Might ain't Right

This is the book that the kid who shot up a garlic festival read. CFI exists to spread the ability to recognize crap like this for the crap that it is.

It’s a little sensationalistic to claim the book is what caused him to kill.

Also worth pointing out that he didn’t seem to understand the fact that in the real world might is right and that’s why he is dead now.

Yeah, and I didn’t say that.

… in the real world might is right …

False - there is no correlation between the ability to do something and how ‘right’ it is to do it.

I bet that if all those people who think they believe might is right, were transported to an alternate reality where “might is right” was the only rule for society, they would change their minds very quickly. Even a society of pure psychopaths, where empathy is nonexistent, the vast majority of citizens would suffer at the hands of the top few.

“Might is right” is a juvenile and moronic idea.

“Might is right” is a juvenile and moronic idea.
As much as I agree with that sentiment, there's always the way things are to deal with.

Case in point, The Drunken Driver …

Might Is Right or The Survival of the Fittest, is a book by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard. First published in 1896[1], it heavily advocates egoist anarchism, amorality, consequentialism and psychological hedonism. In Might Is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas such as advocacy of human and natural rights and he also argues that only strength or physical might can establish moral right (à la Callicles or Thrasymachus). The book also attacks Christianity and Democracy. Friedrich Nietzsche's theories of master–slave morality and herd mentality served as clear inspirations for Redbeard's book which was written contemporaneously.[2]

Noted individualist anarchist and holocaust denier James J. Martin called it “surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere.”[3] This refers to the book’s controversial content such as its viewpoint that weaknessshould be regarded with hatred and the strong and forceful presence of Social Darwinism in its text. There are also controversial parts of the book which deal with the topics of race and male–female relations, such as its claim that the woman and the family as a whole are the property of the man and its proclamation that the Anglo-Saxon race is innately superior to all other races. [4] The book also contains many extremely anti-Semitic statements.[4]


Hmmm, kinda sounds like Trumpism - what’s fascinating in a most grotesque fashion, is how Prosperity Christians and Evangelicals have lined up for their basically anti-Jesus Christ messaging.

Phony is as phony does.

Ethan Coen is a literary genius. Me really bigly jealous.

I agree that the reality of a society with nasty people trumps the theoretical ideal society we could have. But that doesn’t make the nasty people right, it just makes them obstacles to living well now and slows progress to a better society in the future.

The Christian support of Trump and what he stands for is proof they’re hypocrites and/or brain-washed sheeple. I know too many of them, and they make me want to scream in frustration- how otherwise nice people can say and think such horrible stuff is scary.

 

“… in the real world might is right …”

False – there is no correlation between the ability to do something and how ‘right’ it is to do it.

I bet that if all those people who think they believe might is right, were transported to an alternate reality where “might is right” was the only rule for society, they would change their minds very quickly. Even a society of pure psychopaths, where empathy is nonexistent, the vast majority of citizens would suffer at the hands of the top few.

“Might is right” is a juvenile and moronic idea.


That’s not what it means.

The phrase describes how those who are the strongest become the authority because ultimately, morality is subjective, and strength is the only real enforcer.

Yeah, and I didn’t say that.
You seems to imply that. Be more clear.
You seems to imply that. Be more clear.
That's pretty funny coming from Mr. Half Sentence.
The phrase describes how those who are the strongest become the authority because ultimately, morality is subjective
That's not what happened here at all and not how it works. He was shot by the police. We voted to delegate that power to them and we only give it to them as long as they are on duty and follow protocols. You don't become a police person by killing off weaker police. Morality sometimes changes and includes mercy but it is not subjective. We use courts and legal precedents and are constantly adjusting them based on dialog.
That’s pretty funny coming from Mr. Half Sentence.
LOL okay, I got my laugh. Now I can go to bed.

