Might Might Not Make Right But...

[GrandpaMithras]

Might makes.

History seems to lessen the emotional impact and outrage which individuals feel about what are considered 'crimes'. For instance, Julius Caesar launches a campaign against Gaul which could be considered genocidal, the American colonists and Spanish Crown decimate native populations, the Mongols hop onto their horses and race across the steppes destroying villages, and we consider these events generally to be immoral sure but dismiss the utility of condemning them. After all, they created the conditions which gave rise to everything which is the world today.

How will history treat the Israeli occupation of Palestine in three hundred years?

How will history judge the decision to use a few really big bombs against Japan during WWII, or the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden?

My assertion is while morality matters since it builds a better world for us presently, overtime these outrages mingle with other events and become diluted.

How do you approach morality when it comes to international affairs?

[Puck]

While we cannot change the past, only learn from it, events that happen today, are our responsibility.

Events in the not so distant past that affect peoples today, we do have a responsibility to mitigate the damage where we can. Slavery happened, thus we try to mitigate the damage by enacting laws to ensure equal work and education opportunities, etc.

But as for the Monglos, it's in the too far past to work on today. We can, however, learn lessons from the distant past. And if we don't, it's our great loss.

[Nice Squirrel]

Having just finished a paper on the Harrying of the North (poor wiki article IMHO) and it's effects (intended or not) on Yorkshire's stability and security, it is clear that while the events fade and contemporary condemnation is forgotten or footnoted, the socio-psychological impact as well as economic impact continues for centuries. (Slavery in the US is a perfect example of the lingering effect of the legacy of actions deep in the past affecting not just personal behavior but the behavior of groups and nations.)

I think what happens is that immediate need often causes leaders (and people) to react and carry out draconian acts. William the Conquerer felt that his only recourse to the continuing rebellions Anglo-Scandinavian population (Opportunistically supported by the Scots, Northumbrians, Danes, Anglo-Saxons nobles and Western Celts) was to carry out a wasting and genocide. Thus destroying the local stability and economy of the region for decades.

[James T]

The mighty write the history, so it is unsurprising their crimes are viewed less as genocide and more as a great victory for the right.

We all descend from long lines of peoples who have fought for their place on the ladder, so I am tempted to consider it might is right as ... at least arguably ... right. It just that it's insufficient to cope with where we are at today.

[IsItJustMe]

The mighty write the history, so it is unsurprising their crimes are viewed less as genocide and more as a great victory for the right.

We all descend from long lines of peoples who have fought for their place on the ladder, so I am tempted to consider it might is right as ... at least arguably ... right. It just that it's insufficient to cope with where we are at today.

OK. You've earned yourself a Hegel quote:

In every end of a self-conscious subject, there is a positive aspect (see § 135) necessarily present because the end is what is purposed in an actual concrete action. This aspect he knows how to elicit and emphasise, and he may then proceed to regard it as a duty or a fine intention. By so interpreting it, he is enabled to pass off his action as good in the eyes both of himself and others, despite the fact that, owing to his reflective character and his knowledge of the universal aspect of the will, he is aware of the contrast between this aspect and the essentially negative content of his action. To impose in this way on others is hypocrisy; while to impose on oneself is a stage beyond hypocrisy, a stage at which subjectivity claims to be absolute.

To paraphrase:

If a person says that what they are doing is right even when it is not, that doesn't make the action right, it makes the person a hypocrite. If a person convinces himself his action is right even when it is not, that doesn't make the action right, it just makes the person flat out evil.

[James T]

You misunderstood my point (and Hegel is a poor choice to quote, even you see the need to paraphrase). Our history is littered with such necessity.

To define this as wrong is to say all those evolutionary dead ends were correct. This is obviously absurd.

[Nitrousoxide]

Did you just read Nietzsche?

It sounds quite a bit similar to his Master-Slave relationship.

You've even included the creative force of the master in there.

[IsItJustMe]

You misunderstood my point (and Hegel is a poor choice to quote, even you see the need to paraphrase). Our history is littered with such necessity.

To define this as wrong is to say all those evolutionary dead ends were correct. This is obviously absurd.

