"Might Makes Right" Fallacy: on a Tacit Justification For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" FALLACY: ON A TACIT JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLENCE by EDGAR I. TEMAM A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Philosophy and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2014 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Edgar I. Temam Title: The "Might Makes Right" Fallacy: On a Tacit Justification for Violence This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Philosophy by: Naomi Zack Co-Chair Cheyney Ryan Co-Chair Ted Toadvine Core Member Colin Koopman Core Member David Frank Institutional Representative and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research and Innovation; Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded March 2014 ii © 2014 Edgar I. Temam This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike License. iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Edgar I. Temam Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy March 2014 Title: The "Might Makes Right" Fallacy: On a Tacit Justification for Violence "Might makes right," so the saying goes. What does this mean? What does it mean to say that humans live by this saying? How can this saying that is considered by almost all as an expression of injustice play a justificatory role practically universally and ubiquitously? How can it be repulsive and yet, nonetheless, attractive as an explanation of the ways of the world? Why its long history? I offer a non-cynical explanation, one based on a re-interpretation of the saying and of both recognized and unrecognized related phenomena. This re-interpretation relies on the notion of a tacit justification for violence. This non-cynical, re-interpretive explanation exposes the ambiguity of the saying and the consequential unwitting, self-deceptive, fallacious equivocations that the ambiguity makes possible under common conditions. While this explanation, furthermore, focuses on thinking factors—specifically on fallacious thinking, on humans' unwittingly and self- deceptively committing the fallacy of equivocation—it does not deny the possible role of non-thinking factors; it only tries to show that the thinking factors are significantly explanatory. What is the ambiguity? "Might makes right" expresses two principles. The first principle is the common meaning, namely, that the dominance of the mightier over the iv weaker is right. This principle is generally considered to be not a definition of justice but an expression of injustice. The second principle, which is almost universally shared in a tacit and unreflective way, is a principle of life, namely, that it is right for any living being to actualize its potential. This second principle is originary and thus primary, while the first principle is derivative and thus secondary. The use of all powers, natural or social, can be ultimately derived legitimately or illegitimately from this primary principle. A common manifestation of "might makes right" is the unwitting abuse of power, an abuse that is not recognized as such by the so-called abuser, but that is rather suffered by this latter, who misapplies the second principle in situations that fall under the first principle, thereby unwittingly living by the saying, tacitly justifying abusive ways by it. This unwittingness calls for critical control and forgiveness. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Edgar I. Temam GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA City College of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA Northeastern University, Boston, MA DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Philosophy, 2014, University of Oregon Master of Arts, Philosophy, 2005, San Francisco State University Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, 1978, Northeastern University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Philosophy of Nonviolence Philosophy of Education Ethics Political Philosophy History of Philosophy Critical Thinking Logic PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Teaching assistant, Department of English, UO, 2011-2013. Teaching assistant, Department of Philosophy, UO, 2006-2009 and 2010-2011. Teaching assistant, Department of Philosophy, SFSU, 2001-2005. Tutoring, Department of Philosophy, CCSF, 1997-1999. GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Graduate Teaching Fellow, UO, English, 2011-2013 Graduate Teaching Fellow, UO, Philosophy, 2006-2011 vi Fighting Fund Fellowship, UO, Philosophy, 2005-2006, and Summers 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Graduate Student Award for Distinguish Achievement, SFSU, 2005 Graduate Teaching Assistant, SFSU, 2002-2005 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my family for supporting me unconditionally, my friends for encouraging me constantly, and my teachers, colleagues, and students for helping me to think more critically. I thank my committee members: Cheyney Ryan, who advised me from the earliest phases of this project; David Frank, Colin Koopman, and Ted Toadvine, for their feedback during the prospectus phase; and especially Naomi Zack, without whose assistance and encouragement I would not have completed this project. I thank also the others who have helped me along the way in composing this essay: my sister and my brother-in-law Maryse and Leonard Klein, my brother Raoul Temam; from CCSF, Bill Graves; from SFSU, Anatole Anton, Ali Kashani, and Miwa Ikema; from the UO, Adam Arola, James Crosswhite, Al Frankowski, John Gage, Emma Jones, Jason Jordan, Johanna Luttrell, and José Mendoza. I thank, additionally, the many who have helped me indirectly, including, from SFSU, John Glanville, Sandra Luft, Myron Lunine, James Martel, and James Royse, and from the UO, Elizabeth Caldwell, Brent Crouch, Elena Cuffari, Mathew Foust, Elizabeth Grosz, Paul Guernsey, Marcus Hensel, Katherine Logan, Kimberley Parzuchowski, Christine Reynolds, Aaron Rodriguez, and Lucy Schultz. I thank, finally, TK Landázuri for her generous help, beginning even before I became a student at the UO. viii To all of us, who unwittingly abuse our powers. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCING A JUSTIFICATORY STORY ..................................................... 1 1. Wondering about Might and Right .................................................................... 2 2. Outlining a Non-Cynical Explanation ............................................................... 5 3. Historically Situating ......................................................................................... 10 3.1. Advocating for M→R ............................................................................... 11 3.2. Refuting M→R ......................................................................................... 19 3.3. Neither Advocating for nor Refuting ....................................................... 26 II. BACKGROUND — PERSPECTIVAL, ASSUMPTIVE, AND CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 28 1. A Nonviolent Perspective .................................................................................. 29 2. Thinking about Violence: Critical and Political ................................................ 32 3. Not Just Thinking ............................................................................................. 35 4. Why Justifications? ........................................................................................... 37 5. "Makes" Makes a Difference ............................................................................. 40 6. M→R As the Paradoxically Paradigmatic JV ................................................... 44 7. On Tacit Justifications ....................................................................................... 44 8. The Effectiveness of Tacit Consent ................................................................... 51 9. Anthropodicy ..................................................................................................... 54 10. Order Making .................................................................................................. 57 11. Abusing Powers ............................................................................................... 58 x Chapter Page 12. The Inherent Insufficiency of the Typical Cynical Explanation ..................... 66 13. Deflating Deflationary Views .......................................................................... 74 III. THE "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" FALLACY FULLY EXPOSED ..................... 75 1. Equivocation: Unwitting Self-Deception .......................................................... 75 1.1. In Silence — Tacitness in Action ............................................................. 75 1.2. The Ambiguity .......................................................................................... 79 1.3. The Equivocation ...................................................................................... 80 1.4. Equivocal Conditions ............................................................................... 81 1.4.1. Preliminaries — On Prohibitions ..................................................... 82 1.4.2. Basic Bodily Movements ................................................................ 84 1.4.3. Merit ................................................................................................ 88 1.4.4. Other Conditions ............................................................................