"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." Simone Weil
We know for example that a human fetus according to society has no value so it is its mother which determines if it lives or dies by giving it value. Society has laws deciding which lives have value in executions for example. A genocide is defined by one collective asserting another has no value so easily destroyed.
Is there such a thing as objective value independent of societal dictates? If so, what is it? What gives life value?
Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:31 am
the ones holding the guns
-Imp
In the classic debate between Socrates and Thasymachus you seem to favor Thasymachus' argument that might makes right. Might determines value or justice.
In Plato's Republic, the subject of justice is discussed at length. Socrates and his competitors strive to determine what justice is and is not. Thrasymachus proposes a position that has been echoed to the present, that "justice is what is good for the stronger" or 'might makes right' (338c). Thus in living one's life, it is injustice that will make one's life better, not the traditional values of justice one is used to. Is this true? I will argue, as Socrates does in The Republic, that it is not.
Both Socrates and Thrasymachus agree that what is good for a person is just (339b). They disagree in the fact that Socrates views the beneficiary of justice to be the common man, while Thrasymachus views it as the strong. Classic justice helps all mankind, specifically those who uphold it. Justice of the strong means that the rules are followed only by the weak. It is the powerful who reap the reward of the obedience of the weak. They make laws to keep the weak in their control. Then they break the laws for their own advantage. It is these two views that must be weighed against each other. Depending on which is true, we should strive to live our lives in very different ways.
Thrasymachus clarifies that justice is good only when the strong are truly strong. That is, if justice is the weak following rules to the advantage of the strong, it is only good when the strong make rules truly in their best interest. Else the laws would be followed to their detriment, and justice would be both good and bad for them (339e). So, to the extent that they don't make mistakes, making them weaker, justice is the good for the strong (341). He maintains that justice only serves the strong, whoever is in that category at the time.
Socrates argues for his position saying that an art or skill is concerned with the good of its subject not itself, so an authority is concerned with the good of those under him. A doctor helps those in his care as does a ruler look after those under authority. Therefore justice is an advantage for the weaker because those on top are really looking out for the best interest of those under them (343).
Does might make right and ultimately determines what has value?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:28 pmDoes might make right ultimately determine what has value?
no, but right packin' might goes along way to not bein' dead in a ditch
True, but at the same time a fetus for example has no rights so a woman has an abortion and throws it in the garbage can. The person has the force, the value, to avoid dying in the ditch. the fetus lacks value so ends up in the garbage. Which life has value? It can only be the man with the gun since the fetus is powerless lacking value.
Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:31 am
the ones holding the guns
-Imp
In the classic debate between Socrates and Thasymachus you seem to favor Thasymachus' argument that might makes right. Might determines value or justice.
In Plato's Republic, the subject of justice is discussed at length. Socrates and his competitors strive to determine what justice is and is not. Thrasymachus proposes a position that has been echoed to the present, that "justice is what is good for the stronger" or 'might makes right' (338c). Thus in living one's life, it is injustice that will make one's life better, not the traditional values of justice one is used to. Is this true? I will argue, as Socrates does in The Republic, that it is not.
Both Socrates and Thrasymachus agree that what is good for a person is just (339b). They disagree in the fact that Socrates views the beneficiary of justice to be the common man, while Thrasymachus views it as the strong. Classic justice helps all mankind, specifically those who uphold it. Justice of the strong means that the rules are followed only by the weak. It is the powerful who reap the reward of the obedience of the weak. They make laws to keep the weak in their control. Then they break the laws for their own advantage. It is these two views that must be weighed against each other. Depending on which is true, we should strive to live our lives in very different ways.
Thrasymachus clarifies that justice is good only when the strong are truly strong. That is, if justice is the weak following rules to the advantage of the strong, it is only good when the strong make rules truly in their best interest. Else the laws would be followed to their detriment, and justice would be both good and bad for them (339e). So, to the extent that they don't make mistakes, making them weaker, justice is the good for the strong (341). He maintains that justice only serves the strong, whoever is in that category at the time.
Socrates argues for his position saying that an art or skill is concerned with the good of its subject not itself, so an authority is concerned with the good of those under him. A doctor helps those in his care as does a ruler look after those under authority. Therefore justice is an advantage for the weaker because those on top are really looking out for the best interest of those under them (343).
Does might make right and ultimately determines what has value?
Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:31 am
the ones holding the guns
-Imp
In the classic debate between Socrates and Thasymachus you seem to favor Thasymachus' argument that might makes right. Might determines value or justice.
In Plato's Republic, the subject of justice is discussed at length. Socrates and his competitors strive to determine what justice is and is not. Thrasymachus proposes a position that has been echoed to the present, that "justice is what is good for the stronger" or 'might makes right' (338c). Thus in living one's life, it is injustice that will make one's life better, not the traditional values of justice one is used to. Is this true? I will argue, as Socrates does in The Republic, that it is not.
Both Socrates and Thrasymachus agree that what is good for a person is just (339b). They disagree in the fact that Socrates views the beneficiary of justice to be the common man, while Thrasymachus views it as the strong. Classic justice helps all mankind, specifically those who uphold it. Justice of the strong means that the rules are followed only by the weak. It is the powerful who reap the reward of the obedience of the weak. They make laws to keep the weak in their control. Then they break the laws for their own advantage. It is these two views that must be weighed against each other. Depending on which is true, we should strive to live our lives in very different ways.
Thrasymachus clarifies that justice is good only when the strong are truly strong. That is, if justice is the weak following rules to the advantage of the strong, it is only good when the strong make rules truly in their best interest. Else the laws would be followed to their detriment, and justice would be both good and bad for them (339e). So, to the extent that they don't make mistakes, making them weaker, justice is the good for the strong (341). He maintains that justice only serves the strong, whoever is in that category at the time.
Socrates argues for his position saying that an art or skill is concerned with the good of its subject not itself, so an authority is concerned with the good of those under him. A doctor helps those in his care as does a ruler look after those under authority. Therefore justice is an advantage for the weaker because those on top are really looking out for the best interest of those under them (343).
Does might make right and ultimately determines what has value?
a question for your omnipotent god
-Imp
Nietzsche declared that God is dead,so his responsibilites have been taken over by the Great Beast who has emphatically declared that might makes right
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:19 pmIt can only be the man with the gun since the fetus is powerless lacking value.
nah...lack of power is not lack of value...lack of power is lack of self-defense
But self defense is a power. If might makes right as the definition of justice, then if a person cannot defend themselves they lack value. If another defends them, they have given the first person value.
There is no reason not to throw the two infant boys out of the window. Their mother didn't give them value and their helplessness assures they lack value. According to "might makes right" justice has been served.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:19 pmIt can only be the man with the gun since the fetus is powerless lacking value.
nah...lack of power is not lack of value...lack of power is lack of self-defense
But self defense is a power. If might makes right as the definition of justice, then if a person cannot defend themselves they lack value. If another defends them, they have given the first person value.
There is no reason not to throw the two infant boys out of the window. Their mother didn't give them value and their helplessness assures they lack value. According to "might makes right" justice has been served.
First, all lives have value, the trick is always... to what degree?
Second, a life that experiences well-being is more valuable than a life that is experiencing suffering. If you disagree, which would you choose?
Of course, that is the easy part... the devil is in the details.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:19 pmIt can only be the man with the gun since the fetus is powerless lacking value.
nah...lack of power is not lack of value...lack of power is lack of self-defense
But self defense is a power. If might makes right as the definition of justice, then if a person cannot defend themselves they lack value. If another defends them, they have given the first person value.
There is no reason not to throw the two infant boys out of the window. Their mother didn't give them value and their helplessness assures they lack value. According to "might makes right" justice has been served.
First, all lives have value, the trick is always... to what degree?
Second, a life that experiences well-being is more valuable than a life that is experiencing suffering. If you disagree, which would you choose?
Of course, that is the easy part... the devil is in the details.
Hello Klewchuk
You wrote that all lives have value but to whom? If there is no one there to give them value, how can you say they have value and the infants shouldn't be thrown out of the window as valueless?
A 62 year old man nails his 19 year old wife every day. That's worth a bowl of soup. If the government can figure a way to tax it, it will become popular in the west. Giving value to the valueless. It adds philosophical meaning to the dining experience.
A 62 year old man nails his 19 year old wife every day. That's worth a bowl of soup. If the government can figure a way to tax it, it will become popular in the west. Giving value to the valueless. It adds philosophical meaning to the dining experience.
nah, I'll stay put...I know a few preggers...I can harvest some baby meat from 'em and cook it up at home
accordin' to pete holmes there ain't nuthin' wrong with that
