mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/08/85)
>>By what morality does might make right? It is antithetic to everything >>I read from Liber- Propertarians, yet seems to lie at the foundation of >>their philosophy. > >Martin, you sound like LKK. If you don't think might makes right, then how >do you defend the state using might to collect taxes from people who don't >think the amount and/or use of the collected money is right? If you don't >defend it, but think that it's wrong, welcome yourself to the ranks of the >libertarians. Or you could just remain a statist, and let "might makes >right" be not merely at the foundation of your philosophy, but the material >it is woven from. > > <mike I don't think "might makes right", but I do believe that ability tends to drive behaviour, and in the absence of self-restraint, self-justification leads to some philosophy of that kind. When it comes down to justifying ethics, I don't believe it can be done through reason (Pace, Bob Stubblefield). I don't deny that force can be ethically used under some conditions. I merely wanted to point out that not only statists, but also libertarians, had the same foundational requirement. It is a necessary substratum for both political philosophies. The libertarian says "because I can, I may," the statist says "because it is for the good of most of us, you must." > >Now, I believe that animals are *not* persons. Therefore, there isn't any >problem with using them to make the lifes of persons more pleasant, etc. >*hould the basic assumption prove to be wrong for some species (other higher >primates & cetaceans, mayhap?) I'll grant them the same rights as other >persons. I even said as much in the original article. > OK. There's a fundamental ethical difference I can't resolve through reason. I can't see that the non-humanity of other animals makes them subject to the use of humans, EXCEPT through the principle of "might makes right." Definition of a living entity as a "person" and therefore worthy of respect and compassion, and given the right to live a free life, is very dangerous. Most of the bloody events in history, especially in this century, have been caused by re-defining humans as non-persons (Jews, Gooks, Protestants, Catholics, Amerindians, ...). A balance is needed. Everyone depends on other living entities for food, support, companionship, etc. Some of these needs demand that the other entity die. Some species rely entirely on killing animals for their survival. Some kill only plants. Humans can kill either exclusively, or survive on a mixture of both. In all cases, and throughout nature, "might makes survival", and to the extent that survival is the highest right, "might makes right." Even without reason, most animals use their "right" to kill only to survive. They don't apply force unnecessarily. How much more important is it for humanity, having the greatest "might" to apply the greatest restraint, even to the extent of denying that fundamental truth -- in support of survival, might DOES make right. The crux of the problem comes when *immediate* survival is no longer the issue. Rather, the issue is either long-term survival or increased well-being. Reason is an imperfect guide to what behaviour leads to the best chances for long-term survival (imperfect, but useful). No-one knows all the processes that interact, let alone the boundary conditions that will apply when these unknown processes com into play. Then again, for whom are we concerned? Our individual selves? Our genes? Our ideas? We know for sure that our individual selves won't survive very long, and most of the pre-human urge to survive is really the genes' way of improving their chances of replication. Those same urges lead to various social structures that have proved successful in propagating the genes that support them. With humans, ideas (Dawkins calls them "memes") have a similar function, but DO NOT demand the survival of the individual's genes. Often the death of children is a powerful way of replicating certain memes. Martyrdom similarly leads to meme survival at the expense of individual survival, and celibate priesthood leads to meme survival at the expense of gene survival. All this is just to say that the issue of WHEN "might makes right" becomes very complex. No political philosophy can survive without acknowledging that sometimes force is required, and probably none can survive without asserting strong restraints on when it can be used. Hence, we argue on a matter of degree, and on what the use of force is intended to achieve. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (12/13/85)
