Power determines who's right

What do you guys think about this statement? I think what he says makes sense. So does that mean our morality will change when a new superpower arises? So, does that mean that when the Roman empire reigned supreme, people's morality was determined by the Romans? Is morality subjective then? I think the Roman Empire's influence to this day shapes a lot of modern ideas.

Some would like it to be that might is right but it isn't.

But power can definitely influence morality.

The US is the current superpower, what they say and value has great influence around the world whether I like it or not.

So get ready for the gays to flourish.

Power does not determine who is right, it just gives them confidence to act as if they are in the right.

@Master_Live: That was... FABULOUS!

@Treflis: So how do we know who's right?

I don't believe morality is subjective. In fact I believe morality is inherent and that everyone already knows what's right and what's wrong. But here's the thing. Truth is like a river and fallacies are like cloys of clay. When you drop one of them into the river it dissolves in the river and for a moment you won't be able to see beneath the river. But give the river some time. Let the water retake its place and then you'll see that falsehood vanishes for falsehood is a vanishing thing.

That's what people with power do. They make the river dirty.

Might makes right.

I quite liked that. Well done.

Yeah, wow I never thought of it that logically...

power determines who is dead, not who is right

you can be dead and still be right

Nothing determines morality, its just that power, among other things, sways the multitude with regards to their perception of it. That coincides with the fact that the multitude are largely amoral to begin with, they have an inherent need to be either swayed or coerced with respect to what constitutes morality. So the two premises combine seamlessly to instill someone's version of morality in those people.

The funny thing is that moral relativists made a doctrine of this phenomenon. Instead of arriving at the conclusion that throughout history and across civilizations people and ideologies/creeds grasped images of morality capturing it only in measure, they arrived at the conclusion that morality must be many rather than one.

Morality is largely evolutionary. See the evolution of morality and human evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

I also recommend the book "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Animal

And scientists aren't lying when they say that there is evidence for evolution. Human evolution as well as biological evolution in general is a real phenomena supported by a lot of scientific evidence.

In the strictest sense, power does not equate with being philosophically valid. Wi-Phi has videos which describe the difference between having sound logic and the inapplicability of colloquialisms to philosophical discussion. Morality is a philosophical topic as much as it is a matter of religious debate. As such, allow me to direct you to reading the Republic. It discusses the merits of truth and understanding, and addresses the fault in acting as if status is equivalent to rightness when acting as a representative of fields not directly related to one's education.

@korvus: @BboyStatix: @sheikhspeare:

Thanks :-)

might does not make right

Like all of the moronic pedestrians who cross busy boulevards while texting on their phones without even bothering to make eye contact with drivers to make sure that they actually notice them.

Yeah...you may legally have the right of way, but you're still going to die if you are hit.

What's considered right changes over time. 500 years ago nobody saw a problem with it if I bought a black woman to help my 13 year old wife cook me dinner.

It's quantum mechanics or faith in other words.

Like a homeless man believing he is the king of the world.

War determines who's left.

Might only made right in Atlas Shrugged.

Might is right in most instances. But that all depends on who controls what in terms of territory. So if the Roman Empire had the most control of land, respectively, it doesn't mean Persia was necessarily "influenced". Political decisions are an entirely different scope and subject though.

everyone bitches about fascism but i don't hear you crying when the trains show up on time.

So from military experience arguments among officers of the same rank are pretty much determined by who is the loudest.

I'm not joking.