'Might Makes Right' Underlying Culture & Regime Change

[Athena]

Wiki: Might Makes Right
"In terms of morality, those who are the strongest will rule others and have the power to determine right and wrong. By this definition, the phrase manifests itself in a normative sense."

Is it not the case that those who are born into a dog-eat-dog world, where the strongest and most forceful win, tend to accept their lot in life if they are down-trodden? They hate their superiors, but also revere them as powerful masters - masters that they dream of becoming. It seems that in this way, situations as we have seen in Iraq or Libya continue on, especially in the context of periodic shortages of basic necessary resources, which keep people anxious and aggressive.

What I am concerned about is, however, whether the dictatorial situations seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya can ever change if this 'might makes right' philosophy, apparently embedded deep within their respective cultures, is replaced? There will be just a new 'alpha male' replacing the old one (as in gorilla or wolf social groups). Already this is apparent in Afghanistan to some degree. I wouldn't be surprised to see another Saddam and another Gaddafi pop up in their respective places. Why not?

Here in China there is, as there is in many other countries formerly occupied by the British/Imperialists, a grotesque bourgeois appetite apparently based around the 'Mighty Invaders'. Those here who deem 'might makes right' - that the school of hard knocks is the best, etc., - obviously recognise there was something in that bourgeois imperial culture that worked. It's not like Mao didn't use the same kind of heartlessness, divisiveness, etc., to achieve what he did, right?

Islam came out of the deserts - unified by Mohammed's ability to convince people that the voices in his head were divine, and translate what he got from that into political power. The clever use of that force suddenly put the Arabs in God's favour - previously they had thought themselves to be unfavoured because the Romans had been given all the might. Again; justification for ill fortune was judged based on who had the might. The Romans had been revered back in those times - to the point vast hordes of Barbarians took on their culture - because it was deemed they had been doing something right. When those barbarians, as Vandals, were met in Spain by the Arab hordes united under Islam, many Vandals took on Islam - because Islam was now the mightiest.

Until this 'might makes right' philosophy is dropped by vast sections of societies, I don't believe that victims will stop revering their abusers, and seeking to be abusers themselves.

How can that ever happen? When Gods are all gone?

I want to be sure this comes up when I check my post, but I am in a hurry and haven't read everything. I want say the solution is education for democracy, and add to it that the US has not educated for democracy since 1958, and has lost the memory of how to do so. Education for technology in the US, which is modeled after Germany's education for technology, is bringing that country to the same problem with authority that Germany had, so do not look to the US for a solution to the might makes right problem.

[Whut]

Ha, I did wonder, but you've got to be careful on this forum, lol.

The etymology of the word revolution is quite interesting actually. Anyway, when I visited Occupy London last year, there was a group of people talking about all the revolutions around the world in 2011, and how they felt people were beggining to 'wake up' and such. Then one woman turned around and said that revolution actually means a circular motion, and that nothing will change untill people understand they need evolution, not revolution. That really stuck with me.

[Mossling]

Yes I agree. And perhaps they can't begin to evolve - to move on in a new direction until they realise they are going around in circles when trying to solve their problems.

[Athena]

What bought everyone to the modern world of democracy was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Interestingly, religion opposes this pagan education, but Christianity adopted it anyway after the Crusades. This transition is vital to over all understanding, but my post are too long, but you should know Christians share this separation from philosophy as does Islam. Paradoxically, it was the Arabs who had preserved and replicated these documents, but not all them. Evidently they did not value the political documents, as Islam give them political order, that was closer to Judaism order based on birth.

I think we need to talk about paganism and many gods, and work our way back up through one God, and competing religions of this one God. Democracy comes our of a belief in many gods, and could have never come out of belief in one God. We get to one God through pagan gods, when the Greeks concluded, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to the reason why things are as they are. This line of reasoning is what makes democracy rule by reason, rather than rule by a dictator.

The religions however, are based on the morality when kings and slaves were assumed, and people did not know science, so they explained things as the will of God and this God promises to give them leaders, and this is tied to being born to rule, or born to follow, depending on who your parents are and your sex. Islam is not more intolerant of democracy than Christianity. The real mind opening fact for me, was the fight between the Jews and Greeks. When the Greeks power spread as far as Jerusalem, Hellenism clashed with the Jews in very bloody warfare. The Greeks dared to appoint people to office based on merit instead of heritage. This was very destructive of Jewish order which was based on heritage.

The big fight between Shea and Sunni is a matter of heritage and order of rulers. It is also a division of accepting philosophy or rejecting it. There internal clash, is not so different from the Jewish fight with Greeks, nor from our fight for equality and liberty. Our fight for equality under the law and liberty, comes from Greek and Roman Classics. It works, because it makes reason God. Athena, taught men to make their own laws, and these laws to be based on reason.

My point is, the God of Abraham is not the God of democracy, and all the God of Abraham religions have a problem with democracy. If we want to spread democracy and the values that we stood for, we need to spread literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Reason trumps might makes right, but this requires an educated mass. Without the necessary education, democracy is perverted into the Beast of through the bible, that is, right back to might makes right.

[Mossling]

Reason trumps might makes right

How?

I would say reason trumps it through the core use of the Golden Rule, but this rule can be found in all major religions.

[Athena]

I know there is a problem with the idea that reason trumps "might makes rights", because history is a record of "might makes right" appearing to win. Let us explore reason. Personally I don't think slavery is good, nor was it moral to displace native Americans from their land. What might be wrong with these things? Are we dealing with any problems today because of them?

The God of King David is a war God, from a time when people thought their gods and goddesses protected them from enemies. This God is fearsome, jealous, revengeful. It was believed the people with the best god won the war, and this belief helped spread Christianity. Unfortunately, Judaism couldn't spread as Christianity did, because the God of Abraham had favorites and it was very important to the Jews to keep separate and pure, and avoid being assimilated into other cultures. But Christianity bonded to Rome began a large and powerful religion that could spread and convert people into Christians.

This belief that the most powerful god wins, and the spread of Christianity, develops into a system of dueling, that is formalized and away for God to judge the conflict. See how the belief system played into this? It all begins with a God who has favorites and the belief that gods protect people. Might makes rights takes on the appearance of being God's will, and the person favored by God wins the duel. But is slavery and disposing people from their land, the will of God, as the bible tells us it is? Back to the opening question, is there a reason why slavery and disposing people from their land might not be the best thing to do? Like is an Israel armed to the teeth and living under constant fear, the Zionist dream? Is destroying the water supply the people in this region depend upon, the Zionist dream? Is extreme poverty the Zionist dream? Can the Jews built enough settlements with housing for Jews and factories, to meet the needs of all Jews who migrate to Israel, without hurting the Palestinians who lived on this land and had orchards? What is the reason for things being as they are? Might there be a problem with this God who has favorites, and is behind might makes thinking?

[moranity]

i think that "might makes right", in the old Caeser way of "if you can take it then it is yours" infers an underlying belief that the power you have comes not by chance, but because you are better and you deserve it (it is the will of the gods, they show you favour). It seems to me that if you see your power over another as just pure chance then you get no ego boost from exercising that power, because it is not tied to your worth. There, but for chance, go I.
So i would argue that "might makes right" relies on a belief that circumstance infers worth, which in tern infers some sort of controlling being who favours some over others.

[Mossling]

What is the reason for things being as they are? Might there be a problem with this God who has favorites, and is behind might makes thinking?

Possible reasons aren't 'reason' itself though. Are you saying reason does away with God and his 'favourites', and thus 'might makes right'? How?

"might makes right" relies on a belief that circumstance infers worth, which in tern infers some sort of controlling being who favours some over others.

I think mighty rulers can have a sense of worth which lies outside of religious concern - that actions speak for themselves - "I can bash the other person senseless, therefore I am right in my action - survival of the fittest". That kind of thing.

Today's 'Might Makes Right' Headline:

Hosni Mubarak sentenced to life in prison
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 2 June 2012

Egypt's former president Hosni Mubarak has been sentenced to life in prison after a court convicted him on charges of complicity in the killing of protesters during last year's uprising that forced him from power.
[...]
It is unlikely the judge's verdict will put an end to uncertainty and instability in Egypt. Within minutes of the verdict, young men were pulling barricades on to Tahrir Square. The verdict could damage the chance of Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak's former prime minister, in the second round of the presidential election on 16-17 June when he runs against the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi.

Outside there were celebrations, with many chanting "God is greatest". Soha Saeed, the wife of one of those killed in the uprising that toppled Mubarak on 11 February 2011, shouted: "I'm so happy. I'm so happy."

[moranity]

I think mighty rulers can have a sense of worth which lies outside of religious concern - that actions speak for themselves - "I can bash the other person senseless, therefore I am right in my action - survival of the fittest". That kind of thing.

im not disagreeing with you there mossling, but am saying that that argument relies on an assumption of some inherent worthyness in the one who has the power, the fact they have the power infers they are better and therefore able to take from another, who is their inferior, because they can not defend what they have.
If it is just chance that gives one power over another then there is no better or worse and no real justification for exploiting that power, infact there is, if equality is assumed, responsibility to use the power for benefit of both parties.
Maybe a story will illustrate better what i mean, derek finds some bananas, harold wants to share those bananas, but derek says fate has ordained that derek find them, therefore fate wants derek to prosper over harold, therefore fate favours derek and he has more value in fates eyes, and, therefore, his own eyes.
Or, harold finds some bananas, it's just chance, it infers nothing relating to harold's value compared to derek, they are equal, they both equaly "deserve" the bananas, so they share.
So0, i'd say, that "might makes right" relies on a belief that fortune infers value.

[Athena]

Possible reasons aren't 'reason' itself though. Are you saying reason does away with God and his 'favourites', and thus 'might makes right'? How?

No, I am not saying reason does away with God. I am saying God is reason, the controlling force of the universe. Sometimes we correctly understand the reason for why things are as they are, and sometimes we do not. However, this understanding of God, does do away with the Zeus and the God of Abraham and any other supernatural, humanized God. The forces of the universe can not violate the laws of nature, and we can not manipulate them with our prayers, sacrifices, etc.. We can only do our best to understand them (science and philosophy) and live by them, or suffer the consequences of being wrong. Our religion, the colour of skin, or nationality doesn't matter. We are equal under the sun.

As for what is happening in Egypt, I am so sad! I believe we will come to see how wrong the verdict is. These countries are not demanding democracy. I really don't believe the masses understand democracy. They are demanding jobs that the world does not have to give them, and removing the people who can control the masses, may prove a terrible mistake.

[Athena]

I think mighty rulers can have a sense of worth which lies outside of religious concern - that actions speak for themselves - "I can bash the other person senseless, therefore I am right in my action - survival of the fittest". That kind of thing.

im not disagreeing with you there mossling, but am saying that that argument relies on an assumption of some inherent worthyness in the one who has the power, the fact they have the power infers they are better and therefore able to take from another, who is their inferior, because they can not defend what they have.
If it is just chance that gives one power over another then there is no better or worse and no real justification for exploiting that power, infact there is, if equality is assumed, responsibility to use the power for benefit of both parties.
Maybe a story will illustrate better what i mean, derek finds some bananas, harold wants to share those bananas, but derek says fate has ordained that derek find them, therefore fate wants derek to prosper over harold, therefore fate favours derek and he has more value in fates eyes, and, therefore, his own eyes.
Or, harold finds some bananas, it's just chance, it infers nothing relating to harold's value compared to derek, they are equal, they both equaly "deserve" the bananas, so they share.
So0, i'd say, that "might makes right" relies on a belief that fortune infers value.

What if one of these boys finds a gold mine or oil well? Is this their fate and therefore they have a right to take without giving back, and right to damaged the environment and ignore this fact. Harold could buy a lot of banana's with money he gets from gold or oil. But the natives, who suffer because of Harold's find will not believe Harold has the right to pollute their area of the world, and if Harold won't listen to them, then maybe they must resort to killing Harold?

How do we determine what is mine and what is yours? Killing may define who wins this argument. That is might makes right, right? If we lived this way, it could resolve many world problems, by keeping our numbers down.

However, it is in our nature to try to get along, and resolve our conflicts of interest with reason. The person who is best at this will have the most wins, but may not be the most popular and powerful. President Carter is used by all people in power to resolve conflicts in foreign countries, but he is the least popular President. We tend to give power to people like Clinton who will say anything to be popular. This quirk in our human nature, makes democracy seem a bad idea. I am trying to say, we give power to some people, and we deny it to others. The Great men in history would not have been nothing, if it were not for myths about gods and the willingness of others to follow.

