Does might make right? (evolution, Israel, philosophy, muslims)

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by jewscout

it rightfully belongs to whoever is in control...

Jewscouts answer from another thread inspired this new question.

Does might make right? Or as Thrasymachus put it in The Republic, Is Justice the advantage of the stronger? Is it just to allow whomever is the most powerful to do take what they wish? What if the United States decided to take Canada (or keep Iraq) because they could?

If not strength, then what?

[Random]

NO.

Anyone who thinks it does is a perpetrator of wars, strife, conflict, disharmony, instuitutionalised cowardice, rampant egoism and hateful disdain for their fellow man.

Makes me mad.

In the context of the original thread though, I don't think Jewscout was suggesting this is how the Jews should behave regarding the Temple Mount.

Though they might...

[PureX]

Originally Posted by comprehend

Jewscouts answer from another thread inspired this new question.

Does might make right? Or as Thrasymachus put it in The Republic, Is Justice the advantage of the stronger? Is it just to allow whomever is the most powerful to do take what they wish? What if the United States decided to take Canada (or keep Iraq) because they could?

If not strength, then what?

The problem with living by the "might makes right" creed is that there is always someone stronger than we are. Power is basically an illusion. You can point a gun at someone and make him do as you say, but only until he finds a bigger gun, or until he's no longer afraid of you pulling the trigger. Once he loses his fear of your gun, your power is gone and you'll have to kill him or be killed by him.

Governments can pass laws and point their guns, but when the people no longer respect or fear them, they'll fight back, and then it's the government that loses, because they never had anything else to ligitimize them. Any government that finds itself having to impose it's will by force of violence is on a path to it's own destruction.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by Godlike

NO.

Anyone who thinks it does is a perpetrator of wars, strife, conflict, disharmony, instuitutionalised cowardice, rampant egoism and hateful disdain for their fellow man.

Makes me mad.

In the context of the original thread though, I don't think Jewscout was suggesting this is how the Jews should behave regarding the Temple Mount.

Though they might...

Well, I agree. I do not think that power is the best arbiter of justice. That is what struck me when Jewscout said it. He didn't say that it rightfully belongs to who controls it now (which I believe are the muslims but correct me...) but rather he said whoever is in control. I thought *whoever* would indicate that if someone else were to take control, it would rightfully belong to them and I do not see how that political philosophy can be sustained without constant warfare.

[jewscout]

i don't think that might makes right...but might makes for the possiblity to do whatever one may wish to do. The question then becomes, how does one use that "might"

(for the record the Temple Mount is essentially shared, Israel provides security, Waqf handle maintanence and upkeep)

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by PureX

The problem with living by the "might makes right" creed is that there is always someone stronger than we are. Power is basically an illusion. You can point a gun at someone and make him do as you say, but only until he finds a bigger gun, or until he's no longer afraid of you pulling the trigger. Once he loses his fear of your gun, your power is gone and you'll have to kill him or be killed by him.

Governments can pass laws and point their guns, but when the people no longer respect or fear them, they'll fight back, and then it's the government that loses, because they never had anything else to ligitimize them. Any government that finds itself having to impose it's will by force of violence is on a path to it's own destruction.

ok. then I must ask, does a government ever truely have the power? I think not. The masses always have the power to destroy their government, they only do so when they are really fed up but it is clear they always hold the ultimate power. Is revolution therefore wrong because they are just using power to declare what is just?

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by jewscout

i don't think that might makes right...but might makes for the possiblity to do whatever one may wish to do. The question then becomes, how does one use that "might"

In that case, do you take back your previous answer or can you explain how the two views are compatable? for example, Israel clearly has the strength to take the Temple Mount. according to your previous answer, it would seem this action would be acceptable but according to your answer above, I am not sure. what do you think?

[jewscout]

Originally Posted by comprehend

In that case, do you take back your previous answer or can you explain how the two views are compatable? for example, Israel clearly has the strength to take the Temple Mount. according to your previous answer, it would seem this action would be acceptable but according to your answer above, I am not sure. what do you think?

i don't take back anything. In 1968 Israel took the Temple mount, some say they should have strapped Dynamite to the mosques there and cleared the way for the 3rd Temple. I remember my rabbi telling me one of the officers was carrying a goat with him because he intended on sacrificing it on the Mount, not because he was religious (because he wasn't) but as a sign of Jewish independence and Israeli control over the area. But Israel's leaders, because they did have control, decided to use that power and turn over partial control back to the muslim authority there. They could have just as easily not done so.

another example, Jordan, following the 1948 war, had control of east Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Kotel (Western Wall). Though the UN insisted on free travel for jews to this holy site, Jews were forbidden from entering the Old City and the Kotel until it's liberation in 1968.

Again it rightfully belongs to whoever controls it. What they choose to do w/ that control is a different matter all together.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by comprehend

ok. then I must ask, does a government ever truly have the power? I think not. The masses always have the power to destroy their government, they only do so when they are really fed up but it is clear they always hold the ultimate power. Is revolution therefore wrong because they are just using power to declare what is just?

Power is achieved by either fear, or respect. We empower our governments either because we respect the authority of the ideals they are attempting to represent, or because we fear the consequences of defying them. That's why when a government finds itself having to enforce it's authority with violence, or threats of violence, it's already in trouble.