Wednesday, November 3, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know what you're saying. Sure, it may not be the most conscious act to beat down a weaker being. However, that person still has the "ability", or "right" to. Maybe not a humane right, but still a right just the same.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the sense that there are different types of what is "right" and that it is different to each person. Yet, how does one expect to instill an over all definition just because they are bigger or stronger? Overall I believe that you are correct.
ReplyDeleteI agree that might does not make right because even if you are stronger than someone it doesnt mean it is the right thing to over power them just because they are weaker than you.
ReplyDeleteI agree that those in power usually decide the definition of right. This has been present for ages in our history books. Though, if those in power decide whats right, then what is power? Who decides the physical restrictions and zones that power can control? Can those in a higher class of power have the right to over power lower hierarchies? No, though this has been the case for a long time. Overall I agree with your statement!
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said and it was well written. There definitely are two "right" things. It's interesting to examine how closely the legal right lines up with an individual's concept of right. In fact, a measure of how well a government does at ruling could be how much the citizens' personal ideas of right are the same as the law's idea of right. If they do match then the government is true to the people. If less than half of the two rights are the same, then the government is done doing a great job at representing the views of the subjects.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting position, but something seems wrong with the idea that there are two kinds of "right" and that "TRUE right belongs to the individual."
ReplyDeleteThe Melians undoubtedly felt they were right when they claimed the actions of the Athenians were unjust (I certainly felt bad for those Melians), but even they were not content to simply KNOW they were right. They fought; in other words, they tried to become the powerful party to make what they felt was right TRULY right. They knew it would take power to do this.
Apply it to your rape example. If the law of the land was "rape is okay," sure, people might not participate, but that's not going to stop someone from trying to rape them--as crazy as it seems, in your hypothetical, the police are on the side of rapists now, so there's not much you can do about it.
So, rather than become victims, don't you think they'd rise up and challenge the rapists and the gov't? The only way they'd succeed is if they, one way or another, OVERPOWERED the leadership that put the law in place in the first place. These people realized they only to make things RIGHT, is to fight for power in some way.
Thinking they were right or feeling they were right drives them forward, but think about it: Their goal is the Athenian goal: domination. They are not content merely believing they're right, they want to make rape illegal. They want to control what is right.