> "Smigrodzki, Rafal" wrote:
>
> Samantha wrote:
>
> Do you actually believe that might makes right?
>
> ### I am assuming that Samantha is using the word "right" in
> the ethical, and not the epistemological sense.
>
> If so, then one can say the following: being right (e.g.
> having the natural posession of land by virtue of long
> habitation)without being mighty, or having the support of a
> mighty party, is essentially meaningless (see the sad cases of
> American Indians, Palestinians, or the even more unlucky
> Prussians, who are all dead now). Being mighty without the
> right ethical principles for guidance is likely to end badly
> (see the Nazis).
>
So you think "right" is only or chiefly about the possession of
property ethically? Interesting.
> Might and right are inextricably intertwined - neither being
> the sole source of the other, and yet neither possible without
> the other's contribution in the long run.
>
> Mike is pointing out that overwhelming force guided by the
> right ethical principles is better than good intentions alone.
> Samantha prefers to see only the force's (in this case largely
> imagined) Dark Side. I do not think their points of view will
> converge.
And overwheliming force alone is what? It certainly can't be
said to be "right" just because it is overwhelming.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT