In Philosophy we were discussing Moral Realism...AKA "might makes right" Aka...whatever is the majority/the strongest is always right. Such as a child and parent. The parent is stronger and has control...thus...is right. A teacher is in control of the grades, thus...their judgement for a test is right. Or, nazism, many followers...thus..right for that time period until the other majority took over. Do you agree with this might makes right theory? What do you think is wrong with it?
So bassically this is the theory that the more powerful/majority is always correct? Lawl, I've had plenty of situations where me and my dad disagreed on something and I was eventually proven to be right on my stance/thinking on it. This theory is poop, and was concocted by a complete tard, anyone who agrees with it is no better.
Death is your most loyal companion, for he will never fail you.
Grumble Grumble Grumble
Sounds like a debate challenge here...
Throwing this thread into the Debate forum...
Well if that was right, how long would it of been till Humans discovered that the Earth wasn't flat and that our planet wasn't the centre of the universe?
On the basis of 'People' it's normally the majority that has control; like the Elections; but society has favoured the individual from time-to-time. It's these individuals that normally leave their mark for going against that majority and actually making a valid point. Just take 'Martin Luthor King' (sp?) for instance. It's with these individuals that the most dramatic changes in society happen.
On a side note, the phrases "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" and "The pen is mightier than the sword" are a total contradiction of each other.
A man may fight for many things: his country, his priciples, his freinds. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a Ton of cash, an amusing clock and a stack of french porn!
When confined to "theory" Moral Realism, I think it is correct that "might makes right". The majority will always win out over the minority. However, in real-world situations that theory gets thrown out the window. Just look at culteral-sensitivity where minority viewpoints win out over majority viewpoints all the time in an effort NOT to be oppressive.
The world is too complex to break down into one theory.
I think at this point there are really two kinds of "right" the first is really socially correct or accepted. This is what fits into moral realism. The second is based purely on individual perspective when not influenced by society. Now each of these influence each other greatly. Where the first sets a climate or even a range of socially accepted personal values. Where a persons personal beleifs fall within or outside of the scope of socially accepted perspectives determines whether the majority view them as right or wrong perspectivly.
Thinking is the leading cause of death among the stupid.
Signature and Avatar made by Zackraa. Thanks!
I don't necessarily agree with it but it is a hard thing to avoid. The strong/mighty obviously have power over the lowly and make decisions for a group of people. It would not be logical or realistically possible for a child to be considered mightier than a parent or a student above a teacher.
but what happens if the people are equally mathced? like two teachers or your parents arguing? who is right there?
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks