Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Might makes right?
Message-ID: <1745@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Dec-85 15:49:27 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1745
Posted: Sun Dec  8 15:49:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Dec-85 20:10:30 EST
References: <1137@mtuxo.UUCP> <280@l5.uucp> <1739@dciem.UUCP> <169@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1740@dciem.UUCP> <183@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 84
Summary: 


>>By what morality does might make right?  It is antithetic to everything
>>I read from Liber- Propertarians, yet seems to lie at the foundation of
>>their philosophy.
>
>Martin, you sound like LKK. If you don't think might makes right, then how
>do you defend the state using might to collect taxes from people who don't
>think the amount and/or use of the collected money is right? If you don't
>defend it, but think that it's wrong, welcome yourself to the ranks of the
>libertarians. Or you could just remain a statist, and let "might makes
>right" be not merely at the foundation of your philosophy, but the material
>it is woven from.
>
>        <mike

I don't think "might makes right", but I do believe that ability tends
to drive behaviour, and in the absence of self-restraint, self-justification
leads to some philosophy of that kind.  When it comes down to justifying
ethics, I don't believe it can be done through reason (Pace, Bob Stubblefield).
I don't deny that force can be ethically used under some conditions. I
merely wanted to point out that not only statists, but also libertarians,
had the same foundational requirement.  It is a necessary substratum for
both political philosophies.  The libertarian says "because I can, I may,"
the statist says "because it is for the good of most of us, you must."
>
>Now, I believe that animals are *not* persons. Therefore, there isn't any
>problem with using them to make the lifes of persons more pleasant, etc.
>*hould the basic assumption prove to be wrong for some species (other higher
>primates & cetaceans, mayhap?) I'll grant them the same rights as other
>persons. I even said as much in the original article.
>

OK.  There's a fundamental ethical difference I can't resolve through
reason.  I can't see that the non-humanity of other animals makes them
subject to the use of humans, EXCEPT through the principle of "might
makes right."  Definition of a living entity as a "person" and therefore
worthy of respect and compassion, and given the right to live a free
life, is very dangerous.  Most of the bloody events in history, especially
in this century, have been caused by re-defining humans as non-persons
(Jews, Gooks, Protestants, Catholics, Amerindians, ...).

A balance is needed.  Everyone depends on other living entities for
food, support, companionship, etc.  Some of these needs demand that
the other entity die.  Some species rely entirely on killing animals
for their survival.  Some kill only plants.  Humans can kill either
exclusively, or survive on a mixture of both.  In all cases, and throughout
nature, "might makes survival", and to the extent that survival is
the highest right, "might makes right."

Even without reason, most animals use their "right" to kill only to
survive.  They don't apply force unnecessarily.  How much more important
is it for humanity, having the greatest "might" to apply the greatest
restraint, even to the extent of denying that fundamental truth --
in support of survival, might DOES make right.

The crux of the problem comes when *immediate* survival is no longer
the issue.  Rather, the issue is either long-term survival or increased
well-being.  Reason is an imperfect guide to what behaviour leads to
the best chances for long-term survival (imperfect, but useful).  No-one
knows all the processes that interact, let alone the boundary conditions
that will apply when these unknown processes com into play.  Then again,
for whom are we concerned?  Our individual selves?  Our genes?  Our ideas?
We know for sure that our individual selves won't survive very long,
and most of the pre-human urge to survive is really the genes' way of
improving their chances of replication.  Those same urges lead to various
social structures that have proved successful in propagating the genes
that support them.  With humans, ideas (Dawkins calls them "memes") have
a similar function, but DO NOT demand the survival of the individual's
genes.  Often the death of children is a powerful way of replicating
certain memes.  Martyrdom similarly leads to meme survival at the
expense of individual survival, and celibate priesthood leads to
meme survival at the expense of gene survival.

All this is just to say that the issue of WHEN "might makes right"
becomes very complex.  No political philosophy can survive without
acknowledging that sometimes force is required, and probably none
can survive without asserting strong restraints on when it can be
used.  Hence, we argue on a matter of degree, and on what the use of
force is intended to achieve.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt