Does Might Make Right?

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

A recent apologist has asserted that morals are not only objective, but absolute. Thus far, however, this is his definition:

"Anything that's contrary to the character of God or that violates God's commands as they are laid out in Scripture." --- is apparently not deemed 'moral'.

Such an assertion begs the question in the title. Does might make right?

cloudyday2 · Dec 10, 2020

Rather than "might makes right", I propose that "the creator defines what is right within that creation".

Ophiolite · Dec 10, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Rather than "might makes right", I propose that "the creator defines what is right within that creation".

Can you explain to me how those two are different? They appear identical to me.

cloudyday2 · Dec 10, 2020

Ophiolite said:
Can you explain to me how those two are different? They appear identical to me.

Take deism as an example. After the initial creation, the deist god is the exact opposite of mighty, because it is no longer involved with its creation. However, if "right" really exists then it was probably the work of the deist god during creation.

If we take the Christian God, then He is both the creator and the almighty. However, it is in His creator role that He defines what is right, because that is intrinsic to creation.

QvQ · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
A recent apologist has asserted that morals are not only objective, but absolute. Thus far, however, this is his definition:

"Anything that's contrary to the character of God or that violates God's commands as they are laid out in Scripture." --- is apparently not deemed 'moral'.

Such an assertion begs the question in the title. Does might make right?

Moral Law is an Act of God. Immutable, carved in stone. What is right and wrong is not according to might but according to immutable laws. A person who walks out naked in a snow storm is doing the wrong thing and mighty are the forces arrayed against the erring flesh. It is according to the Will of God whether the fool perish or realizing the perilous path, rightly returns to warmth and shelter.. The might of God is within the Law, but right and wrong is the Law.
Simply stated, it is the might of the Law that executes a murderer but the law against murder is about right and wrong and has nothing to do with might.

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Take deism as an example. After the initial creation, the deist god is the exact opposite of mighty, because it is no longer involved with its creation. However, if "right" really exists then it was probably the work of the deist god during creation.

If we take the Christian God, then He is both the creator and the almighty. However, it is in His creator role that He defines what is right, because that is intrinsic to creation.

Does might make right?

cloudyday2 · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
Does might make right?

Apparently you didn't think post #2 and post #4 answered your question? That's the best I can do though.

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

QvQ said:
Moral Law is an Act of God.

Which one? And prove it.

QvQ said:
Immutable, carved in stone.

Prove it.

QvQ said:
What is right and wrong is not according to might but according to immutable laws.

Doesn't sound like you need a God for such assertions?

QvQ said:
A person who walks out naked in a snow storm is doing the wrong thing and mighty are the forces arrayed against the erring flesh.

Nah. Depends on the situation. What if the house in on fire, and going out into the snow is their only refuge?

What if they are awaken by an intruder, and need to get out of the house, to safety, before grabbing their clothes?

You get the idea....

QvQ said:
It is according to the Will of God whether the fool perish or realizing the perilous path, rightly returns to warmth and shelter..

What about the fire or intruder, as expressed above? 'Warmth' may not be the best shelter, in some cases.

QvQ said:
The might of God is within the Law, but right and wrong is the Law.
Simply stated, it is the might of the Law that executes a murderer but the law against murder is about right and wrong and has nothing to do with might.

Sounds like a true deepity to me?

QvQ · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
Which one? And prove it.

Prove it.

Doesn't sound like you need a God for such assertions?

Nah. Depends on the situation. What if the house in on fire, and going out into the snow is their only refuge?

What if they are awaken by an intruder, and need to get out of the house, to safety, before grabbing their clothes?

You get the idea....

What about the fire or intruder, as expressed above? 'Warmth' may not be the best shelter, in some cases.

Sounds like a true deepity to me?

1&2) Proof is simple, Ask God.
3) Immutable laws are not a priori
4) For whatever reason a naked person may go out into a snow storm, the fact remains that the law does not change. The cause of the condition does not change the results. Naked person + snow storm= immutable law Freeze to Death.
5) To seek warmth from whatever source would be right if a person were naked in a snow storm, including standing close enough to a burning structure to keep warm. Entering a burning structure is an absurdity, of course.
6) Simply stated, it is the might of the Law that executes a murderer but the law against murder is about right and wrong and has nothing to do with might.

Redac · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
A recent apologist has asserted that morals are not only objective, but absolute. Thus far, however, this is his definition:

"Anything that's contrary to the character of God or that violates God's commands as they are laid out in Scripture." --- is apparently not deemed 'moral'.

Such an assertion begs the question in the title. Does might make right?

No. The "might makes right" position, when speaking normatively, would suggest that something actually is right or wrong merely because it can be enforced, regardless of what that thing is, who is enforcing it, or why. That's not what is being stated here.

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

QvQ said:
1&2) Proof is simple, Ask God.
3) Immutable laws are not a priori
4) For whatever reason a naked person may go out into a snow storm, the fact remains that the law does not change. The cause of the condition does not change the results. Naked person + snow storm= immutable law Freeze to Death.
5) Simply stated, it is the might of the Law that executes a murderer but the law against murder is about right and wrong and has nothing to do with might.

1&2) I tried. I got no answer. I guess you are wrong. Unless He is ignoring me.

