Indeed. Whichever moral systems can assert their principles through power are the ones that will predominate in the world. A moral system that cannot (or will not) do this will be eradicated, regardless of the content of its particular beliefs. Moral clarity without power is posturing, and power without moral clarity is tyranny. Both principles and power are required.
Has it not been this way throughout all times? These Grecian civil wars mark the start of our documented understanding of human nature's apparent desire for conquest.
Fair enough, and true enough. I guess I just want to believe that the human community can be better, and that the past 50 years of social gains meant that we were becoming better.
I think our human communities have gotten much better, more accountable and more able to adapt to circumstances.
Alas our (fallen, in my view) nature remains constant. We can only do what generations have done--strive to do better and acknowledge evil will always exist on Earth.
Then, it's time for the next generation to figure out the same thing with guidance from the past.
Gotta hand it to those humans, tho, they really have figured somethings out and made a respectable showing of it all...imho
If you want to understand human nature, read the Bible. Evil has been around since the beginning. And people themselves are always evil, only tempered and redeemed by God's Grace through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
There will never truly be peace until Jesus has returned and vanquished all evil. We human beings can certainly never accomplish it on our own.
You’re right, of course. The longer view confirms that while progress is always possible, evil has not been eradicated, and will ebb and flow like all of nature, human and otherwise.
Firstly, I’m no philosopher, so I may be completely wrong, but two things struck me: 1) would the Melians have really succeeded over the Athenians and survived if they were better prepared for war, or would they have lost anyway? And 2) is victory the greatest good, or are there values worth dying for? Both of those questions seem to lead me to the question of whether, if the Melians had become more war-like, is that how they wanted to live as Melians? Would they still even be Melians? Perhaps they thought the sacrifice was worth it so as not to give up their values. I have no answers, I’m just wondering. Very thought-provoking post. Thanks, Culturist!
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” - JRR Tolkien
Plato thought so. If you think the structure is pyramidal then the algorithm for the social organism is a control structure, power creating form. Is another structure possible? Perhaps only by creating (democratic) sub-sets where that power is exercised on a contributory rather than dominating role in the maintenance or evolution of the social organism.
se vis pacem, para bellum: “if you want peace, prepare for war.”
While this is a fine piece of realpolitik wisdom, I fear that such a mindset invites war more than it prevents it. As many historians and political scientists point out, arms races have often resulted in heightened tensions which can easily turn into open conflict. A great example is the First World War.
Reminds me of a Rhodes scholar, Romanesqly cheekily in tongue, retorting to legal inquiries on being caught, undrycleaned-blue-dressed handed: "Define "IS..."
For a publication that so frequently discusses Christian theology, seems like a strange article to ponder if killing or exercising power over the weak is justified based on the morals and opinions of ancient pagan societies…
Or...you can instead watch the grass grow while listening to your thighs spread... or ponder the lessons of deadened societies wth other ponderers, and reflect on the time-ravaged, skeletal remains, of Rome's coliseumed, outdoor museumed debris, -once proud, ravenously lion-hearted, marble-ribbed edifices, that seated roaring bloodlusting hordes of sheep ruled by rabid wolves, now famed-fun spots for selfie-seeking tourists. Or...do something else...or, not.
If you think these "ancient pagan societies" have nothing to contribute to Christians, you're just being a philistine. All the great doctors of the Church read these great books of Antiquity and pondered about them.
Not arguing that at all, but Christian morality was a radical movement against the laws and values of these exact societies (not much has changed!). Jesus certainly did not preach of strength projection or “preparing for war”. These are the desires and ambitions of man.
Authority decides right and might deciding authority is the oldest and natural way authority is established.
It is natural truth in that way it is right despite and abscense of moralities. It is right despite how right or wrong it may be, that is truth or a form of it.
One might find it is painful in abscense of authority to establish the difference between what is true and what is right 😜
If a guilty party is unwilling to cooperate, justice is necessarily administered using force. There can be no justice without the threat of force. Justice can also be denied by threat of force. To quote Heinlein, "...force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities is derived."
I am fighting for America in a new and different way, via an online “third path” to a better societal problem solving future at EthicalGovtNow.org. I urge all liberal thinkers to visit today, evaluate our path and join our patriotic movement.
