Objective Morals+

[John V]

I'm just gonna go ahead and explain why "might makes right" is morally bankrupt, just in case he is actually that supid. I am not saying that he is, just in case.

Imagine an all powerful king. You cannot, under any circumstances, overthrow this king/dicatator. He is basically a complete asshole. But what he says, goes, and if you disagree, you die. So this king, let's just call him King Theist, decrees that all women are property, have no rights at all, and are basically slaves to Males. King Theist proceeds to decree that homosexuality is a such a heinous crime, that anyone who is caught gets executed, same with aldultery, speaking out against the King, or his government, ect. King Theist is also a child molester. Why not? You would say he is to be overthrown, correct? You may not want to disobey him, for fear of death, but you would agree that he is evil, right, despite the fact he is all-powerful?

The king has one set of subjective morals. You have a different set of subjective morals. As both are subjective, you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his. The above is merely an appeal to emotion.

Always amazes me when people argue that all morality is subjective, but then argue that their own morality is superior. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

---

Ah, OK then.

Might-makes-right is not a moral evaluation. In fact, it avoids discussing morality completely through appeals to authority or appeals to fear. I trust you're familiar with how both of these appeals are logical fallacies, right?

Might-makes-right instead focuses on power. Those who have the guns (or gold, or supernatural powers, or whatever) can make arbitrary decisions on what is declared to be "right" or "wrong" without any deliberation or consideration of what really IS right or wrong.

This presumes that we can determine "what really IS right or wrong," i.e. it presumes an objective morality. You need to prove an objective morality for this argument to have merit.

So morality can be discovered then with sufficient knowledge?

No, that doesn't follow from the statement you quoted.