring to something that is now referred to as classical liberalism. Since all politics now hinges around this idea it is useless to define liberal solely along these terms.

 

[Shane Roach]

Liberalism, by traditional definition, simply means a respect for individual liberty. Hence, to liberalize an economy is to remove government restraints. Adam Smith is an example of a liberal in this respect. Our government is also essentially liberal. If it were conservative, the sovereign or state would be given more due authority with fewer restrictions.

It has nothing to do with the American definition, which is pretty much meaningless it is so incredibly vague. It can mean socialist, it could mean atheist, it could mean libertarian, it can mean Democrat, it can mean independent, it can mean anything. The American usage of the word is simply a replacement for the word Democrat in most cases: It's nothing more than a poor attempt at trying to press party association and trying to pin fluctuating views on an equally poor 'political spectrum'. Sort of like the "[Instert noun here] Agenda" fallacy, or "It's just a theory" argument.

Liberal in America means socialist. If you are talking about a libertarian, they are referencing the liberal portion of their beliefs, which in American tends to mean permissive. Libertarian policy on morality is nothing if not permissive.

Not that this particular portion of the conversation is all that important, but it's really not as hard to make sense of if you look at it. There are conservative Democrats, many of them Southern. So it does not make sense to call all Democrats liberal, though the party as a whole has gone down that road as far as I cam concerned.

etc etc etc.

 

[R3quiem]

In a very real sense it is the winners that determine the morality of the situation because that is what often gets recorded.

However, in periods of liberalism they enjoy to look back historically and portray the winners as evil and the losers in the conflicts as innocent people who were being slaughtered (e.g. the native americans and the settlers) though this is equally far from the truth.

I don't think it's that these people, myself included, portray winners as evil and losers as innocent.

What it comes down to is that both the "winning" side and the "losing" side may have been equally "evil", or perhaps the winning side even more so. A "liberal" you are referring to might argue that even if the victims were not completely innocent, how can genocide be justified by the winners without them being even worse?

 

[Kharak]

Liberal in America means socialist.

Liberal in America can mean ANYTHING. I've been called a liberal for supporting human rights and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, despite the fact I despise the nanny state platform that politicians often push.

Crying socialism does not make a person socialist, and America is not socialist or becoming socialist by a long shot. Look at the Marxist counterpart that is Cuba and the welfare state societies of Scandanavia. America is nowhere close to that level of government control.

To use a popular literary reference: "There's glory for you."

The same thing has happened with the word "theory", the term "socialist" itself and so on. Throwing around terms does not give them new meanings, its simply means people are too busy to use them correctly and instead push towards demonizing their opponents rather than create an intelligent argument. The way liberal and conservative are thrown around in United States politics is little better than name calling.

 

[MaxP]

As it applies to monotheistic religions,
If there exists a god that is more powerful than any of his creations, do his creations have a right to disagree with him as to what is ethical or moral, good or evil? Or can this god declare that something, regardless of how immoral or evil his creations may find a thing to be, is the perfect epitome of all that is moral and good and that none shall disagree with him?

You miss the point. With God it's the fact that He is omniscient, He knows what is good and bad by default, so we should pay Him a listen.

 

[R3quiem]

You miss the point. With God it's the fact that He is omniscient, He knows what is good and bad by default, so we should pay Him a listen.

Have you read the OT?

If so, do you agree with every decision in it?

 

[quatona]

You miss the point. With God it's the fact that He is omniscient, He knows what is good and bad by default, so we should pay Him a listen.

It´s interesting you say "know". I used to be under the impression that according to Christian doctrine god determined what is right and wrong (being omnipotent and all).

 

[Verv]

I don't think might makes right in a moral sense. But it often does in a practical sense.

Being the biggest bully on the block might mean you get to be in charge, and thus get to make the rules (and parcel out "rights" as you see fit). But it still means you're a bully.

In a nutshell, anyway.

What makes things right and what makes things wrong?

I don't think it's that these people, myself included, portray winners as evil and losers as innocent.

What it comes down to is that both the "winning" side and the "losing" side may have been equally "evil", or perhaps the winning side even more so. A "liberal" you are referring to might argue that even if the victims were not completely innocent, how can genocide be justified by the winners without them being even worse?

Well, historically, genocide is unavoidable due to the nature of how wars were fought. It was just something that happened.

 

[platzapS]

What makes things right and what makes things wrong?



Well, historically, genocide is unavoidable due to the nature of how wars were fought. It was just something that happened.

I'm not sure what you mean by "historically". In a case like the Indians in America, genocide (except accidentally via disease) was NOT inevitable. The genocide was a concerted attempt by administrations over hundreds of years to conquer land and remove any threat to this new white-owned property. It went along to marginalize and stigmatize all of those Indians who tried to integrate into white society as well.

 

[Verv]

I'm not sure what you mean by "historically". In a case like the Indians in America, genocide (except accidentally via disease) was NOT inevitable. The genocide was a concerted attempt by administrations over hundreds of years to conquer land and remove any threat to this new white-owned property. It went along to marginalize and stigmatize all of those Indians who tried to integrate into white society as well.

Due to the numbers of native Americans exist their total demise was unavoidable.

Even if they were to have happily integrated without stigmas into our society they were destined to become erased as a society, as a culture, as a nation. They were bound to be absorbed or annihilated or a combination thereof.

And it was natural for them to try to fight us -- and to lose. It was natural for them to hate us -- and natural for us to hate them.

That's the way things happened.

People who live in societys without our luxuries and our leisure, who actually have to work day in and day out and live with the constant idea that they could be massacred by their neighbors, do not have the luxury to believe in pacifism or world peace or not discriminating.

It's a survival instinct on many levels to have amounts of racism and to be more quick to side with people who look and behave like you -- it indicates similarities that make one comfortable and more confident that one will not be violated.

 

[quatona]

If I happened to have the misfortune of being an all-powerful god I´d hope that people wouldn´t hold it against me.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

As far as ethics and morals are concerned, who gets the final say in what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil?

Is it the powerful majority? Is it the country with the most firepower? Is it something intrinsic? Or is it relative, something that each individual must come to a conclusion on?

As it applies to monotheistic religions,
If there exists a god that is more powerful than any of his creations, do his creations have a right to disagree with him as to what is ethical or moral, good or evil? Or can this god declare that something, regardless of how immoral or evil his creations may find a thing to be, is the perfect epitome of all that is moral and good and that none shall disagree with him?

Matt.16:18-19: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope


This should be an easy question for Catholics to answer..


But the authority you talk about is granted to Peter and his successors in Matthew 16-18. No earthly or temporal authority can take this unto himself. The authority of binding and loosing. Its an authority that many temporal princes and leaders had enmity for(King Henry VIII), and even other Christians. I mean no one likes being told what to do, right? Shall we follow our heart only that the bible says is deceitfully wicked??

For protestants this is kinda a hard question to answer because they have no ecclesiastical court of appeals to goto on hard questions. Many will use sola scriptura as their answer but then again we can see the problem that can arise considering how dependent sola scriptura is on personal interperatation that might be heretical.