Saying that the weak are only saved by ceasing to be weak is not much of an argument. If both parties had similar power you wouldn't even need the moral argument, as power itself would act as a deterrent. Also, one does not stop being weak just by wishing, or all beggars would ride. Therefore the value of the moral argument, as presented here, only has three possible outcomes: (i) making for a nice tombstone and no factual difference at all, (ii) probably still a tombstone but with censure for the winner whether immediate or delayed (remember the Nuremberg trials), or (iii) pushing the weak but morally-minded to band together against the immoral aggressor (such as the Delian League in Ancient Greece, or the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War, or the Coalition of the Willing in the Ukraine War).
We should consider that fairness, having a just cause and the force of reason are at the basis of human interaction. Throwing away those principles takes us back to the law of the jungle and destroys the fabric underpinning society as well as international relations. You cannot erase a civilisation off the map just because you don't like somebody's attitude. You can't go around sinking ships just because you feel like it. Invading another country because you covet their resources is not justifiable. Deciding that rules do not apply to you just risks other people deciding to treat you in the same way until you learn the lesson. Athens never recovered the political power it held before the Peloponesian War. Napoleon got pounded by the other European powers until he stopped getting back up. Japan got two nuclear bombs for biting more than they could chew. There are reasons why we decided on a rules-based order. The main one is that the alternative is not sustainable for any of the parties involved.
It is not correct to state that you “cannot” do these various things. Rather, you SHOULD not do them, though you can. Clearly, this is a moral imperative, but not everyone shares it. Therefore, I think the Romans were correct in assessing that you have to deter those who would use power without moral compunction.
Sigh. Yes, the Roman idea is probably correct. Before they became an empire or a republic, they had a different model for their military which was far less disciplined and not centralized. They got sacked everytime.
Indeed. Whichever moral systems can assert their principles through power are the ones that will predominate in the world. A moral system that cannot (or will not) do this will be eradicated, regardless of the content of its particular beliefs. Moral clarity without power is posturing, and power without moral clarity is tyranny. Both principles and power are required.
Wow. I so want to believe this isn't true. But we live in times when the truth of the consequences of unchecked power make it a compelling argument.
Has it not been this way throughout all times? These Grecian civil wars mark the start of our documented understanding of human nature's apparent desire for conquest.
Fair enough, and true enough. I guess I just want to believe that the human community can be better, and that the past 50 years of social gains meant that we were becoming better.
I think our human communities have gotten much better, more accountable and more able to adapt to circumstances.
Alas our (fallen, in my view) nature remains constant. We can only do what generations have done--strive to do better and acknowledge evil will always exist on Earth.
Then, it's time for the next generation to figure out the same thing with guidance from the past.
Gotta hand it to those humans, tho, they really have figured somethings out and made a respectable showing of it all...imho
If you want to understand human nature, read the Bible. Evil has been around since the beginning. And people themselves are always evil, only tempered and redeemed by God's Grace through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
There will never truly be peace until Jesus has returned and vanquished all evil. We human beings can certainly never accomplish it on our own.
You’re right, of course. The longer view confirms that while progress is always possible, evil has not been eradicated, and will ebb and flow like all of nature, human and otherwise.
Blessings, and thanks for a great conversation!
Firstly, I’m no philosopher, so I may be completely wrong, but two things struck me: 1) would the Melians have really succeeded over the Athenians and survived if they were better prepared for war, or would they have lost anyway? And 2) is victory the greatest good, or are there values worth dying for? Both of those questions seem to lead me to the question of whether, if the Melians had become more war-like, is that how they wanted to live as Melians? Would they still even be Melians? Perhaps they thought the sacrifice was worth it so as not to give up their values. I have no answers, I’m just wondering. Very thought-provoking post. Thanks, Culturist!
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” - JRR Tolkien
Might is the only thing with power to make it Right.
"He teacheth my hands to war."
It's all there in Perelandra.
Plato thought so. If you think the structure is pyramidal then the algorithm for the social organism is a control structure, power creating form. Is another structure possible? Perhaps only by creating (democratic) sub-sets where that power is exercised on a contributory rather than dominating role in the maintenance or evolution of the social organism.
se vis pacem, para bellum: “if you want peace, prepare for war.”
