[WikiEN-l] Realism versus idealism (was Re: There are no pictures in Wikipedia any more)

[Armed Blowfish]

The Melian Dialogue:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

In the Melian dialogue, the Athenians represent
realism, while the Melians represent idealism.
The Athenians are straight, rather than attempting
to justify their reasons in terms of what is right
and fair, they are honest about their motivations.

'For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with
specious pretences- either of how we have a right
to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or
are now attacking you because of wrong that you
have done us- and make a long speech which
would not be believed'

'We will now proceed to show you that we are come
here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall
say what we are now going to say, for the preservation
of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire
over you without trouble, and see you preserved for
the good of us both.'

All the while, the Melians take the moral high ground.  In
the end, the Melian men are killed and the women and
children are enslaved, and it is as the Athenians said,
'since you know as well as we do that right, as the world
goes, is only in question between equals in power, while
the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must.'

On 25/09/2007, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/09/2007, Charlie <charles.baker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/25/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That would suggest that I accept that "human rights" have some kind of
>>> real existance beyond people's power to enforce them. I do not.
>>
>> Hope this isn't too off-topic here, but do you really mean this about
>> human rights?
>>
>> Do you mean that in the sense of the rhetorical flourish, that human
>> rights don't exist if we don't enforce them, so lobby your government?
>>
>> Or do you literally mean that there is nothing more to human rights but
>> our enforcement of them?
>>
>
> Yes. This can be demonstrated by examining the situations where
> enforcement breaks down.
>
>> Because if it is the second, then what human rights we have depend
>> entirely
>> on the local governments willingness and ability to enforce them.  If a
>> government doesn't enforce a right not to be murdered, for example, how
>> can you make the argument that they should, if the right has no existence?
>> To what principle can you appeal, if not the prior existence of a right?
>
> The principle that I personally don't want to get killed and I'd
> rather those who I chose to care about don't get killed. Thus it is in
> my personal interests to work with others who don't want to get killed
> to neutralise those who go around killing people.
>
> Enlightened self interest. It gets more complex with balanced
> interests and the like but this isn't the time or place.
>
> --
> geni