Does Might make Right?

[R3quiem]

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?

 

[Shane Roach]

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?

Whoever holds the most power as a matter of practicality.

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?

There are those who argue that power is the product of right thinking, in which case the two would coincide. I am not sure in what manner or to what extent I agree with this, but there is some logic to it. Social Darwinism as some say.

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?

This is why I have begun to capitulate to those who demand morality be viewed as subjective. I think what you say above is precisely correct in that God can (and apparently does) declare things moral that many of His creations believe is immoral. Still, He appears to give them the capacity to disagree, so I guess they have that right, whatever good it may do anyone.

 

[FedererFan]

I think each person defines their own morality. Nothing is inherently right or wrong no matter how great or horrible it is.

Those in charge decide the economic, political, and social policies which may or may not agree with the individual's sense of morality.

 

[gwenmead]

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.

 

[quatona]

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?

Me.

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?

It´s the same instance that decides what is good music, whether strawberry or chocolate ice cream tastes better, and who is the person to spend one´s life together with.

I´m just not sure I get much out of (the idea of) being right in the situation where someone more powerful forces his opinion upon me. Apparently it´s some sort of consolace to some, and apparently the idea of an allpowerful being sharing one´s ideas of right and wrong is a very strong consolace to some.

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?

What exactly do you mean when saying "have a right"? Who is handing out rights in this scenario?

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?

Sure this god can declare whatever he wants to declare. And I can disagree as much as I want to disagree. And, by virtue of his unlimited power, this god can punish me for disagreeing with him.
I´m not sure I understand how the concept of "having a right" or "being right" can be meaningfully applied here.

 

[ebia]

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?

There is a final say?

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?

I suppose if you shoot the opposition then you guarantee yourself the final say because they can't respond, but I'm guessing that isn't what you mean.

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?

I would say that good and evil just is. I trust the God I see in Jesus to do a far better job of determining that than I can manage.

 

[Azureknight 773]

^When used in an appropriate way.
Even God uses His might to make His people right.
Even some of those notable kings in the past, uses their might to make their people right. What more can it be?

If used in evil, ABSOLUTELY NO!!!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think each person defines their own morality. Nothing is inherently right or wrong no matter how great or horrible it is.

Those in charge decide the economic, political, and social policies which may or may not agree with the individual's sense of morality.

Any ethical or moral decision is subject to the circumstances to which the decision is made. In most cases, killing is wrong...If you're defending your own life or the life of a loved one, it's excusable.

Stealing is wrong in most cases, but I'd never fault a poor person who steals food to feed their children.

 

[R3quiem]

^When used in an appropriate way.
Even God uses His might to make His people right.
Even some of those notable kings in the past, uses their might to make their people right. What more can it be?

If used in evil, ABSOLUTELY NO!!!

But that's just the question...

You're saying that might can be used for right only when it's appropriate, and not when it is evil. But who decides, other than the person who has the might, what is appropriate and what is evil?

 

[jayem]

Right comes from equal parts of innate human nature and acculturation.

I'd say might can influence and modify the cultural part. But that effect may be temporary, only for as long as might exists. The human nature part is much longer lasting.

 

[HighwayMan]

Well not really, but you're talking more about a God as a separate entity, such as Zeus or Odin and the like. When a being stands on its own, one can argue with its opinion, whether it is a God or not. But that does not apply to interpretations where the "God" is all in all, such as the Universal God.

 

[R3quiem]

Well not really, but you're talking more about a God as a separate entity, such as Zeus or Odin and the like. When a being stands on its own, one can argue with its opinion, whether it is a God or not. But that does not apply to interpretations where the "God" is all in all, such as the Universal God.

It wouldn't apply to a more eastern-ish view of God that contains the universe within himself, but it does apply to the typical Christian or Islamic view of God that is all powerful but separate from his creation.

 

[Chamdar]

There are those who argue that power is the product of right thinking, in which case the two would coincide. I am not sure in what manner or to what extent I agree with this, but there is some logic to it. Social Darwinism as some say.

The irony is that many of the same "Christians" who blame Darwin helping invent the concept of might makes right are might-makes-right social Darwinists themselves (i.e. openly celebrating war and believing that the "lazy" poor should be allowed to starve to death).

 

[Azureknight 773]

Looks a lot like a power ranger.

NO. That is not a Power Ranger, that is a Kamen Rider/Masked Rider for your information.

 

[Kharak]

Don't you get it?

If you win, that means God was on your side.

Sure, yeah . . . not like anyone's ever said that before. But we all know the God Emperor favors only non-mutated, faithful servants of the Imperium. All other forms cast before his eyes are simply figures to be exterminated.

 

[Shane Roach]

Your 40k is showing.

 

[Kharak]

Your 40k is showing.

Really?

You know, as a commissar, I am entitled to execute you if you fail a leadership check. Pray that you roll a sufficient sum of dice as the enemy conducts his shooting phase.

Oh yeah, don't suffer a Perils of the Warp roll while I'm around here either.

 

[Verv]

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.

 

[Kharak]

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.

Only if you use the flawed, American definition of liberalism.

From the people who brought you capitalism!

 

[Verv]

Only if you use the flawed, American definition of liberalism.

From the people who brought you capitalism!

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.