In article <1745@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes on his usual high level, after a brief drop in quality. I shall strive to reach the same level, and be happy if I manage to improve on my norm. >OK. There's a fundamental ethical difference I can't resolve through >reason. I can't see that the non-humanity of other animals makes them >subject to the use of humans, EXCEPT through the principle of "might >makes right." Definition of a living entity as a "person" and therefore >worthy of respect and compassion, and given the right to live a free >life, is very dangerous. You say you can't resolve the question through reason; I can try to help you, though, by giving my reasons for believing as I do. The first step along the path can be found in your next paragraph: >A balance is needed. Everyone depends on other living entities for >food, support, companionship, etc. Some of these needs demand that >the other entity die. Some species rely entirely on killing animals >for their survival. Some kill only plants. Humans can kill either >exclusively, or survive on a mixture of both. In all cases, and throughout >nature, "might makes survival", and to the extent that survival is >the highest right, "might makes right." It's actually worse than that. There is only a finite amount of organic materials around, so more of any species implies less of some other. The very act of living denies other creatures that privilege, by using organic materials. At the next level up, technology currently doesn't allow us to live without using some other living being as an object. Even if we could, the previous paragraph implies that we would still have to choose which animals to give preference to in the allocation of organics, at least where we control that allocation. And in this case, to decide not to decide is to make a decision. In other words, at the bottom of the scale of living things, we are forced to treat them as objects, to be used to make our lives easier and better. At the other end of the scale, I hope that nobody thinks that using people in that way is acceptable behavior. As Martin says, we must strike a balance. We must choose some point between the two, and say "these creatures are objects, and may be used as we see fit (this is *not* to say that wholesale slaughter of such creatures is the right way to use them!!!), whereas those creatures are not objects, and their interest must be taken into account." Since treating a creature in the way we deem best for them when they have no say in the matter amounts to "using them as we see fit," there is little point in putting any creature that cannot participate in the process of deciding how they are to be treated in the latter category. On the other hand, I feel that any creature that *can* so participate is a "person," and deserves the rights normally associated only with being human, regardless of whether that creature is human, or even organic. >Even without reason, most animals use their "right" to kill only to >survive. They don't apply force unnecessarily. How much more important >is it for humanity, having the greatest "might" to apply the greatest >restraint, even to the extent of denying that fundamental truth -- >in support of survival, might DOES make right. Humanity has more power to change the world, which means it must be more careful in doing so. On the other hand, denying the right to do whatever is needed to survive is a dangerous meme. It should lead species that believe it to die out quickly. >The crux of the problem comes when *immediate* survival is no longer >the issue. Rather, the issue is either long-term survival or increased >well-being. Reason is an imperfect guide to what behaviour leads to >the best chances for long-term survival (imperfect, but useful). No-one >knows all the processes that interact, let alone the boundary conditions >that will apply when these unknown processes com into play. Then again, >for whom are we concerned? Our individual selves? Our genes? Our ideas? Ok, you asked, so I'll tell you. My primary concern (when I'm not worried about personal problems, etc.) is for the survival of the human race. Not some particular subrace, or some particular nationalistic group, or even all those currently alive, but to the race as a whole. When quandaring problems of racial survival, almost all my other believes go out the window. If I had to choose between the survival of the human race or some other race, the other race goes; whether they're people or not. If I could wave a magic wand that would insure the survival of humanity to the end of the universe at the cost of my own life, I'd wave the thing. If the cost were all non-human life on Earth (not sure just how that would work...), the only thing that would keep me from waving the wand is that such a decision is to large for one person to make. [Come down off emotional high - try to go back to normal mode.] >All this is just to say that the issue of WHEN "might makes right" >becomes very complex. No political philosophy can survive without >acknowledging that sometimes force is required, and probably none >can survive without asserting strong restraints on when it can be >used. Hence, we argue on a matter of degree, and on what the use of >force is intended to achieve. All very true. My basic claim is that no person should be forced to work to achieve goals that they do not agree with, as this is little more than "using them as object to make the forcers life easier and better." Allowing force to be used in such a way effectively mean that those with the most force get the most allocated to their goals, or "might makes right." You also have to deal with using the ends (your goals) to justify the means (forcing people to do what you want). I'm don't think there's a good solution to either problem. <mike