Zone1 Might Makes Right

[zaangalewa]

Wars are fought usually by 2 sides that believe they are in the right.

The winner proves might makes right.

That's blatant nonsense. No one makes wars because of "right". A nice story in this context: The king of France had had problems with a city in the upper part of Italy some centuries ago. So he sent an army to punish this city. His military commander found out that the city was governed from a woman - and refused to attack her city with the words "I do not fight against a woman!". Background is the very very old rule: "A man who beats a woman is no man!". One war less on this planet and the planet still turns around the sun.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

It is not right...but it is how it is.

 

[zaangalewa]

It is not right...but it is how it is.

View attachment 995966

Be happy when China now not declares war on you.

“Man has three ways of acting wisely; first, by reflection, which is the noblest; second, by imitation, which is the easiest; and third, by experience, which is the bitterest.”
Confucius

 

[ding]

You didn't cite a source, but anyway, that's similar to the definition I posted earlier, from Oxford dictionary.

Again, the question is, do you actually agree with that idea?

By that logic, anyone can trample all over anyone else, and as long as they get away with it, what they did was morally right.

No. Right makes right.

 

[zaangalewa]

... To a Nazi Hitler was a Hero. Was he?

Unfortunatelly I have to say Hitler seemed to be a brave soldier in World War 1- but on the other side Hitler was born in the cruelness of this war.
A slogan in his elections had been "the general and the private" (private he was on his own and general had been president Hindenburg (who not had been a Nazi)). Hitler was a pragmatist. Also the name "national-socialism" means nothing special. He tried to get votes from the right and also from the left political spectrum - that's all. Btw: When Hindenburg died - (he was old so never anyone speculated whether he had been killed from Hitler) - Hitler also became president. The Weimar Republic's separation of powers collapsed. Right had no might any longer.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

Without power, rights are meaningless. You can assert that you have rights and expect others to respect them, but if you lack the ability to defend those rights by force if necessary, you are naive. We must ask ourselves: What are rights? What defines a right, and what makes something 'right'? What does it truly mean to be 'right'?

In this world, it often happens that those who can impose their will through strength become the leaders, and in turn, define what is 'right,' even when they are clearly wrong. Eventually, someone will expose the truth, pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes,

 

[TruthNotBS]

Unfortunatelly I have to say Hitler seemed to be a brave soldier in World War 1- but on the other side Hitler was born in the cruelness of this war.
A slogan in his elections had been "the general and the private" (private he was on his own and general had been president Hindenburg (who not had been a Nazi)). Hitler was a pragmatist. Also the name "national-socialism" means nothing special. He tried to get votes from the right and also from the left political spectrum - that's all. Btw: When Hindenburg died - (he was old so never anyone speculated whether he had been killed from Hitler) - Hitler also became president. The Weimar Republic's separation of powers collapsed. Right had no might any longer.

Hitler was a fully committed national socialist. If you read his writings and listen to his speeches, he believed that capitalism must serve the greater good, especially the nation (volk - the people).

 

[zaangalewa]

Hitler was a fully committed national socialist. If you read his writings and listen to his speeches, he believed that capitalism must serve the greater good, especially the nation (volk - the people).

If you take any word serios which Hitler said then you are only a useful idiot for Hitler. "National-Socialism" is just simple another word for "Hitler". Hitler said in the morning the opposite of this what he said in the afternoon and believed both is true. He said what he thought what the people like to hear. It is said - maybe also a lie from your propaganda or from Hitlers own propaganda - that Hitler said before he gave the order to kill him "The German people were not worthy of me". Perhaps this was the only time he really said what he really thought. Also a lie is sometimes able to be true.

 

[TruthNotBS]

If you take any word serios which Hitler said then you are only a useful idiot for Hitler. "National-Socialism" is just simple another word for "Hitler". Hitler said in the morning the opposite of this what he said in the afternoon and believed both is true. He said what he thought what the people like to hear. It is said - maybe also a lie from your propaganda or from Hitlers own propaganda - that Hitler said before he gave the order to kill him "The German people were not worthy of me". Perhaps this was the only time he really said what he really thought. Also a lie is sometimes able to be true.

You're the one spewing garbage propaganda. His life proves he was a fully committed National Socialist patriot of his country and people and nothing less than a hero. He lost the war due to some bad tactical decisions he made, the first one being, declaring war on Stalin. He should've allied himself with Stalin, because in many ways, he was also a nationalist, unlike Lenin and Trotsky who were communist internationalists. Hitler however unlike Stalin recognized that both Germany and Russia had a problem with the Jews, that was destroying both nations. Even honest Jewish rabbis admit to this:

​

 

[zaangalewa]

You're the one spewing garbage propaganda. His life proves he was a fully committed National Socialist patriot of his country ...

The anti-German super-nationalist stupid Nazis noodled the word ‘German’ so often and so stupidly every day that the word made normal German patriots nauseous.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Hitler however unlike Stalin recognized that both Germany and Russia had a problem with the Jews, that was destroying both nations ...

With a little constructive difference. The Jews in the world of the Slaws had been seen as Germans from them because they spoke Yiddish - a German language. But in Germany the Jews had been Germans like all others. And the absurd opinions of Hitler and Stalin are far less important to me than a fart from Athena's owl. By the way, do owls actually fart? That could be indeed interesting.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The anti-German super-nationalist stupid Nazis noodled the word ‘German’ so often and so stupidly every day that the word made normal German patriots nauseous.

Your theory that Hitler was only in it for himself is silly. His life proves he was a true patriot and hero, for his people and all of Europe. The US fought the wrong "enemy" in Europe, during WW2. We should've joined the war on the side of Germany, and become allies of Hitler, rather than of Stalin.

 

[Votto]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

Something to think about, God has ultimate power and will hold everyone accountable to his standards.

At the end of the day, might will make right.

 

[zaangalewa]

Your theory that Hitler was only in it for himself is silly.

He was an artist. He liked to become the most famous German of all times. He made an artwork in blood and war. Title: "God decreated". He became the most famous German of all times. And got or will get perhaps about 20 billion years purgatory, if I calculated well.

His life proves he was a true patriot and hero, for his people and all of Europe. The US fought the wrong "enemy" in Europe, during WW2.

During World War 1+2

We should've joined the war on the side of Germany, and become allies of Hitler, rather than of Stalin.

I do not think Hitler liked to get the USA as allies. Your mistake in world war 2 was by the way another mistake which you do not see because you wan this war. Your problem was Japan - not Germany. Germany was not able to attack the USA. And as well the USA and Russia + China had been a problem for the Japanese.

 

[buttercup]

Why would you assume anything else. But, like I said, nobody really does. EVERYBODY thinks they're doing the right thing -- including the Patsy who took a few shots at the president, including the animals who raided Israeli villages October 7th, and including the anti-Trump zealots who could hardly contain their approval of Trump's attempted assassination.

No one says, "I'm EVIL, and if I only gain enough power, I'm 'right'"

I never claimed otherwise. But also, unless we're omniscient, which we're not, I think we need to be careful about claiming to know what's inside every person's mind. There might be some people who know they're doing evil and don't care.

 

[buttercup]

No. Right makes right.

That may be true... but without an explanation, I think some will say that's circular reasoning, lol.

 

[ding]

That may be true... but without an explanation, I think some will say that's circular reasoning, lol.

I think that most of the time doing the right thing, the right way for the right reason is self evident.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I never claimed otherwise. But also, unless we're omniscient, which we're not, I think we need to be careful about claiming to know what's inside every person's mind. There might be some people who know they're doing evil and don't care.

There are. But the VAST MAJORITY don't plan evil. They believe they're right every bit as much as you do. When they have political power they will push their will.

People who throw out the accusation "might makes right" are always the ones having someone else's will imposed on them.

If you had the power to shut down the "death camps" you would, wouldn't you? I would. I'd tell the people to find other things to eat.

 

[buttercup]

Without power, rights are meaningless. You can assert that you have rights and expect others to respect them, but if you lack the ability to defend those rights by force if necessary, you are naive. We must ask ourselves: What are rights? What defines a right, and what makes something 'right'? What does it truly mean to be 'right'?

In this world, it often happens that those who can impose their will through strength become the leaders, and in turn, define what is 'right,' even when they are clearly wrong. Eventually, someone will expose the truth, pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes,

Well I definitely agree with the 2nd paragraph. As for the first thing you said...well, it could be argued that if our rights come from God (which I believe they do) then they're aren't meaningless even for the powerless. Why, because although it may not happen in this life, in the grand scheme of things those wrongs will be righted, so to speak. But that's sort of getting into another topic.

 

[buttercup]

Something to think about, God has ultimate power and will hold everyone accountable to his standards.

Heh, that's pretty much what I just posted without seeing your post... only in different words.

At the end of the day, might will make right.

Yes, but I think there's probably a better way of saying that. Because the naysayers will take that as God being arbitrary and only "right" because he is the most powerful of all. In fact, I'm surprised no one has said that yet, but I don't think any atheists have posted on this thread.