How to make peace with might makes right?

[baker]

You do realise, don't you, that you have asserted that coercion and intimidation are morally right?

In the absence of some metaphysical foundation, yes.

I don't think many people would find this self-evident.

Sure, because they are operating out of some metaphysical foundation in which they are the good guys.

[ I say "right", not "good", to avoid confusion. Morality distiguishes right from wrong, not (directly) good from bad. Most of us would agree that being morally right is good, but that just introduces more confusion. Can we stick to "right" and "wrong", for the sake of clarity? ]

Then that's another thing to work on.

[Pattern-chaser]

There's an internet meme that says:

DEAR CONQUERED PEOPLES,
The history of humanity is one of constant conflict and competition for resources like land, food, water, and women.
You whine about the fact that Europeans were and are better at this contest than any other race of men in the world.
You losers want us to regret being better at conquest and exploration than you were.
You want apologies and reparations from people who were stronger and smarter than you, people who unequivocally won.
WE AREN'T SORRY AND WE OWE YOU NOTHING. DEAL WITH IT.

https://pics.me.me/ore-em-dear-conquere ... 588725.png

How do you object to that?

I offer one example. When Europeans conquered the Americas, they did so by bio-warfare: inadvertent genocide. It was not Europeans that defeated native Americans but smallpox, chicken pox, measles and a few more deadly diseases, to which they had no immunity. Between 80 and 200 million people died in this way, allowing the invaders' conquests to succeed. This is not an example of Europeans being "stronger and smarter". Much the same applies to Africa, and its colonisation by Europeans. It seems European exploitation of the rest of the world depended more on germs than on being "stronger and smarter".

[Pattern-chaser]

When Europeans conquered the Americas, they did so by bio-warfare: inadvertent genocide. It was not Europeans that defeated native Americans but smallpox, chicken pox, measles and a few more deadly diseases, to which they had no immunity. Between 80 and 200 million people died in this way, allowing the invaders' conquests to succeed.

I should note that these numbers apply only to North America, with South American casualties adding to this dreadful total.

“The European conquest of the New World was not caused by guns, swords, or barbaric type behavior but by the invisible danger-germs,” writes historian Elizabeth Orlow in her article, ‘Silent killers of the new world’. The Spanish had among them one soldier who was infected by the smallpox virus. Within a couple of weeks, the virus is believed to have spread like wildfire, killing one-fourth of the population of Mexico.

Original article

[Pattern-chaser]

You do realise, don't you, that you have asserted that coercion and intimidation are morally right?

In the absence of some metaphysical foundation, yes.

Then we must leave this sub-thread to stand as a glaring example of how morality is far from objective (in the sense of universal).

[baker]

Most moral claim seem "self evident", but you have to ask why?
You reasons are odd to say the least, and at best circular.
You seem to be saying strength is good because it is strong.

Not to make this too personal ...

Up until some ten years ago, if you were to wake me up at 2 AM and ask me which religion was the right one, I would say that it was Roman Catholicism and that I am certain that I would burn in hell for all eternity because I was not baptized as an infant (and a later baptism doesn't really count).
In the broad light of day, one can be quite reasonable and calm, but in the less lucid hours, which nevertheless have much power over one, one might live in utter terror which never really goes away and is always there under the surface.
Those are the effects of long-term bullying by Christians.

I don't feel the fear of eternal damnation anymore the way I used to, not even at 2 AM. Still, some problems remain. It seems that there are things that one comes to believe long before one's capacities for critical thinking have developed. Such beliefs are extremely hard to change, even though one wants to change them. When something has been literally beaten into one, it's hard not to believe it. "Power/strength is morally good" is one such belief. And in the context of Catholicism, it gets an additional metaphysical dimension that non-religious bullying doesn't have. I know "lapsed" Catholics who in their 60's, 70's still believe and are still troubled by those things that were beaten into them when they were children.
I don't want to be like them. Having overcome my Catholic nightmares and being free of them for some ten years, I am confident that I could be able to figure out the might-makes-right problem as well. With some help, probably.

- - -

Your position is self-contradictory. /.../

Thank you. Do stop giving me a hard time and make yourself useful, or drop it all. If I had figured this thing out, I wouldn't be posting about it here now, would I? Thanks.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't feel the fear of eternal damnation anymore the way I used to, not even at 2 AM. Still, some problems remain. It seems that there are things that one comes to believe long before one's capacities for critical thinking have developed. Such beliefs are extremely hard to change, even though one wants to change them. When something has been literally beaten into one, it's hard not to believe it. "Power/strength is morally good" is one such belief.

I too was raised by extreme Christian cultists (Roman Catholics). There are many things they beat into you, but strength being morally good is not one of them, in my own experience. There's the guilt, and so forth, but I think this strength thing comes from you, not the Pope.

[baker]

I offer one example. When Europeans conquered the Americas, they did so by bio-warfare: inadvertent genocide. /.../ It seems European exploitation of the rest of the world depended more on germs than on being "stronger and smarter".

Europeans killed many people directly, with swords, guns, ropes, and fire.

To some extent, they _deliberately_ spread contagious diseases, so we can't talk about inadvertent genocide.

[baker]

I too was raised by extreme Christian cultists (Roman Catholics). There are many things they beat into you, but strength being morally good is not one of them, in my own experience. There's the guilt, and so forth, but I think this strength thing comes from you, not the Pope.

Long story short, I was born and raised as the only non-Catholic among Catholics. That's a special kind of curse.

[baker]

What you appear to be doing is confusing what is with what ought to be.

I asked this earlier:
If something is, then why wouldn't it be precisely because it ought to be?


The ancient Stoics believed that the world is rationally organized to a good end. With such a teleological framework, the is-ought distinction as it is typically understood, is rendered moot.

It looks like the Stoics didn't believe in the is-ought distinction, at least not in terms of a type of morality where the ought is an imperative per se. Instead, the Stoics seemed to believe that the ought only applies in practical terms, as in "In order to get result A, you ought to do B".

[baker]

I too was raised by extreme Christian cultists (Roman Catholics). There are many things they beat into you, but strength being morally good is not one of them, in my own experience.

The cognitive effect of being beaten can be the conclusion that strength is morally right. That is, the person who is being beaten can come to conclude that.

[Pattern-chaser]

I asked this earlier:
If something is, then why wouldn't it be precisely because it ought to be?

For the sake of illustration, let's assume I think the sky should be green. (My reasons for this strange belief don't matter.) I have eyes, and I can see, and agree with you, that the sky is blue. But I think it should be - ought to be - green. What is, is indisputable; it just is. But what ought to be is a statement of what I believe/think. It says that I think God got it wrong, and that the sky ought to be green.

"Is" is an acknowledgement of what is, in the real world. "Ought" merely describes how I think things should be. It asserts that I believe that what is is wrong, and it should be otherwise.

Is that clear enough?

[baker]

For the sake of illustration, let's assume I think the sky should be green. (My reasons for this strange belief don't matter.) I have eyes, and I can see, and agree with you, that the sky is blue. But I think it should be - ought to be - green. What is, is indisputable; it just is. But what ought to be is a statement of what I believe/think.

It says that I think God got it wrong, and that the sky ought to be green.

There's your metaphysical foundation!

"Is" is an acknowledgement of what is, in the real world. "Ought" merely describes how I think things should be. It asserts that I believe that what is is wrong, and it should be otherwise.

Is that clear enough?

I can't really relate to this.

I can relate to how it sometimes applies to me, as in "I am like this, but I ought to be like that". But not beyond that.

Ought so and so be president?
Ought people not eat animals?
Ought the police be fair to the people they apprehend?
Etc.

I don't have simple yes or no answers to such questions. At most, I can come up with a list of pros and cons on each topic, but that's it.

[Jack D Ripper]

To add to what I stated above regarding this:

...

There's an internet meme that says:

DEAR CONQUERED PEOPLES,
The history of humanity is one of constant conflict and competition for resources like land, food, water, and women.
You whine about the fact that Europeans were and are better at this contest than any other race of men in the world.
You losers want us to regret being better at conquest and exploration than you were.
You want apologies and reparations from people who were stronger and smarter than you, people who unequivocally won.
WE AREN'T SORRY AND WE OWE YOU NOTHING. DEAL WITH IT.

https://pics.me.me/ore-em-dear-conquere ... 588725.png

How do you object to that?

I should have commented on the extreme sexism in that internet meme. Women are there listed like things, along with land, food, and water. This suggests that the "winning" of women is slavery and rape rather than "winning" a woman's affection in a situation in which she gets to decide. This fits with it being written by a loser who is repulsive to women, who cannot imagine a woman actually wanting him.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Is" is an acknowledgement of what is, in the real world. "Ought" merely describes how I think things should be. It asserts that I believe that what is is wrong, and it should be otherwise.

I can't really relate to this.

I can relate to how it sometimes applies to me, as in "I am like this, but I ought to be like that". But not beyond that.

Ought so and so be president?
Ought people not eat animals?
Ought the police be fair to the people they apprehend?
Etc.

I don't have simple yes or no answers to such questions. At most, I can come up with a list of pros and cons on each topic, but that's it.

Then refer to those matters on which you do have a definite opinion, rather than those which you find difficult to decide upon. Refer to those beliefs that you have where you think (but others may not) that something that is, ought to be otherwise.

• "Is" is an acknowledgement of fact.
• "Ought" is an assertion that you think something ought to be other than it is. [Unless you are simply agreeing that what is, is what you believe ought to be.]

[Jack D Ripper]

What you appear to be doing is confusing what is with what ought to be.

I asked this earlier:
If something is, then why wouldn't it be precisely because it ought to be?

If it were precisely the same, what would be the point in having the extra word? In the moral sense of the word, "ought" is used to express approval and "ought not" is used to express disapproval.

Now, whether it means more than that or not is a matter of some controversy, but it expresses approval or disapproval at least. One does not typically say that something is "good" or as it ought to be unless one approves of it. Likewise, when someone says that something is bad or that it is not as it ought to be, that someone disapproves of it.

Here are a couple of different theories:

Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
The truth or falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the (actual or hypothetical) attitudes of people.[1]

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

So with ethical subjectivism, all there is to ethics is approval or disapproval and nothing more. However, there are still different types of ethical subjectivism, as, for example, the version discussed here, which is more complicated than the simple version suggested by what has been stated so far:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16933

The primary motive to go with ethical subjectivism is the fact that no one has demonstrated that there is anything more to ethics than that.

The primary motive that someone might go with the more complicated version at the link above is that it explains the "universality" of ethical judgements.


The first sentence of the following expresses the position of moral realism (the remainder contrasts it with other positions and divides moral realism into two types; it is included so that you can see that there are a lot of options that people take):

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. This makes moral realism a non-nihilist form of ethical cognitivism (which accepts that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be evaluated as true or false) with an ontological orientation, standing in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism[1] and moral skepticism, including ethical subjectivism (which denies that moral propositions refer to objective facts), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true); and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all). Within moral realism, the two main subdivisions are ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism.[2]

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


The problem with moral realism is that no one has found these objective features of the world and objectively identified them. But it is probably the most popular view of ethics, at least historically.

But regardless of which ethical or moral theory one goes with, it is not simply how the world is.

The ancient Stoics believed that the world is rationally organized to a good end. With such a teleological framework, the is-ought distinction as it is typically understood, is rendered moot.

I introduced the stoics in an effort to answer the question of how to deal with the fact that the world is not as it ought to be. So I was interested in the practical side of their advice. I did not intend to endorse their world view. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that point.

As for what they claim about the world, they claim it is neutral, neither good nor bad. According to the stoics, what is good or bad is your attitude toward the world.

It looks like the Stoics didn't believe in the is-ought distinction, at least not in terms of a type of morality where the ought is an imperative per se. Instead, the Stoics seemed to believe that the ought only applies in practical terms, as in "In order to get result A, you ought to do B".

The morality would apply to individuals reacting to the world. The stoics would say that you morally ought to be okay with how the world is, to be okay with what you cannot change. And you are morally wrong to be upset about things you cannot change. They also would apply morality to your particular actions, so that what you do is subject to moral judgement, just as how you react to the world is subject to moral judgement.

But the moral sense of ought would not apply to the world outside of people's actions and attitudes toward the world, according to the stoics.


Most people do not take the stoics' position on this. But regardless of that, their practical advice still is practical. It does you no good to be upset about things you cannot change.