History is littered with what necessity? The necessity to do wrong? Such that doing wrong is right and doing right is wrong?

[James T]

History is littered with what necessity? The necessity to do wrong? Such that doing wrong is right and doing right is wrong?Perhaps you are deliberately trying to misunderstand me. In which case further discussion is ... .less.

[GrandpaMithras]

Did you just read Nietzsche?

It sounds quite a bit similar to his Master-Slave relationship.

You've even included the creative force of the master in there.

Is this directed at me or another user? If me, I guess that answers the question, I know nothing about the Master-Slave relationship proposed by Nietzsche. Care to summarize?

While I agree we should learn from the crimes of history, part of me cynically wonders whether the history of mankind is like the history of my own life. In my life I have made decisions which turned out wonderful and others not so much, but really, how can I judge whether doing a bad thing made things worse for me, or whether I am better for it in some way than I otherwise would.

While slavery is morally unjustifiable, it did bring Africans to the western hemisphere, and there they developed wonderful music and revitalized a religion. Obviously the harm to individuals and society itself was dreadful, and there is nothing more vicious than plantation slavery, but this was the beginning of consumerism and capitalism. For better or worse.

Unless one believes that the world continues towards some purpose, it would seem that the good and ill mingles to create the present, and we can only really do what seems best for us now, and later generations will condemn us for crimes we haven't even considered.

[xunzian]

I'll cue Brecht here:


Who built Thebes of the 7 gates ?
In the books you will read the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock ?
And Babylon, many times demolished,
Who raised it up so many times ?
In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live ?
Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go ?
Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.
Who erected them ?
Over whom did the Caesars triumph ?
Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants ?
Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it,
The drowning still cried out for their slaves.
The young Alexander conquered India.
Was he alone ?
Caesar defeated the Gauls.
Did he not even have a cook with him ?
Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.
Was he the only one to weep ?
Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War.
Who else won it ?
Every page a victory.
Who cooked the feast for the victors ?
Every 10 years a great man.
Who paid the bill ?
So many reports.
So many questions.


I think that people manage to forget what the real contributions of history are and glamourize the incidentals. When the Mongols took over China, what did they do? They became Chinese. So, who here has done more for history?

Was William the Bastard what was really important or was it the ideas he brought? We can talk about the extension of French/Continental influences at the expense of Anglo-Saxon/Nordic, but where does ol' Will figure into that? He is relatively incidental. Just another soldier on the battlefield.

[GrandpaMithras]

If Gaius Caesar hadn't decided his political career was more important than not killing other Romans, then I believe personally history would have gone down a different path. This doesn't necessarily mean that Republican Rome would have endured, because clearly Republican Rome was a shell of itself by this time, but I do see evidence that great people rise up above their surroundings and change the world.

Of course if what they do doesn't make much sense, then no amount of effort will allow it to continue.

So, essentially, does it make sense that Julius Caesar conquered Gaul because partially he wanted glory and partially because the state system was based on aggressive expansion for defense? If so, then does it make sense that the Israelis partially in response to a Masada Complex and partially for economic reasons, took the best and most defensible land in Palestine, and seize more whenever they can? Does it make sense that colonists would out produce and outgun Native Americans?

Then if it makes sense but is immoral, do we give it any addendum of : this is shitty and we'd be against it if it were against us, but it was rational and produced these outcomes.

I'm interested in how historians view morality and moralists view history.

[Nitrousoxide]

Is this directed at me or another user? If me, I guess that answers the question, I know nothing about the Master-Slave relationship proposed by Nietzsche. Care to summarize?
Well, it's a bit difficult to summerize quickly but I'll try. I'll need to explain his distinction between the Good(1) and the Bad, and the Good(2) and the Evil first though.

First the Good and the Bad.
The Good(1) is this case is being able to express yourself and be creative. This not only relates to things such as composition of music or art, but also the the creation of empires. He provides examples of people throughout history who were "good" people. They might include Alexander the Great and Julies Ceaser. The Good person destroys in order to create something new. A Good(1) man fears and respects better men, and is feared and respected by others below him.
the Bad is merely the inablity or lack of desire to express yourself. He associates it with his second notion of Good or Good(2) as I like to call it.
---
Good(2) is the good of the Christians. It denies the desire to express oneself and places artifical contstraints such as "morality" and rightiousness upon us. These people are sneaky and deceptive and fear, but don't respect those which are more powerful and creative then themselves.
The Evil is somewhat similar to what he understands as the Good(1). It is a person who isn't concerned with what is moral and rightious.

