baker wrote: ↑December 5th, 2020, 6:17 am
Ecurb wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 11:53 amOh, come on! Since when does anyne consider the Conquistadors moral paragons?
The Conquistadors paved the way for the Catholic colonization. To this day, Latin America is ruled by Catholicism.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of the native American people whom the European conquerors defeated. Not just those in Latin America, but also those in Northern America.
As in the case of Aztecs, there are ways to blame the defeated for their defeat. This can be applied to the native Americans in the North, saying they were defeated because they were living a nomadic lifestyle, or refused to use firearms for too long, or whatever.
But this kind of blaming the defeated supports precisely the maxim that might makes right.
When someone can and does take away your posessions, your health, members of your family, and has made clear that they are willing and able to take away your life -- how are you _not_ going to consider them superior to yourself?
And if they have defeated in you in a practical sense, how can you still think they have not defeated you morally?
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?
They were superior in some way. Anyone who wins a fight is better in some way. They are better at fighting, or were better at fighting in that particular instance. But that does not make them morally better.
As for the outcome of the descendants being Catholic, that is a matter of indoctrination of the young. That is something the victors imposed upon those who lost, as a method of control for the future. The descendants conformed more to what the victors wanted as a result of that religion being imposed upon them. And it has affected the moral beliefs of those descendants.
What you appear to be doing is confusing what
is with what
ought to be. That the stronger is imposing on others does not mean that the stronger ought to impose on others. Indeed, if the word "ought" meant the same thing as "is", then it would be a pointless word. It means something different from what the word "is" means. There are a variety of different theories about it, from subjective theories in which it is based on feelings, to objective theories that claim that it is based on something else in the universe (though what that is varies, and is problematic for a variety of reasons that don't matter for the present point).
So, to your question:
"When someone can and does take away your posessions, your health, members of your family, and has made clear that they are willing and able to take away your life -- how are you _not_ going to consider them superior to yourself?"
Of course, the victors were superior in some way(s). The Europeans had better weapons and were more capable of defeating the Native Americans than the Native Americans were capable of defeating the Europeans. But that use of the term "better" does not imply anything whatsoever about morality or ethics.
That a cheetah is faster than a lion (average of each adult, in good health) means that a cheetah is better than a lion, as far as speed is concerned. It means nothing else than that, but it is a way in which the cheetah is better than a lion. Of course, the lion is stronger than the cheetah, so the lion is better than the cheetah in that way. But that "better" does not make it better in any other way; it just means that it is stronger. There is no moral dimension to either use of the term "better".
Getting back to "ought":
Oxford wrote:ought1
MODAL VERB (ought)
1 [with infinitive] Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
‘they ought to respect the law’
1.1 Used to indicate a desirable or expected state.
‘he ought to be able to take the initiative’
1.2 Used to give or ask for advice.
‘you ought to go’
2 [with infinitive] Used to indicate something that is probable.
‘five minutes ought to be enough time’
https://www.lexico.com/definition/ought
Definition 1 is the one relevant to this. It should be clear that this is quite different from a description of what is the case.
Getting back to the title of this thread, might makes one able to do as one wills. But that has nothing whatever to do with right. That someone does something does not mean that that someone ought to have done that something.
Oxford wrote:right
ADJECTIVE
1 Morally good, justified, or acceptable.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/right
Might does not make one morally good, justified, or acceptable. So might does not make right.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume