> "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
And overwheliming force alone is what? It certainly can't be
said to be "right" just because it is overwhelming.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT