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).
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT