I think I agree with Socrates analysis in that "raw power/desire" isn't always the BEST way to resolve what should and shouldn't be done, but there needs to be some kind of temperance of one kind or another to better understand what OUGHT to be done. Or another way to put it, raw power+nothing= less power when compared to power+temperance. It is the same as the idea as a battle or war will not always go to the country with more men and resources but instead it MAY go to the country who is best able to use such resources.that is the second topic ever written about in Western political philosophy, and this is pretty much the standard discussion of it within the last century.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181704?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
— ernestm
My own opinion, which I dont think counts for much, is that it is rather pointless to argue philosophically when someone has a gun pointed to your head, so from an academic stance, its rather pointless saying anything more about it than Socrates does, and I dont really regard Machiavelli as much more significant, philosophically, than Mark Twain. That is, one may find his rhetoric engaging, but as there is no metaphysical grounds for his view, it doesn't really amount to much more than a polemic. — ernestm
Well, the first stage is splitting the argument of Thrasymachus into the view of the governor and governed. Socrates points out that they will not agree with each other on what justice should be. He then argues that justice is an ideal principle that should be the same for all, whether they are those in power or those who are governed. That was the first assumption, and most people through time have decided that was right.
When challenged with how people know what such law should be, Socrates later said some people discover it by finding a state of internal harmony. the test of whether the knowledge is true is whether the inner harmony results in outer harmony, which can only be known to those who are by nature philosophers. That was his second assumption, and over time most people have decided that was wrong, but as Plato wrote, only a few people ever discover that, so that was in fact in agreement with what Socrates actually said too.
Socrates' own conclusions as to an ideal political system were however based on everyone accepting that philosophers were wise enough to know when inner and outer harmony are achieved. That has not been shown the case, because people who are not philosophers, as per Socrates' definition, assert that they are, but disagree with Socrates. So the system failed on that case. And that is a very rough summary of the Platonic view on politics. — ernestm
AgreedIt is not a law of the universe that good will prevail. On the contrary, the greedy, the violent, the selfish, generally run rings round the kind, the generous the, peaceable. But this does not make evil good, or vice a virtue. — unenlightened
Well, Dawkins wrote a very good counter to that in his book the 'selfish gene,' and it is very easy to read, one can pretty well read it in a day, and it will make you feel much better about the world, really, it is quite brilliant, I greatly recommend it. — ernestm
Socrates ideals work when people more or less have no choice but to accept them, but doesn't work so well when people have a chance at of creating double standards for their own advantage. — dclements
The law of nature is that the scum always floats to the top, and the precious metals sink to the bottom
What do you think Dawkins was countering? His was hardly a work of philosophy let alone of ethics. — mcdoodle
Mariner on the old forum explained this rather well in religious terms. If goodness was always rewarded and evil always punished, then it would be mere selfishness to be good, and even evil people would be good. It is the business of government to try and arrange things in this way, so that there is less evil in the world, but it is not natural, or God's will. God will not purchase our virtue by bribery, nor compel it with punishment. The law of nature is that the scum always floats to the top, and the precious metals sink to the bottom. — unenlightened
That is of course assuming that there is a "God" — dclements
It is also ironic that supposedly he didn't wish to reward those that tried to make morality consistent yet that is EXACTLY what he happened to do with science making it so that people that can follow the rules of SCIENCE be able to get whatever rewards they they need — dclements
If might makes right, then even wrong is "right" if might makes it so: anything goes.
Unsurprisingly it can be in the interest of the mighty and their lackeys to make everyone believe that might makes right, as a means to maintain their might.
Another kind of might, however, is the might of being right: when right makes might. — jkop
Well not really, it's just a convenient way of putting it - rephrase it all in terms of nature if you like. The point is, if crime didn't pay, criminals wouldn't commit it; if kindness was rewarded, they'd do that instead. — unenlightened
Well that explains why morality is not science or economics. There is no choice about the rules of science, step off a cliff, and you will obey the law of gravity - believe it or not. — unenlightened
But even if the "explanatory power of an argument trumps someone's will power" that DOESN'T mean it is a GIVEN that it WILL be ENOUGH to overcome one's INDIFFERENCE AND/OR IGNORANCE.Sure, for example, when the explanatory power of an argument trumps someone's will power, then right makes might. — jkop
I like to think of myself as a nice guy and since I was a kid I think I have been taught that it is best to be nice whenever I can, and perhaps sometimes even when it doesn't seem like the best thing for me to do. However I often find myself in situations where other people do not behave the same way and I wonder if it is best to just be an a-hole right back at them, or as they say "when in Rome do as the Romans do" (not that I'm implying that Romans are a-holes or jerks, or at least any more than the rest of us are).Does might make right? It depends if you are asking with respect to description or prescription. A descriptive statement is simply saying what is, making a mere observation. A prescriptive statement is saying what ought to be.
Machiavellianism is correct as a description of human history, as you pointed out; but it is wrong as a prescription for moral behaviour, because it violates the golden rule of ethics: do onto others as you want them to do onto you. — Samuel Lacrampe
Can you expand on your position more than that in order so we know WHY you disagree instead of merely knowing that you do disagree?No, might does not make right, just as having power does not give one authority. — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.