Is it that 'might makes right' or that 'might makes possibility'?

Logically, my possessing some object, such as a shotgun, cannot give me moral rights I did not have before, even if it gives me more power and might. However, it may make actions that would have been impossible for me (such as intimidating a seven-foot martial arts expert) possible.

One of the great problems in moral philosophy is the tendency to mistake the ability and desire for a thing for the right to do that thing. Without might, my rights are unenforceable. But that doesn't mean they go away. I do still have a right not to be pushed around by armed thugs, even if I have no power to put that right into practice.

And in a well-designed democracy, the minority's rights are protected from infringement by consitutional 'hardwiring'.

If I shoot you in the head, you'll certainly be unable to argue the morality of the act with me after.

Not that might makes right, but it CAN render the point moot.

Yeah, that's basically the rationale behind the cliche. If you're the most powerful, that gives you the ability to do basically anything you like without consequence. Therefore, the right to do them, because you have no one to be accountable to. That doesn't mean that this is right (meaning morally or ethically correct), but you do have the ability to do them.

HAAAAAAhahahahahahahaha!

That is now my quote for the day.

But if A is attempting to use its might to oppress B via 'might makes right', what should mightier-still party C do? 'Might makes right' doesn't really offer any guidelines for conduct.

This is one of the major issues in ethics, and it comes up everywhere from schoolyards to geopolitics.

That's the thing, though, strength doesn't have to mean force, it can just mean opportunity.

For example, remember when the Zombie-geeks were rampaging around, and we had a debate over the ethical implications of killing them in self defence? In that case, the might was in the hands of the armed guards, and the right was therefore whatever they believed - admittedly, the guards were insane, but were they not then because they're the ones who'd do the fighting it would be their philosophy which would come into effect. I might disagree with the use of a nuclear weapon, but then again wether it's used or not will come down to the man in charge of the weapon, not me. His 'might' in that case is the might of command, and thus his right is whatever he believes with regards to the missile.

We debate here, but there is no decisive way to enforce or employ one opinion over the other, since Pete has the might (being the author) and thus what he sees is right is portrayed that way. I could argue that one character is a villain or another a hero, citing examples and using reason, but in the end it is Pete's decision as to the actual moral positioning of the character and what that means to the story.

The thing is, we discuss right and wrong so that we know how we ought to behave. So maybe we can't enforce our decision on the man whose finger is on the button of a nuclear silo. But that doesn't mean that whatever decision that man makes is automatically right... or even that he has the right to make that decision himself. It may be his decision, but that doesn't mean it should be. And determining whether it should be or not may tell us something applicable to our own lives... like how to vote in an election.

Moral philosophy is a meaningless concept unless it tells us how to behave and what to think of other peoples' behavior.

I couldn't agree more.

I know, this is a bad thing I've done, but I couldn't resist.

Not necessarily. In fact, now that I think about it, Riff may fit into the "remorsefully commits what could be deemed as evil" category. Sam, for instance, was once a very good friend of his, but as soon as he turned into a vampire, Riff was prepared to kill him on sight. Also, look at this: The comic states that he fears he will be forced to destroy his friends.
Also, remember back in BWR, when he build the Mk V. He wasn't working on a plan to excorsise K'Z'K: He was preparing to [url=http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=010208kill Gwynn[/url]to detsroy him. [url=http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=010211]"Stop walling me out[/url] was not just a visual gag; Riff is, in fact, "walling Gwynn out" by doing his best to not think of the fact that there is still a bit of Gwynn left and that in destroying K'Z'K he will destroy Gwynn as well.
Killing innocent bystanders, particularly good friends, would most definately fit into an "evil" category when taken out of context. Granted, Riff plans to do it because he knows there is no other option, but isn't that basically what Taurus' archetype does?

Most people who believe in a set moral code agree that, if there is a god, he sets the rules as far as morality is conscerned. The thing is... wouldn't he be setting the guidelines because he has the biggest shotgun of all?

That is the best point about universal morality I have ever heard. Ever.

And, I believe, that that observation just about wraps this up. That's all, folks!

Unless, of course, we should feel like beating a dead horse.

You might also assume the possibility that God loves us and wants the best for us, and therefore sets rules barring us from things that will ultimately harm us and encouraging things that will ultimately benefit us. As long as we're considering it logically, let's consider all the possibilities.

Well, certainly I'll consider that possibility. But the point remains that we might not listen to Him if he didn't have the biggest shotgun of all, metaphorically speaking.

I, personally, get a perverse enjoyment out of beating a dead argument. They come back to life surprisingly often.

I think God sets moral rules because He percieves morality more clearly than any other being, and is in a better position to act on those rules than any other being. Thus, He has not only the right, but the duty to instruct us in moral principles- within our limits. I also believe that most religion distorts God's message by inserting bits and pieces of our private cultural taboos and obsessions into it (like the misogynistic streak of monastic Catholic theologians in the Middle Ages, or the ancient Hebrews' inability to get along with their neighbors).

And it does make a difference whether God is simply dictating to us at 'divine shotgun' point, or whether he is, in fact, speaking from moral principles. If nothing else, it affects how we think of God and religion... which can be a profoundly important part of our worldviews.

Moral philosophy may be a meaningless concept, but only if we don't need (or can't use) rules for our behavior. Ever. My sources say 'no' to that.

There are all sorts of decisive ways to enforce one man (or one group's) opinion on another, ranging from debate to execution. And the decision of when and why to use those ways is vitally important. As is the decision of how WE will behave, in particular. That's what determines how people ought to behave under fire, or when confronted with the temptation to break the law, or as policy-makers in the face of nuclear annihilation. And those are very important issues.