Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: To Terry Dineen
Message-ID: <191@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 19:56:25 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.191
Posted: Thu Feb 28 19:56:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 08:12:56 EST
References: <781@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 26

> 
> Don't look now but I think you have made a nonsense statement!!!
> 
> "Might does not make right because there is no 'right'; . . ."
> 
>        Er, . . . isn't THAT statement a statement of what is RIGHT???
> I mean you would disagree, based upon the sentiments above that 'might
> makes right because there is a 'right', wouldn't you?
> 
> How do you KNOW that there is no 'right'????
> 
> Ken Arndt

I think you are confusing two meanings of "right", one being "factually correct"
and the other being "morally correct".  I think that the original statement
meant that there is no objective morality, not that there is no such thing as
a fact.

My objection to this statement is that "might makes right" isn't a statement
of fact, but rather a commentary on how power is abused.  The average person is
forced to follow the moral codes of the powerful (whoever that happens to be).
So might can make right (the accepted standards of behavior) even if there is
no objective "right".
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak