Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaohs Army
Gotta disagree here.
While certainly there is subjectivity involved; everything is relative.
As a human race if we are to define "right" and "wrong"-- with respect to morality-- based on what is beneficial to the health & well-being of humans (physically/mentally/emotionally), then certainly we can have a spectrum of what is (on the whole)"good" vs. "bad".
If the well-being of humans is not your main criterion, then of course that goes out the window. If that's the case I guess my next question would be: why isn't it?
I find the notion that the only person who is right is the conqueror to be flawed at best, and at worst offensive.
I think the word you may be looking for is "victorious"...the only person who is victorious is the conqueror.
Then we have the subjectivity of "what" is good for the well-being of mankind.. obviously not something which is easy to tackle.
However, it becomes clearer if you assign it to some sort of spectrum.
And here I'm admittedly paraphrasing some of Sam Harris's arguments that: It's clear that throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls (for the crime of learning) would be on the far end of the spectrum of what is "not good" for humanity. It becomes rather objective when you think of it in terms of the girls' physical/mental/emotional well-being.
Same could go for mowing down hundreds of civilians in Paris with machine guns and explosives.
Is it "right" because it was successful? Or because they were indoctrinated from an early age that it was "right"? Hogwash sir.
That's not to say that "our" ideals are always right either... There are a lot of gray areas. But it's pretty easy to compare when you construct a "spectrum of well-being."
Basically what you're saying is human rights and liberties are "wrong" as long as they are "conquered" by force.
Na man.
|
thats not really what i am saying. if somehow the incompetent fanatical forces of isis took over the world, conquered the west and installed sharia law or some shit, they would be right. not because of some moral standing or whatever. but because they would be in control, so they would dictate what is right or wrong.
the hbo tv show rome, had a dope line. its a tv show but it resonates. julius caesar was visiting egypt securing grain shipments to feed the impoverished of rome. the then pharaoh/king kid or whatever disagreed with something, and said something to the effect of, "thats roman law" in the sense of this is egypt we have different laws. but caesar simply replied "is there any other?"
basically stating roman law is all there is. egypt was their vassal state. they can make laws all they want, but roman law is all that mattered.
its basically like that.
its not saying that morally they are right, but realistically they have the RIGHT to install whatever systems they see as right, because they have the power and control to enforce it