---
This ties into the Master-slave distinction. The Good(1) and Evil men are considered to be identical. The Bad and Good(2) men are also considered to be identical. The Good(1) and Evil men are equated to the Master, which is what we are to strive to be, a being which destroys in order to create something new. The Slave is equated to the Bad and the Good(2) man, a man who forgoes a proper expression of himself and does not strive to create something new.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

OK. You've earned yourself a Hegel quote:



To paraphrase:

If a person says that what they are doing is right even when it is not, that doesn't make the action right, it makes the person a hypocrite. If a person convinces himself his action is right even when it is not, that doesn't make the action right, it just makes the person flat out evil.

I kind of liked the Hegel quote. It seems to me to anticipate the concept of existential Bad Faith, quite possibly the ultimate act of irresponsibility that any human being can engage in. Existential bad faith goes beyond mere hypocrisy right down to questions of reality itself, whereby an individual, upon experiencing the vastness and complexity of "the world" faces a crisis in which they must choose to accept "the world" as they have experienced or opt for a more simplier idea or conception, thus contradicting their experience. Whereby they have to justify to themselves the reason why they've opted for the "familiar" over the "unfamiliar." One is loaded with a feeling of safeness, while the other with unrelenting possibility.

The very idea of "being thrown into a world where we are condemned to be free," is for humanity, a nightmarish situation, in which most choose to act in Bad Faith.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

The mighty write the history, so it is unsurprising their crimes are viewed less as genocide and more as a great victory for the right.

The "mighty" don't write history, it is the elite that does. In a history written by the "masses," genocide would no doubt be written as genocide, and the perpetrators would be condemned for the psychopathic bastards they are.

What's more, the very idea of our modern day civilization being predicated upon so many atrocities, crimes and brutalities, coming from previous civilizations should be a cause of great concern for us. Let's say that the "glories" of the past may filter down to us, but what about the pathologies? Would it not be correct to consider that our present civilization might be drowning in gross psychopathologies?

[IsItJustMe]

Perhaps you are deliberately trying to misunderstand me. In which case further discussion is ... .less.

The message I was responding to was this:

You misunderstood my point (and Hegel is a poor choice to quote, even you see the need to paraphrase). Our history is littered with such necessity.

To define this as wrong is to say all those evolutionary dead ends were correct. This is obviously absurd.

I did not understand what necessity you were referring to. Perhaps you can see how the quote could use some elucidation. "Such necessity..." What necessity? "To define this as wrong..." What is the antecedent of this?

[premjan]

Might is a contest between a will and some obstacle, either our own nature and limitations, or other people's wills. The latter is a less honorable contest. It is better to carry weaker wills with you rather than crush them. The adored strong are more honorable than the reviled ones.

[James T]

The "mighty" don't write history, it is the elite that does.This is wrong ... of course. The elite of the losers hardly write the history. Further, you mistakenly equate elite with the academic.

, the very idea of our modern day civilization being predicated upon so many atrocities, crimes and brutalities,Dislike for the facts hardly changes the facts. Many of todays most stupid ideas come from trying to deny the reality of human nature.

[Tom Sawyer]

The "mighty" don't write history, it is the elite that does. In a history written by the "masses," genocide would no doubt be written as genocide, and the perpetrators would be condemned for the psychopathic bastards they are.

Well, who are the elite besides the mighty and their descendents? The elite Romans talked in glowing terms about Caesar's conquest of Gaul, because 50,000 Roman legionaires were mightier than a million Gallic warriors. If their tribes had known anything about organized warfare, then they'd have been the mighty and their elites would have written about the victory over the barbaric Roman invaders.

There's no way into the elite other than by being mighty.

What's more, the very idea of our modern day civilization being predicated upon so many atrocities, crimes and brutalities, coming from previous civilizations should be a cause of great concern for us. Let's say that the "glories" of the past may filter down to us, but what about the pathologies? Would it not be correct to consider that our present civilization might be drowning in gross psychopathologies?

Yes, that would be correct.

[IsItJustMe]

This is wrong ... of course. The elite of the losers hardly write the history. Further, you mistakenly equate elite with the academic.

Academia serves the elite overwhelmingly, and always has. This is because academia is an expensive proposition.

As for the elite of the losers, that's actually a little more complicated. Very often the elite of the losers get fairly good and thorough treatment in the history of the elite of the victors, who wish to identify with them. Often their works are kept, copied, etc.

Dislike for the facts hardly changes the facts. Many of todays most stupid ideas come from trying to deny the reality of human nature.

I have the same problem with this line as I do with your last post. It's just too vague for me to understand what you mean. What facts? What ideas are stupid? What part of human nature is he denying?

Overall, I have a hard time buying into arguments that we shouldn't fiddle with nature, because we are part of nature... And particularly this is so of human nature. That is, if you tell me not to do X because I will be interfering in human nature, are you not thereby trying to interfere in my human nature?

In general, the idea of natural and unnatural is useless to a materialist because it requires that there be something other than nature for natural things to be contrasted to.

To draw it back to the subject at hand, conquest and genocide are parts of human nature, sad to say. But an interest in truth and belief in human rights must also be parts of human nature because they are traits which human beings sometimes exhibit.

[B.S. Lewis]

Academia serves the elite overwhelmingly, and always has. This is because academia is an expensive proposition.

I agree with the first sentence in this quote, which makes me curious about what in the world the second one means. Do you mean that academia can only exist on top of a society that is already sufficiently advanced? (Even if that's what you mean, I'm not seeing the connection to why academia would/does serve the elite).

[IsItJustMe]

I agree with the first sentence in this quote, which makes me curious about what in the world the second one means. So: huh?

Oh. Well... Just this. That the serious pursuit of academia requires a budget. That is, a professor has to have a salary, and an office, and a budget for books, etc.

And by definition, the elites have the money, and so the academics get funded by the elites. And who pays the piper calls the tune, right?

Man has to eat before he can think, and so on.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

This is wrong ... of course. The elite of the losers hardly write the history. Further, you mistakenly equate elite with the academic.

What I mean by "elite" is a class of people who are owners of the means of production, therefore appropriating vast sums of money of which states are dependent upon in order to remain states. The ownership class is not "mighty" at all--in and of themselves that is. The power they have actually comes from the staus quo, which is a product of the government that in turn gets distilled into the larger population adn maintained by them. The academy--like everything else in the state--is in service to the elite.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Dislike for the facts hardly changes the facts. Many of todays most stupid ideas come from trying to deny the reality of human nature.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Your reply is to a small frgment of a much longer quote, taking out of a paragraph which is totally unconnected to your reply. That paragraph has nothing to do with the denial of any kind of "facts," as you say, and it has nothing to do with a denial of "the reality of human nature."

What I was getting at was this; if we are willing to admit that our present civilization is predicated upon atrocities and crimes, and various kinds of brutalities. And if it is the case that these are the acts of sociopaths, then we should also be willing to admit that it is possible that our present civilization might be awashed in sociopathologies? It may even be the case that those pathologies are such an integral part of our civilization so as to be transparent.

[B.S. Lewis]

Oh. Well... Just this. That the serious pursuit of academia requires a budget. That is, a professor has to have a salary, and an office, and a budget for books, etc.

And by definition, the elites have the money, and so the academics get funded by the elites. And who pays the piper calls the tune, right?

Man has to eat before he can think, and so on.

Got it. I don't necessarily agree with it, though - American academia seems to be remarkably free from political pressure. It's more of a voluntary service rendered to the elites, in my opinion/experience. For instance, I don't think that super-capitalist economists are closet communists who are afraid they'll be fired for speaking out against markets; they genuinely believe that capitalism is, in the long run, best for all. (Whether they are strongly biased toward this view by the fact that they themselves were born--for the most part--with golden spoons in their mouths, is another issue entirely). Anyway, this is sort of a derail, so I'll try and stop here.

