5 ms·

> In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definition, the most extreme position of "might is right". I've occasionally wondered, is that n

• dfxm12 4y ago
  It is. It's just that capital is the might of today. Money to influence legislation, money to withstand long legal battles, etc.
• exceptione 4y ago
  Democracy is the enemy of the might makes right. Might makes right selects the stronger clan, and selects its strongest leader: that is, the one who follows this doctrine the most brutally and successfully. Because if you don´t, someone else will be more ruthless. So in a democracy we protect minority interests and curb the powers of commercial entities. And we have the Trias Politica. You might wonder if we do enough, for example making sure commercial entities are kept under control. Democracy is work, it is not a guarantee you will keep having it. You can lose it, and many entities are fine with destroying it too further their own self interest. You don´t have it because of how exceptional you think you are. So take an active role to protect it.
  • adventured 4y ago
    Democracy isn't the enemy of might makes right at all. In actual democratic systems, the stronger great majority (eg the 75% or 90%) can do anything they want to with a weak minority. There are many prominent examples of democratic systems being used to implement might makes right via majority abuse of the minority. You have to intentionally neuter democratic systems with strict constitutions that protect individual rights, to prevent might makes right from always taking over democratic systems. You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.
    • exceptione 4y ago
      I don´t agree with your wording. You sound like that especially in a democracy the minorities get crushed. But its the democracies that build upon the core idea of alienable human rights, that gives you voting power but also guarantees as an individual. It is no wonder that you will find such constitutions in democracies. Thats why I said trias politica. I encourage you to think critically and at the same time ask you to cherish what you have. It is you duty to defend democracy and keep it functioning, or else you will lose it. I am not saying that do you do that personally, but I see a lot of spoiled people in the west that shit on their own chair, by dismissing democracy, even sometimes equaling it with autocratic regimes. Those don´t know what they ask for.
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        The notion of inalienable human rights is, specifically, opposed to democracy. Democracy needs to be subordinated to that more fundamental principle. They are often associated only because places where democracy is strong also tend to acknowledge human rights, at least in the abstract. (Obviously autocrats will not acknowledge it.) But it was, and is, often not so. Ask any Jim Crow victim. Or widow of a police violence victim.
        • exceptione 4y ago
          I think your outrage over specific transgressions got the better of you, turning you to black-white thinking. It's a fallacy. If someones right got trampled, that is something to take to the court. The law is there to protect the single man or minority from 'the terror of the majority'. That's why we mean with democracy not just the ability to vote, but also the rule of law . We also mean the trias politica: law making powers, executive power, and judiciary power al separated. No one said that in a democracy everything will be perfect. It requires work. It at least gives you the tools to improve it. It is a living system.
          • ncmncm 4y ago
            Ask Emmett Till about that. Well, you can't, because he's dead. His (admitted -- boasted, really) murderer was acquitted in a trial by a jury of his peers. The murderer's. None of Emmett's, of course. So, no. Democracy or something like is generally a prerequisite for the notion of rights to even have meaning. But it absolutely does not demand them. Each has to be fought for over many generations. You have to hope your democracy lasts long enough for that. Often enough a neighboring autocrat crushes it.
  • adastra22 4y ago
    Democracy is also two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Remember that Hitler was democratically elected and the head of a coalition government, before taking indefinite emergency powers. Protecting rights is more a consequence of the rule of law, and equality under the law.
• cupofpython 4y ago
  power will succeed, but that is very different than believing anything a greater power is capable of enforcing must be accepted as morally correct just because they are stronger
• nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > I've occasionally wondered, is that not reality for all of us? Even us living in democratic nations? Is democracy at its core not a "might" (through a greater cardinality) makes right of sorts? The tyranny of the majority? Absolutely. The trajectory along which many ethical arguments about power roll is to start with the 'Redbeard' straw-man and then offer up increasingly diluted forms, social contracts and so on, until an acceptable proxy is found for universalisable systematic violence [1] in kind. [1] This may not be a literal violence at all. The point at which it passes under an acceptable threshold, as sublimated power, says a lot about each culture. For example, acceptance of brutal inequality may be taken as such a sublime violence - the measure of a civilisation is how it treats its weakest members.