[moranity]

hi athena,
i think you missed my point, i'm not saying "might makes right" is right or wrong, just that it's based on an underlying belief that one's fortune is earned, rather than just arriving by chance(i believe that fortune generally comes by chance, even our bodies and abilities are not earned).A beleif that how fortunate one is says how much god or fortune or fate favours us, that our circumstance reflect our worth, i am saying that "might makes right" relies on this assumption. If not, how can one justify taking from another, or not sharing with another your good fortune, as we are all equally deserving.

[Athena]

Oh, I got you. Yes, in our world and the animal world, having alpha parents makes a huge difference. Humans have perfected the art of achieving and maintaining power. However, we are also driven to experience life for ourselves, so human young who are born well off, may not take advantage of that, and may throw it all away if favor of drugs and risk taking. We seem to have a drive for personal power. In some of us this is stronger than in others., and it can be a good thing or destructive. It is really a problem when we want personal power but not responsibility.

I am coming back to say, below our post is an ad for checking people criminal records. There are people who decide to live by their own rules, and civilization puts limits on this. However, I am not sure we if restrict everyone equally. We are suppose to, but we do not punish white collar crime as we push street crime, and we seem to give even more freedom to say people such as the bankers or higher ups at Enron. A professor just emailed me about how Patrick Henry died in debt and would have been worse off if had not been for the help of Jefferson. Oh really? Jefferson inherited his wealth and was in serious debt too. It seems our minds play some kind of game on us, as your thread suggest.

[Mossling]

Here we go, this is exactly what I was talking about:

Tunisian opposition leader shot dead
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 6 February 2013

A Tunisian opposition party leader who had been critical of the Islamist-led government and radical Muslim violence has been shot dead.

Chokri Belaid, leader of the Unified Democratic Nationalist party, was shot outside his home in Tunis on Wednesday morning and died in hospital shortly after.

President Moncef Marzouki cut short a visit to France and cancelled a trip to Egypt scheduled for Thursday after the killing, which triggered a 1,000-strong protest outside the interior ministry.

Chanting for the fall of the Islamist-led government, demonstrators shouted "Shame, shame Chokri died", "Where is the government?", and, "The government should fall".

The prime minister, Hamadi Jebali, who heads the Ennahda party-led government, which won Tunisia's first post-Arab spring election in 2011, said: "The murder of Belaid is a political assassination and the assassination of the Tunisian revolution. By killing him they wanted to silence his voice."

All these so-called 'revolutions' are just regime change - I don't necessarily think much has changed - just another dictatorship installed.

Libya, Egypt.... 'Arab Spring' indeed ...

[Mossling]

Looks like Assad is a fan of this thread. What will replace him if he goes? A Muslim Brotherhood?

Middle East will be unstable for decades if rebels take Syria, says Assad
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 6 April 2013

The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, has warned that the Middle East faces being destabilised for decades if rebel forces battling to overthrow him succeed.

Assad, locked in a two-year conflict he says has been fuelled by his regional enemies, also criticised Turkey's "foolish and immature" leaders and accused Arab neighbours of arming and sheltering rebel fighters.

"If the unrest in Syria leads to the partitioning of the country, or if the terrorist forces take control … the situation will inevitably spill over into neighbouring countries and create a domino effect throughout the Middle East and beyond," he said in an interview with Turkish television.

Political change needs to come from inside the heads of the people, not from some outside physical force.

[Lomax]

"Stability" is a very flattering way of describing dictatorship though, isn't it?

There is clearly a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East - a political change inside people's heads, if you like - but the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood are bound to be the only groups, if any, who can overturn the regimes from within, because they're the only ones with an arsenal to challenge the existing regime. What does it matter if the unarmed majority hate Assad? The lions will just say to the hares: "A good speech, Hairy-Feet, but it lacks claws and teeth such as we have."

Assad says "But wouldn't you all prefer the status quo 'round here?" and the glib nine tenths of the anti-war movement say "A toast to stability!"