[James T]

What I was getting at was this; if we are willing to admit that our present civilization is predicated upon atrocities and crimes, and various kinds of brutalities.Yes, but not predicated only on atrocities and crimes. Further, I feel society and science has changed to an extent and in ways that are unique in history; making it possible (perhaps probable) that these are poor for future development.

And if it is the case that these are the acts of sociopaths, then we should also be willing to admit that it is possible that our present civilization might be awashed in sociopathologies? It may even be the case that those pathologies are such an integral part of our civilization so as to be transparent.You seemed to drift here. I don't agree that these are transparent in the "you don't see them" view of transparency. They are evident, and being a part of history that led to us, cannot be necessarily bad. I feel the correct thing to do is to accept them as having been necessary and to assess them in a context moving forward, not this endless whining about past abuses some groups seem to adore.

[premjan]

You seemed to drift here. I don't agree that these are transparent in the "you don't see them" view of transparency. They are evident, and being a part of history that led to us, cannot be necessarily bad. I feel the correct thing to do is to accept them as having been necessary and to assess them in a context moving forward, not this endless whining about past abuses some groups seem to adore.
They led to you possibly but that doesn't make them either historically necessary, or good for the people whose demise or impoverishment it led to. Moving forward may require accepting the badness of past acts and indeed, any remaining pathologies that may result (partly from thinking about the course of history as necessary in some way). Calling it "whining" is also not the prerogative of those who benefited from past bad acts.

[James T]

Premjan, this is absurd. Of course having my forebears (and yours for that matter) win in historical to the death behaviour is a historical necessity for my existence. It's only modern viewpoints that find this fact unpalatable. Yet we still all die, perhaps in time the PC views will fade as more realistic outlooks return, I live in hope (but without a great deal of optimism on this point).

[premjan]

Fighting to the death is not necessary - it is perfectly possible to compete without fighting to the death. Most animals don't compete intraspecies to the death. Moreover within human societies, competing to the death is generally forbidden, except for selected cases like gladiatorial combat. It is only between societies that competing to the death occurs. Today we are generally over the competition between societies. We don't need to make societal competition into a life and death matter any more. It is certainly more civilized not to do so.

[James T]

Far too idealistic.

[premjan]

For your tastes. Seriously, societies differ in their rules regarding might and these depend on their prevailing conditions. The Mongols and the Chinese did not follow the same rules. In Afghanistan it is OK for men to beat women who show their ankles. In Europe there was a culture of war, even a hundred years' war. In India there was a tradition of honorable war and nonviolence etc. When Muslim invaders came to India, the tradition of many Hindu and Sikh kings was to defeat and release them. Unfortunately the buggers kept coming back and eventually won. The Native Americans believed that the white man spoke with a "forked tongue". The fact that from time to time, societies have been based on might being adequate excuse for any and all acts, does not mean that that is the kind of world we should aspire to. And ideals are all about aspiration not just about what has been seen to come to pass. Without idealism, life itself can be dreary - a mere contest of the bodies and will to power. Even in France dueling was banned at one point in time. I just want to make my personal stance known - war should be undertaken when it is not avoidable and there is a genuine conflict of ideals between two societies. Then the better ideal may win. I do not see ideals as simply a matter of dreaming up the most perfect idea, but the one nearest to reality that improves upon reality - i.e. practical near-term ideas that can act as a guide to our actions, even if they are not exactly achievable in entirety. The alternative to having ideals is to saying that men may beat wives because men always beat women (e.g. Islam). Or that societies should war because they have always warred. Or that the poor should be left poor because the poor have always been with us. Etc. It may be a philosopher's ideal, but I believe it to be a practical ideal. In the case of the colonial experience, it was the fact that no ideal guided it apart from profit and the white man's burden, that caused colonialism to eventually fail. In the case of countries like the North Americas, Australia etc. it would have been preferable to achieve a coexistence of the two cultures, even though they were at vastly different levels of technological development. There was no reason to proactively purge those people as happened in some cases. There was no reason for Hitler to desire more living room just for the Germans, as the boundary between German and nonGerman, was accidental and a matter of culture and language etc.