[sssilver]

Every single developed country today touting moral rights has its foundation in those "wrongs". Its citizens gleefully consuming the resources those "wrongs" have created, so they can preach morality online.

It is the nature of life itself to "kill and perform violence", children and otherwise. "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must".

Death is, as of now, life's only mechanism for iteration in its process of endless prototyping.

Every marvel that humankind has produced has its roots in extreme violence. From the creation of Ancient Greece to the creation of the United States, children had to die horrible deaths so that these things could come to be.

Anyone can make arbitrary claims about what's right and what's wrong. The only way to prove such a claim is through victory, and all victory is violence against the loser.

[ribadeo]

Thanks for summarizing so eloquently what is WRONG with the precept that might equals right. If she floats she's a witch, if she drowns she must have been innocent is the flip side fallacy, but what you just outlined amounts to: "i am bad on purpose, what are YOU gonna do about it?"

I am disgusted that this is still proferred as a valid moral philosophical principle. No. A thousand times no.

The answer is A SYSTEM.

The answer to bully predator logic is human society and systematic thought. This provides the capability to resist such base immorality as you and historical predators have proposed.

[scotty79]

That SYSTEM that enables modern enligtened society is called "monopoly on violence".

There's no way out of violence, your system needs to be founded on it.

And I wouldn't say that the what previous poster described is akin to witch trials. It's rather akin to painting the bullseye labelled "right" after taking the shot and hitting something other than your foot. And that was what all human cultures were doing since the beginning of time. Recent western trend to paint the bullseye labelled "wrong" at their hit is novel but equally disingenious.

[Amezarak]

> I am disgusted that this is still proferred as a valid moral philosophical principle.

Can you explain what makes it invalid besides the fact that you and me don't like it?

There are no "valid" or "invalid" moral principles, there is no objectively correct morality, nor does the idea even make sense. Morals are historically contingent social phenomena. Over different times and even over different cultures today, they vary dramatically. Everyone has them, and they all think they are right. That quickly reduces all discussion in cases like this to ornate versions of "you're wrong" and "no, YOU'RE wrong."

[exceptione]

It is better to be precise here. Validity could be a different measure than correct. It might very well be like you reserve the latter for some ethereal mathematical property, free of axioms, to which type you want to cast "validity in the domain of morality", which then has to pass the type checker for mathematical expressions.

In Philosophy and Ethics you strive to improve your understanding, in this case in the domain of human social groups. Some ideas just have better reasoning than others.

To say no idea is good, because your type checker rejects any program you bring up is an exercise in futility.

"might makes right" is a justification for abuse of other people. Abusing other people might be understood as using other people while taking away their freedom. If you think people should rather be owned than free, go pitch that.

I emphasize: it would be your pitch. There is no hiding behind a compiler here.

On topic: "might makes right" prevails in societies where people have limited rights and therefore need to cope with abuse. There is a reinforcing mechanism in such sado-societies, where sufferers are to normalize that, thereby keeping the system in place.

For example the Russian society did never escape to freedom, which is a tragedy. But I think every person has an obligation to do his best in matters of ethics, not just sitting like a slave and complain about how you are the real victim while doing nothing. A society is a collective expression of the individuals.

[Amezarak]

All that is fine and good, but it comes down to your personal and non-universal moral intuition that suffering, abuse , etc. are bad. You make that an axiom and then judge moral systems based on that, using that axiom to build beautiful towers of “reasoning” (rationalization). We both feel that way because of the time and place we grew up, not because it is correct compared to the Ancient Greek or Piraha moral systems. That’s why you have to take discussions like this in a non-moralistic direction, because there’s no grounds for agreement on that basis.

[exceptione]

> non-universal moral intuition that suffering, abuse , etc. are bad.

You say it perhaps a bit weird, but imho you are stating that there do not exist universal moral values, which is a very non-universal stance.

> not because it is correct compared to the Ancient Greek or Piraha moral systems

- Well, the beauty is that we can make progress.

- If X can only register that system A an B are morally equal, because both systems are a system, then X misses some fundamental human abilities. That X is dangerous, because for X there is nothing wrong with Auschwitz.

- Also, a good question would be if one would like to exchange their moral beliefs for the Greek moral system. If not, why have a preference for a moral belief if they are all equal.

Not saying this is you, but I think the main fallacy people run into is that they are aware of shortcomings in their moral acting. Some might excuse themself with relativism -> nihilism, but that is not what a strong person does. Most of us are hypocrite some of the time, but it doesn't mean you have to blame your moral intuition.

[Amezarak]

> You say it perhaps a bit weird, but imho you are stating that there do not exist universal moral values, which is a very non-universal stance.

It’s an observation, and a very old one. Darius of Persia famously made a very similar observation in Herodotus.

> Well, the beauty is that we can make progress.

There is no such thing as progress in this realm.

> - If X can only register that system A an B are morally equal, because both systems are a system, then X misses some fundamental human abilities. That X is dangerous, because for X there is nothing wrong with Auschwitz.

No, the point is that there is no basis of comparison, not in moral terms. Of course you and I feel that way, living when and where we did. There are no “fundamental human abilities” being missed, this is just the same argument that “we feel this is wrong, so it’s bad and dangerous.

> - Also, a good question would be if one would like to exchange their moral beliefs for the Greek moral system. If not, why have a preference for a moral belief if they are all equal.

Of course not. Morals are almost entirely socialized. Nobody reasons themselves into a moral system and they cannot reason themselves out of one. It’s an integral part of their identity.

> Not saying this is you, but I think the main fallacy people run into is that they are aware of shortcomings in their moral acting. Some might excuse themself with relativism -> nihilism, but that is not what a strong person does. Most of us are hypocrite some of the time, but it doesn't mean you have to blame your moral intuition.

I do my best to follow my moral intuitions, and I am sometimes a hypocrite, but the point is moral intuitions are socialized into you and contingent on your milieu, so when you’re discussing these issues with other people who did not share the same socialization, moral arguments lose all their force because they don’t have the same intuitions. So we have to find some other grounds to make our point.