Although I can’t resist tossing in another one:

The Golden Rule.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
That’s not what happened here at all and not how it works. He was shot by the police. We voted to delegate that power to them and we only give it to them as long as they are on duty and follow protocols. You don’t become a police person by killing off weaker police.
The police are part of the state, which has a monopoly on violence and is stronger than any angry mass shooter. That state was not elected, it was created by men who killed their enemies and tamed the land. Law Enforcement was also not established through the democratic process but a necessary creation of that state. We the people cannot give or take authority from the police; we can only hope local politicians we elect can keep them in line — though this rarely seems to work.
Morality sometimes changes and includes mercy but it is not subjective. We use courts and legal precedents and are constantly adjusting them based on dialog.
If morality is not subjective then it must be objective and exist independently from us, but that clearly isn’t the case. How does that work?

I can see no difference between what you describe about the US government and a paramilitary group. You seem to have no ability to observe reality.

As for morality, I can’t explain Moral Realism in 200 words or less. You could look it up. A simple thought experiment to get you started; how is that all successful civilizations have a version of the Golden Rule and we can observe compassion in apes and dolphins?

Here’s a good discussion on the topic. http://www.lifeaftergod.org/071-ryan-becomes-a-moral-realist-a-conversation-with-aaron-rabinowitz/

You could look it up. A simple thought experiment to get you started; how is that all successful civilizations have a version of the Golden Rule and we can observe compassion in apes and dolphins?

Here’s a good discussion on the topic. http://www.lifeaftergod.org/071-ryan-becomes-a-moral-realist-a-conversation-with-aaron-rabinowitz/


Once again well said Lausten. It would be fun and interesting if that guy actually tried to give you a serious answer.

I’ve started that podcast, although Maddy is starting to give me That Look again - “Dude, get your nose out of that thing and lets go for another walk!”

 

Regarding Aaron, seems he was blessed with non-dogmatic parents. Reminds me a little of my parents who had us start visiting a small non-denominational bible church at 8ish, because they felt we should be exposed to Christianity. Through weird circumstances had us winding up attending a small Lutheran school for my 6th and 7th, so I got the super dose of religion there, along with a hell of head rush, but got over that within the next 3, 4 years. Through it all my parents bathed me in rationalism, love of science, love of the natural world and fellow humans, and they did it coming from simple human ethics and curiosity, they didn’t need the religion. They didn’t reject religion, it was simply not important.

Perhaps that explains my confoundment at the how all consuming and blinding religious dogmas are for people.

So, I was very lucky indeed not being subjected to the bullshit conditioning that most seem to get from their parents.

Then I could relate to Aaron’s youthful exhilaration at reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, I was 18, 19 when I got it and read it on a long literally cross-country bus ride, it was quite the zinger - and reading it on the road added another dimension. It was great introduction back to reality after getting quite into the first four Castaneda’s books, which to me was the end of the story - though I guess Castaneda figured out he had a cash cow on his hands and kept pumping them out - thus delegitimizing the first four. Or at least reducing them to fun thought provoking stories and little more.

That guy, did your parents fill you with their religious beliefs?

U complain that morals are subjective, but the very statement “Might makes right.” was, historically, before the concept of justice came into the human consciousness, a foundational moral belief in human societies. Leaders who were strong enuf to take over (by whatever means) were considered to be morally right in doing so.

Fortunately, we humans advanced our social thinking with the concept of justice. But still there are some who don’t seem able to handle that level of complexity.

I can see no difference between what you describe about the US government and a paramilitary group. You seem to have no ability to observe reality.

As for morality, I can’t explain Moral Realism in 200 words or less. You could look it up. A simple thought experiment to get you started; how is that all successful civilizations have a version of the Golden Rule and we can observe compassion in apes and dolphins?


I didn’t say compassion doesn’t exist. It obviously does but that does not negate MIGHT as the ultimate authority.

As for moral realism I’m familiar with it and strongly disagree with it. FWIW it is not widely accepted by most biologists.

 

 
That guy, did your parents fill you with their religious beliefs?
They weren't religious, so no. We aren’t talking about religion anyway.