On the other hand, if it is only a question of power, might makes right, then what of humanism, social justice, and progressive reform? (CG)
a. It is only a question of power: the proposition that might makes right is in fact a trivial tautology. Carrol
------------
I really wanted to hear from Justin first on this, because I wanted him to set up an argument in whatever way he wanted to---including re-casting it some other form.
But just to sketch out what I think are the implications, if the tautology is accurate (never mind truth for the moment), then the prospects for a humane, just, and progressive reformist movement are only improved if such a movement occurs within an already relatively humane, just and progressive society. The more authoritarian, repressive, and brutal a society is, the less promising it becomes that such a reform movement will succeed in producing a relatively more humane, just and progressive society---provided it wins at all.
The reason for this assessment, I think issues from the consequences of most members of a society believing that might makes right---rather having that maxim demonstrated to them by their oppression. The ultimate power of state issues from a gun, therefore the only means to reform the state is to match its power, hence a bloody revolution.
Now theoretically we have a legal system that founds itself squarely in the enlightenment of (Locke, Hume, Mills) Kant's practical reason, where ultimately truth and justice are derivable from well reasoned principles. And where the consistency of law with those principles is considered the path to a just outcome. I actually believe this could be done, but in fact it isn't anyway near what actually is done (obviously). And the prospects of a turn around are receding further and further into the past.
``b. To pose the question as you do badly distorts it, because it vaporizes the _real_ question, of where does power come from.''
I posed the question this way (which is classic enlightenment liberalism), specifically to get Justin to address it through a philosophy of law and ethics.
Chuck Grimes