A question inspired by another post:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If we presume that a social good and a social evil can be defined enough that violence v. non-violence is a valid question, I'd like to propose a simple question:

Who is the arbiter of good and evil? Is it religion, ethics, utilitarianism, ideology, might makes right or what?

Effectively....given the amount of diversity in opinion in this community, which includes paranoid conspiracy theorists like Sophia_Sadek and Hunterkirk, communists like Gillen, ultra-reactionaries like yours truly, and a bevy of more "regular" political Left-Right viewpoints, who among Men is best-qualified to judge all? Or is Hobbes right?

How can one be objective enough to decide this on the scale of a modern-day state, even the anarchistic messes that are most of Africa, let alone the Second or First Worlds?

Post referenced linked here: http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/182264.html

Comments

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Well there's such things as tradition and common law.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except who gets to define tradition?

Suppose my tradition states I must sacrifice a virgin to Huitzilopochtli every night so that the Sun must rise the next morning. Your tradition sees women in general as the root source of all that's holy. Thus mine is utter anathema to yours Who wins in that case?

And common law itself is a good vantage point....but Jews have their own court systems in England to rule according to Halacha. And there are other traditional law systems like Shariah and Indian tribal laws (because I like self-parody as much as the next fellow). Whose law system is superior?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

The law system that traditionally is used in that particular country.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which implies that might makes right, not right makes might....

[merig00.livejournal.com]

well it is the "chicken or the egg" question :D We all live in a constructive reality. Each nation has its own core founding believes and traditions which make it a nation.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And each nation tended to expand by violence until it was content enough to erase that part of its history. He who gets there first with the most guns appears to make the rules.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

winners to be judged and winners get to write history.

Look at nation/government/organization/corporation etc as a living organism - expansion means life.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It can also mean ruin, see the Roman Republic and the western part of the Roman Empire....