GRADING FOR BLOG POST 2 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG POST 2 (IS THERE A WAY WE OUGHT TO BEHAVE?) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO THE QUESTION OR POST COMMENTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

Blog post 2

I believe that when it comes to power there should always be a limit as to how much the people in power should have. This has been proven over time with people like hitler or stalin who managed to become dictators and have no limits to their power which led them to abuse their power in such a way that it is unforgivable. I am not saying that our form of government is not perfect because it is flawed in many aspects but its system of checks and balances has kept this country running and it does not allow for the rise of dictators. In the case of the Athenians over taking the Melians, is the perfect example about the abuse of power. Just because the Athenians had more power, it does not mean that that they should simply just storm in and take over. There is however the exception, just like Hitler other foreign powers came and overthrew the gov't allowing the people from being denied their natural rights of free will. I do not believe that because i don't wish to exercise power means i have weakness it more like wise. By not over stepping ones boundaries keeps things at peace.

Blog response 2

If people had no restraints on their power, then we wouldn’t have had such a thing as justice and the different between right and wrong. I strongly belive that the reason for our actions comes from our moral. We are suppose to know what is right and wrong. The way the Athenians acted is not right at all, even though it is another time then from right now, doesn’t that make it more ok. Even though they did gain the military advantage, they also had to take the consequences. After killing so many men, didn't they gain the trust of the Melians.

It is not really a way to stop a person in power from do as they want. But I think that in many cases the stronger should have a lot of power in order, as long as no one is harmed from their beliefs and actions.

blog #2

I say that might does make right. The reason is natures way. The Lion can eat the zebra if it is strong enough to kill it. Also if might does not equal right than everybody has to divide there wealth equally with everyone in the world. You wouldnt have the right to live better than any body else on the planet. Fundimentally, might does make right. But, the basic most primitive technology for securing a claim or and idea is a showing of superior force. However, securing a claim based on superior force has little ablility to ensure this because philosophy ensures that a claim or idea is protected. In this case, might does not make right.

Blog Post two

I agree with you Mr. Boswell that moral codes can not necessarily be written out before hand or one set of rules applies to everyone because over many years and in many various countries, these rules change and differ. I do believe however that there should be a set of laws or rights of and for each human being and whether they are followed in each country is something entirely different. Each human is entitled to a very basic set of rights which is then expanded upon or restricted in various countries and periods of time however there has always, in my opinion, been a foundation for rights. There is much evidence that these rights have been broken in various scenarios however they still exist and each human is entitled to them.

To be in power is almost an oxymoron because those in power are always slaves of those they rule. They must always find a way to stay in power and therefore they never truly gain absolute power. I believe each human has his own power or right which returns to the moral code i believe exists in each community, country, etc.

The Melians were following a basic moral code and claimed the land upon discovering it first however the Athenians broke this moral code when they chose to kill all the inhabitants of the island. This does not mean that such a moral code did not exist, it simply means the Athenians broke this almost unspoken moral code and exercised power over the Melians.

I will say that i myself can not describe one set of rules that all societies have always followed but i believe basic human instinct leaves each of us with some type of understanding of our rights.

Blog question 2 dtg

I believe that people don't inherently have rights that cannot be taken away. As stated in earlier posts whoever has the power can do whatever they want. That's what it means to have absolute power: nobody can stop you from doing what you want. However if the ruled really don't like the way you run things when in power they may rise up and try to take your right, and ability, to rule, and become the authority themselves. So staying in power means not just doing what you want, but also keeping subjects from taking your power.
I don't believe there are a completely objective set of rules of conduct with regard to how one should be ruled. There can't be a moral code that guides our actions for all people for all time. For example, the rights we would say are inalienable now we unheard of two thousand years ago. And the moral code in one modern society will differ greatly from other societies. This shouldn't suggest however that there are no morals at all, just that they aren't the same for every person ever. There definitely are morals that we should follow. The bully who takes another kid's lunch money is obviously going against these morals.
In the case of the Melians and the Athenians these morals come into play. The Melians argued that they were right, and their right to the island should stop the Athenians from taking it. they didn't have some objective right to it though, they just happened to be there first. the Athenians taking it wasn't a breach of morals. The text does say that they killed all the Melians after they won. This is a breach of morals. Here they obviously were angry that the Melians had not conceded without a fight. to get revenge they murdered everyone, and surely they justified this by saying that there is no such thing as a right or a moral.

Yes, I highly believe that they should have restrained themselves and that countries or any empire should in fact adaopt a level of restraint on the amount of power one has. I say this becuase without this restraint in power the world and or the region that is being governed with be in terms "a mess". Choatic, and things wouldn't flow as how they should. Yes this is a sign of weakness though not all signs are certain and permanent. One can always regain control and rebound with much more strength then before. In the Peloponnesian War excerpt by Thucydides, the Athenians were without a doubt extremely more powerful than the Melians who were far under them in class status. However, rather than taking control and "stepping all over them" they opted to instead engage their power into negotiating with the nobles of Island. Though, when they know that they can easily just take over and conquer them so that there will be no need for any type of negotiation becuase the Melians are much weaker than them. What is being displayed by the Athenians are there loyal character, and restraint or power. Now, in my opinion this does not make the Athenians powerless or weaker than before. Being fair is apart of your responsibility with power.

Blog Post 2

What humans "ought to do" has been an age old principle with no clear answer. I believe that this could go both ways.

In a way, I agree with how the Athenians acted because it is almost irrefutable to say that the weak could overcome those stronger then them in a psychical stand point. Technically, the stronger should have more power since there is no one to stand in there way. Yet, over centuries there have been many examples to prove this statement wrong in the sense of politics and culture.

I believe that in many cases the stronger should have power in order to ensure productivity, as long as no one is harmed in the process due to size or beliefs. There is a democratic and humane way to execute power despite size. Though, if threatened individuals are guaranteed the right to fight back and retaliate, much like the Melians.

There are endless ways to defend each point of view, but in the end, power is equipped with a set of morals, boundaries and questioning of character. Such as do "rights" really exist? If they do, who has the authority to give them if a higher power is out of the question? It is a question of culture as well as restraint to act out against others because of behavior.

To conclude, there is no correct answer, none the less an answer at all, to which morals are correct or appropriate. Ideas and other politically correct statements will continue to be examined for years to come.

Societies should have some mutually agreed upon boundaries on conduct otherwise the society becomes a time bomb. There would be no functioning government laws or fair justice system because nobody would be able to agree on what should be outlawed or punished. There have to be if not rules guidelines and the either the majority or the people near the top of the chain of command would make those guidelines. That is an example of might makes right.

Some people have their own internal guidelines that they set for themselves, call it a moral compass, a conscience or voice of experience, there is a little voice inside everybody's head that says do or don't do that. You could say that it is keeping us from doing what we want by telling us what could happen, or in some cases what we are doing to the other person.

In the Pelopennisian Wars section I believe that the Athenians should have restrained themselves on the matter of the Melians, if nothing else than as a good faith gesture to show they mean no harm to the other islands. I can't help but think of those actions and the long term consequences. The act of standing down could work in the Athenians favor by giving them allies in the war against Sparta. The Melians could ally with the Spartans and rise up against the hold the Athenians who would lose lives and waste resources by trying to hold off an uprising that could have been avoided with a compromise. This isnt a naive gesture of fairness it is a calculated move that could work in the favor of all parties

Blog post #2

It's true that might makes right in that those in power usually decide what the definition of "right" is--as in, what is lawfully considered "right." However, might does not make right in that individual conscience is up to the individual. No matter how much people in power control the definition of right, they can never definitively control anyone's individual conscience. I think there are two separate definitions of right--the "right" that is publicly and legally enforced, and the "right" that guides individuals to act as they do. If there was a political party in power that legalized rape, for instance, it would mean that rapists would not be punished legally for straying from what is right. However, most people's conscience would probably prevent them from raping anyone, because the definition of right would not seem right to them. In other words, true right is not up to the majority but up to the individual, while political and legal right is not up to the individual but to the majority. Some people might say that it doesn't matter what individuals think right is, since individuals who don't belong to the majority do not control what's legally considered right, but to that I would say that it makes all the difference in the world. For instance, if one person does something to a weaker person that the weaker person considers wrong, they may not be able to stop the stronger person from going through with their actions, but their personal idea of right and wrong may stop the weaker person from retaliating somehow. Individual conscience may not be as powerful as "right" as defined by the majority, but it is important and valid.

Blog 2

Restraints should not be placed on human conduct. Charles Darwin believed in the survival of the fittest, which basically means that only the stronger deserve to and will survive. Under this suggested law of nature, the Athenians had every right to conquer the Melians. Even if their actions of violence may have been cruel, they still had every right to go forth with their actions. In addition, the Melians also have every right to retaliate in their future.

We could compare this to a scenario where I get punched in the stomach for my lunch money by a bully that is three times my size. Sure it would be a bit unfair for me and I would probably complain a bit, but he has every right to act that way under the laws of nature simply because he is stronger than me. However under the same laws, I have my own right to retaliate. Say maybe I take boxing lessons and return a few months later to vengefully punch him in the gut for his own lunch money.

To summarize this metaphor, the Melians as well as I, have the sweet option of retaliation towards our offenders. Although one may argue that it is unjust for the Athenians to strike down at a weaker foe, they cannot be blamed for finding their own ways to gain their superiority in strength over time. And in a world where much of nature is defined by having the stronger prevail, the Athenians actions toward the Melians, although harsh, cruel, and unethical, are still just.

Blog Response 2

Humans should willingly restrain their conduct to some sort of moral belief that is ideally along like the lines of the Golden Rule, quoted in the Bible as "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Even when the Golden Rule is taken away from its religious context, it is a valuable standard; the idea that individuals should behave towards others in a particular manner only if they are willing to accept reciprocal behavior.

In the Thucydides excerpt, the Athenians proclaim “Right and wrong come into play only between people whose power is equal.” The lesser Melians respond, saying, “You Athenians should want to protect this custom [acknowledging what is fair and right] too. You’ll need it if you’re ever defeated.” The Melians have acknowledged an important factor in society; the individual or group holding power is continuously changing. Yes, some groups are dominant for decades or centuries, but there is not one group that has dominated another group infinitely. The Athenians have no way of ensuring that they will always be the most powerful. If the Athenians abuse their subjects and many years later, they are subject to the abuse of the new power, they have no protection because they deserve the same treatment that they gave.

Furthermore, the definition of power is continuously changing as well as who holds the power. It’s difficult to define a “naïve view of fairness” without defining a “naïve view of power.” One group might dominate politically, but another group could dominate in athletics and yet another in academics.

As Americans, we can superficially call ourselves the strongest and most powerful nation on Earth. However, many Americans who hold this power of being well educated, well exposed, and readily connected to the world do not abuse this power and certainly believe that the United States has a responsibility to restrain itself in subjecting lesser nations to abuse. I think many Americans would state that the American government, although arguably the most powerful, lacks the right to do whatever they please.

Blog Response 2

Philosophers have often wondered: do morals exist outside of power? More specifically, do we have rights in a state of nature, or do those with authority give us those “rights”? I personally believe that, contrary to what we might hope, rights do not exist. The most fundamental right that most people would claim mankind has been given, is life. As John Locke would argue, in a state of nature we are given the right to live. But who gave us this right? Just because we are born, does not mean we have some “right to life” that no one can take away. If a person comes up to you with a big stick, they can kill you. They can take away your life, simply by having a superior weapon. By having power.

However, if that person with the big stick decides that you deserve to live, suddenly you have been given the “right” to your life, because if anyone else tries to kill you, the person with the big stick will stop them (or at least punish them afterwards). But that right to life did not exist independently of the person with the big stick; it was given to you by an entity of power.

But whether or not we should exercise restraint on our conduct is a different question all together. I do believe that ethics exist, even if rights don’t.

Just because you have power does not mean that you should inflict harm upon others. This other person may not have the right to his life, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t feel some sort of ethical obligation to let him live. He is a living, breathing, conscious being; if you have any natural moral principles you will recognize that the pain and suffering you cause him and his family by killing him is bad.

I do not believe the Melians had the right to rule their own island, because rights don’t exist. Athens was more powerful, therefore Melos would only have the “right” to rule themselves if Athens granted it to them. Athens did not, so Melos had no right to self-government. However, I think the Athenians should have placed restraint on their conduct. Maybe it is a quixotic outlook, but I do believe there are some things we ought to do -- not harming others unnecessarily is one of them.

In the end, there’s no real way to stop a person in power from doing as they please, but most of the time those in power are kept in check, as they should be, by their ethical consciences. Ultimately, whether or not they actually will restrain themselves, I believe those in power should restrain themselves from doing things that harm others, because pain and suffering is bad.