While this is a fine piece of realpolitik wisdom, I fear that such a mindset invites war more than it prevents it. As many historians and political scientists point out, arms races have often resulted in heightened tensions which can easily turn into open conflict. A great example is the First World War.
Reminds me of a Rhodes scholar, Romanesqly cheekily in tongue, retorting to legal inquiries on being caught, undrycleaned-blue-dressed handed: "Define "IS..."
All Rhodes seamily lead to Roman decay...
For a publication that so frequently discusses Christian theology, seems like a strange article to ponder if killing or exercising power over the weak is justified based on the morals and opinions of ancient pagan societies…
Or...you can instead watch the grass grow while listening to your thighs spread... or ponder the lessons of deadened societies wth other ponderers, and reflect on the time-ravaged, skeletal remains, of Rome's coliseumed, outdoor museumed debris, -once proud, ravenously lion-hearted, marble-ribbed edifices, that seated roaring bloodlusting hordes of sheep ruled by rabid wolves, now famed-fun spots for selfie-seeking tourists. Or...do something else...or, not.
If you think these "ancient pagan societies" have nothing to contribute to Christians, you're just being a philistine. All the great doctors of the Church read these great books of Antiquity and pondered about them.
Not arguing that at all, but Christian morality was a radical movement against the laws and values of these exact societies (not much has changed!). Jesus certainly did not preach of strength projection or “preparing for war”. These are the desires and ambitions of man.
Might makes (decides) right
Authority decides right and might deciding authority is the oldest and natural way authority is established.
It is natural truth in that way it is right despite and abscense of moralities. It is right despite how right or wrong it may be, that is truth or a form of it.
One might find it is painful in abscense of authority to establish the difference between what is true and what is right 😜
If a guilty party is unwilling to cooperate, justice is necessarily administered using force. There can be no justice without the threat of force. Justice can also be denied by threat of force. To quote Heinlein, "...force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities is derived."
I am fighting for America in a new and different way, via an online “third path” to a better societal problem solving future at EthicalGovtNow.org. I urge all liberal thinkers to visit today, evaluate our path and join our patriotic movement.
As a Canadian, this is an interesting article to read.
I expected better from you culturist. This is awful pondering and makes me think you are all American dumbasses.
Namecalling is what you resort to when you cannot muster a cogent counter-argument.
Saying that the weak are only saved by ceasing to be weak is not much of an argument. If both parties had similar power you wouldn't even need the moral argument, as power itself would act as a deterrent. Also, one does not stop being weak just by wishing, or all beggars would ride. Therefore the value of the moral argument, as presented here, only has three possible outcomes: (i) making for a nice tombstone and no factual difference at all, (ii) probably still a tombstone but with censure for the winner whether immediate or delayed (remember the Nuremberg trials), or (iii) pushing the weak but morally-minded to band together against the immoral aggressor (such as the Delian League in Ancient Greece, or the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War, or the Coalition of the Willing in the Ukraine War).
We should consider that fairness, having a just cause and the force of reason are at the basis of human interaction. Throwing away those principles takes us back to the law of the jungle and destroys the fabric underpinning society as well as international relations. You cannot erase a civilisation off the map just because you don't like somebody's attitude. You can't go around sinking ships just because you feel like it. Invading another country because you covet their resources is not justifiable. Deciding that rules do not apply to you just risks other people deciding to treat you in the same way until you learn the lesson. Athens never recovered the political power it held before the Peloponesian War. Napoleon got pounded by the other European powers until he stopped getting back up. Japan got two nuclear bombs for biting more than they could chew. There are reasons why we decided on a rules-based order. The main one is that the alternative is not sustainable for any of the parties involved.
It is not correct to state that you “cannot” do these various things. Rather, you SHOULD not do them, though you can. Clearly, this is a moral imperative, but not everyone shares it. Therefore, I think the Romans were correct in assessing that you have to deter those who would use power without moral compunction.
Sigh. Yes, the Roman idea is probably correct. Before they became an empire or a republic, they had a different model for their military which was far less disciplined and not centralized. They got sacked everytime.