3) You stated "What is right and wrong is not according to might but according to immutable laws". This assertion does not necessarily require a God, unless you somehow demonstrate they could only come from a God. Can you?

4) You have to now add additional qualifiers, like time. This is not what you stated prior. You stated "A person who walks out naked in a snow storm is doing the wrong thing and mighty are the forces arrayed against the erring flesh." Why not instead just appeal to consequentialism, or situational ethics. Oh, that's right, because those don't require the necessity for a God either Just like the 'immutable law' that you may get hypothermia when your core body temperature drops, does not necessarily appeal to a God. Sure, you can blankly assert that a law must have a law giver. But everything thereafter, is mere blank assertion - (as you have clearly demonstrated in 1 & 2).

5) Okay, you actually want me to delve into this deepity. Okay. Nuh-uh.

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

Redac said:
No. The "might makes right" position, when speaking normatively, would suggest that something actually is right or wrong merely because it can be enforced, regardless of what that thing is, who is enforcing it, or why. That's not what is being stated here.

Why not?

QvQ · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
1&2) I tried. I got no answer. I guess you are wrong. Unless He is ignoring me.

3) You stated "What is right and wrong is not according to might but according to immutable laws". This assertion does not necessarily require a God, unless you somehow demonstrate they could only come from a God. Can you?

4) You have to now add additional qualifiers, like time. This is not what you stated prior. You stated "A person who walks out naked in a snow storm is doing the wrong thing and mighty are the forces arrayed against the erring flesh." Why not instead just appeal to consequentialism, or situational ethics. Oh, that's right, because those don't require the necessity for a God either Just like the 'immutable law' that you may get hypothermia when your core body temperature drops, does not necessarily appeal to a God. Sure, you can blankly assert that a law must have a law giver. But everything thereafter, is mere blank assertion - (as you have clearly demonstrated in 1 & 2).

5) Okay, you actually want me to delve into this deepity. Okay. Nuh-uh.

The original posting was about God. Now you seem to be arguing Newtonian clockwork universe and Kant without reference to the original question.
If the question is simply "does might make right, it was answered by Redac in post #10

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

QvQ said:
The original posting was about God. Now you seem to be arguing Newtonian clockwork universe and Kant without reference to the original question.
If the question is simply "does might make right, it was answered by Redac in post #10

Then maybe you should have answered the simple question

Furthermore, I've responded to him. I'm awaiting his response. Stay tuned....

But I do like to address all responses of posters, and challenge their given assertions You made many. Often times, these threads organically take many twists and turns. Always expect the unexpected.

QvQ · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
Then maybe you should have answered the simple question

Furthermore, I've responded to him. I'm awaiting his response. Stay tuned....

But I do like to address all responses of posters, and challenge their given assertions You made many. Often times, these threads organically take many twists and turns. Always expect the unexpected.

It is my arguments that you agree with, physics however, the a priori of immutable law. Those laws cannot be derived from reason or nature although some contend man has a moral compass, a concience. I am not certain man inherently knows right from wrong. "Moral" without God gang aft agley.

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

QvQ said:
It is my arguments that you agree with, physics however, the a priori of immutable law. Those laws cannot be derived from reason or nature although some contend man has a moral compass, I am not certain. "Moral" without God gang aft agley.

Spoiler alert. Morals are subjective, even if a God exists.

Tree of Life · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
A recent apologist has asserted that morals are not only objective, but absolute. Thus far, however, this is his definition:

"Anything that's contrary to the character of God or that violates God's commands as they are laid out in Scripture." --- is apparently not deemed 'moral'.

Such an assertion begs the question in the title. Does might make right?

“Begging the question” means assuming what you’re trying to prove.

No, might does not make right. Just because someone is strong or in power does not mean that their commands or dictates are right.

Right is determined by God - his character and his commands.

Tree of Life · Dec 10, 2020

Ophiolite said:
Can you explain to me how those two are different? They appear identical to me.

“Might makes right” is not true in the realm of human interaction. But the fact that God’s character is right is not by virtue of God being the most powerful. Goodness is related to God’s character in a tautological sense.

QvQ · Dec 10, 2020

cvanwey said:
Spoiler alert. Morals are subjective, even if a God exists.

There are two sources of "morals" in modern secular society.
1) One is social engineering, moral precepts formulated by quasi-governmental entities enforced by the might of the State
2) the modern concept of "conscience" or every man is the law unto himself.
Whether those are "subjective" is moot.
The moral commands of God are not subjective anymore than the law of gravity is subjective.
The moral commands of God are equivalent to the law of gravity in operation and execution, objectively

cvanwey · Dec 10, 2020

Tree of Life said:
“Begging the question” means assuming what you’re trying to prove.

I should have used a differing word choice here. I meant something to the effect of... 'it is begging the following question to be asked...'

Tree of Life said:
No, might does not make right.

Okay, I would agree so far...

Tree of Life said:
Just because someone is strong or in power does not mean that their commands or dictates are right.

I still agree, keep going...

Tree of Life said:
Right is determined by God - his character and his commands.

Doh, and... you just lost me.

What if I do not agree with His character or some/all of his commands? And not only do I disagree with a given moral(s) or command(s), but I furnish seemingly sound reason to the contrary of His command(s)? Then what?

Does Might Make Right?

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Generic Theist

Member

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Hide The Pain

Hide The Pain

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency