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.
I have to agree with you up to a certain point Daniel. While I can say that people don't have the same individual rights, almost everyone has that little voice in their head that says "wait what are you doing." That voice can come up for a variety of reasons, concience, voice of reason, etc. but it's still there.
ReplyDeleteA moral code is something that can be changed over time because we keep facing new dilemmas and new ways of looking at those dilemmas. For example the standard used to be "an eye for an eye" but now we look at the death penalty for murderers and call it inhumane. Do the Athenians fall into that category for what they did to the Melians, was there some justification in there eyes, because they believed they were doing this for the good of the Melians and the Athenians. I believe that they hadn't planned to slaughter all the Melians and take the women and children as slaves after taking over because that would be against the morals that the Athenians and the Melians were arguing about in the first place.
I get a bit confused here. You start with saying there are no objective moral code but later write "there definitely are morals we should follow" sugesting there is a set of rules.
ReplyDeleteThe Athenians killed the Melians because the Melians refused to submit peacefully. They were given a chance to do this, so you need to explain how the Athenians actions were a breech of morals (I agree that it may have not made the most political sense, but that's not the issue here). You seem to be adopting both sides of the argument.
I believe everyone has some type of moral code. Though this may differ from society to society, it is still there. We know our morals and whether we choose to listen or ignore them is something different. The Athenians subjected the Melians to pain and suffering simply because the Melians didnt want involvement in their war and i believe this is breaking a moral code.
ReplyDeleteYes our moral codes differ but they all underline the same fundamental rights that each individual has