Blurg, fucked up. You actually can't change your vote, because when I clicked "preview" (which you always should do when making new threads), I forgot that it resets all of your poll settings in the process. Guess I'll try talking to Cheat about that.

Just choose wisely, then, I guess. Like I said--the poll can be disregarded entirely. The important part is the discussion.

Edit:

Psy comes to the rescue.

I suppose it depends on why the use of force is being applied.

If it's for land grabs and just general greediness then no, but I think the developed world has evolved past that point, for the most part anyway.

If it's for deposing malicious governments and dictators, then yeah, I think it's our moral obligation as developed nations to utilize the use of force in that situation.

Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on October 04, 2015, 08:56:19 AM

Blurg, fucked up. You actually can't change your vote, because when I clicked "preview" (which you always should do when making new threads), I forgot that it resets all of your poll settings in the process. Guess I'll try talking to Cheat about that.

Just choose wisely, then, I guess. Like I said--the poll can be disregarded entirely. The important part is the discussion.

I can change that setting if you'd like >_>

Then people can change their votes as they feel so inclined.

Could you do that? Thanks.

Might doesn't always make right, but you ain't telling might that.

Not really no. The Middle East and the goings-on over there are a perfect example.

Look at Syria and the Arab Spring uprisings all along North Africa and the Middle East. Al Assad is teetering on power backed by his military and aid from Russia (and probably a few other unnamed ME countries), and I nor anyone else could call his use of chemical weapons and bombing civilians indiscriminately a "right" thing to be doing. The same goes for Iraq during Saddam Hussein's control. Was he right to impose his will and invade Kuwait and "liberate" it considering the valuable oil fields there? America had more of a just cause retaliating and then invading, even if that's a bit contentious for the original purpose of it.Israel I doubt deserved it's right to erase a country and have little disregard for the refugees it created in the process, and it's mighty influence on the region doesn't justify it either. Pushing back the other countries back to their own countries, yes, but maintaining a vice-like grip on the "buffer zones" and then building settlements on them, I don't think so.

And to diverge from the Middle East, Russia annexing much of Eastern Europe in the 40's/50's, and a throwback to it's roots more recently the annexation of Crimea. I'm sure defending the native Russians living in Crimea was far more the right thing to do, and not just the coincidental gateway to the Black sea was the main issue there.

"Great" Britain was totally in the right to colonise as many countries as it did because of it's superior naval forces and technologies at the time. Shame it didn't capitalize on those features and come to their aid when Famine struck in Ireland and in fact shipped food out of it rather than in.

Sorry, had a bit of a rant there but you get the idea.

On the other hand, "might is right" really depends on which side you are on. A staunch Assad supporter might think it's perfectly justified to bomb the rebellious regions of his nation, and he's trying to stabilise his country to stop the tide of ISIS from overwhelming them also. A Russian in Crimea could justify its annexation because a majority of the people living there are Russian-born. An Israeli could defend the buffer zones annexed in his enemies' countries because otherwise they could attack again, and they can always return them back once they are considered peaceful allies (like the Sinai desert being returned to Egypt... though since the uprising I don't know how well that's going).


TLDR;  It really depends on who has the might and the "right" thing they are doing. It's impossible to make such a sweeping claim when it works on a country by county and even case by case.

From an evolutionary standpoint, sure. Morality, or at least our interpretation of it, is a result of our species' development of civilization and subsequent need to express universal rules. Surely might makes right in other species, who have literally clawed tooth and nail to be the top of their niche, and in an increasingly representative system of governments, the strongest apparently represent the majority of their electorates.

But reasonably speaking, it's not a rule that might always (or often) makes right.

Obviously not. Morality's basis is in consent, not power.

I suppose it boils down to if you think the ends justify the means.

I support Bernie because he's the lesser of two evils. He's far from the perfect candidate.

As if who's president even matters, anyway.

Oh, so all your incessant, ideological and childish shillery is just a big ruse and you don't even like him that much and find him irrelevant?

Good to know.

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 04, 2015, 03:31:01 PM

I support Bernie because he's the lesser of two evils. He's far from the perfect candidate.

As if who's president even matters, anyway.

Oh, so all your incessant, ideological and childish shillery is just a big ruse and you don't even like him that much and find him irrelevant?

Good to know.

Buy this fucking doll you capitalist shill.

It really all depends on what you do with your respective might to get things done. There's so many variables and situations that all have different outcomes based off that simple question alone when applied to anything.

Based off our history as a species I'd say that we abused "might makes right" and did a piss poor job of upholding the "right" part of it.

I only say no to the question because of our terrible tendency to abuse the ability to do something above others when others can't they can't hope to compete or compare.

Nope.

Power is just a tool to do great good or great evil.