Might Is Right

My newest book obssesion of this month.- Might Is Right.

Written by the illustrious fake pen name Ragnar Redbeard who illustrates the stupidity of morality,god,government and all authority.

In the next couple of days I plan to post a bunch of quotes from this book to get people’s opinions and such for a good conversation.

Here is one excerpt to begin with:

Has anybody read this book? Post your opinions.

Nope have not read it yet, I have been waiting for the movie. I can agree with the present quotes you have posted. I think I will wait to see what cure is prescribed though. Arsenic may cure somethings but, a poison is still a poison and not to be played with by the inexperienced.

“Blessed are the strong, for they will possess the earth;
Cursed are the weak, for they will inherit the yoke”

I know these lines by heart.

Well I have to re-read the questions. Just thinking poor ol George W. Wait never mind he is still reading Dick and Jane.

Such an astounding task indeed, proving the stupidity of morality, God, government, and all authority! It should prove interesting to see how he does so without utilizing the very things he is seeking to reject, (or maybe he’ll be honest at the outset, and admit that his own philosophy is subject to the same harsh criticism he applies to more theistic ones.)

On this front page in the Philosophy forums alone, I counted at least 17 threads having as their topic of discussion some aspect of the philosophy of morality and ethics. From browsing through a few of them, I can tell that by far, my own view will be a minority view, and perhaps even be met with a certain deal of hostility, (although I do wish to keep philosophical discussions as civil as possible!)

I would like to say at the outset of our discussion, that I am a Christian, and I love Jesus Christ with all my heart (to put it in colloquial terms.) That being said, I deem this thread as good a place as any to begin challenging some of the more predominate view points being articulated on the subject of morality, particularly the more humanistic materialist view. (I feel it necessary here to interject an aside, that it is no surprise this view has dominated these forums, since it is being taught 8 hours a day for 5 days a week all across America in the public school systems, but, I shall not say anything more about the matter in this thread!)

To conclude:

I assume Mr. Ragnar Redbeard has some new view on the problem, taking into account the miserable failure of the logical positivists of the early 19th century to discount morality (and indeed all theological discussion) to the realm of nonsense. (To read a thorough critique of the logical positivists position, from A.J. Ayer, to Feigl, I suggest the book, “Language and Theology” by Gordon H. Clark.)

So to the more prominent Atheists of today fail at articulating a non arbitrary objective system of morality. Consider George H. Smith in his book, “The Case Against God,” who in his chapter on morality, (11) relies heavily on the work of Ayn Rand, “The Objectivists Ethics” to make his case. He attempts to base a foundation of rational scientific “is-ought” ethics into a normative science resting in an existence non existence dichotomy. Hence, he draws ethical conclusions (to use his analogy,) that whatever being conducive to extending the life of the plant, (such as giving it water,) is to be considered a valuable action, and therefore can be called a moral action.

It is at this point that one must point out the overall arbitrariness of Mr. Smiths view, (and presumably Mr. Redbeards as well) by making the observation that Smiths reliance on an existence non existence dichotomy is nothing more than his own decided starting point, and no one else is bound by any obligation to accept his standard.

Essentially George H. Smith, when asked why a particular action is wrong, if he were consistent, would answer, “Because I say it is!” Playing right into the title of this this thread, “Might Makes Right.”

It will be interesting to see if Redbeard avoids similar difficulties, although, I can already tell by the above quotes that this is doubtful.

I look forward to the future dialogue on this issue!

There’s a lot of difference between ‘Might Is Right’ and ‘Might Makes Right’. Obw and Thirst4Metal once had a provocative argument about this theme. If anyone has the time to dig it up, it’s a good read.

The only thing that seemed nonsensical in the book was the extreme racialism but given that the book was written around the early 19th century I just try to ignore it accepting the fact that it was comprised in a much different historical era and circumstance. Beyond that it really is a great book.

Yeah that is one of the many quotes that comprise it.

I myself am trying to learn some of the quotes by heart myself. :slight_smile:

Most likely he is at home watching cartoons drinking koolaid with his hand near a button that activates a nuclear device.

( George W. probally uses a nuclear device as his soda coaster.)

I want to check into that. :evilfun:

Arrghh… :angry: :imp: :angry: #-o
The library closes in fifteen minutes.

I’ll be back tomorrow with some more quotes of the book and to spam the internet with my crazy rants. [-X

See you guys later. :slight_smile:

Some quotes I leave to people until my sweet return.

Nash Equilibrium demonstrates such a position to be not merely incorrect, but actually a good deal weaker than the “lone, strong individualist” paradigm. I’ll refer you to the “Prisoner Dilemma” thread where you called my comments “moralizing” until I demonstrated the mathematical backbone they have.

we’ll know where his hand was with the Cheeto’s. Leaves stuff orange ya know. :astonished:

Huh?

This probally explains why he always messes up his public speeches sounding like a drunk date after prom night.

More quotes from ( Might Is Right.)-

( Please feel free to discuss any quote at anytime.)

BB in two hours. :evilfun:

I have to go thieving…Just kidding…or Am I?

:sunglasses:

Are these all meant to be aphorisms? There is no argument here, all he is doing, atleast in the quotes you provide, is accusing and name throwing. You either agree with them or you don’t, there is really no room for discussion, as there is no argument, only vague wording within divisive statements.