NationStates Jolt Archive

On the Chatham Islands, 500 miles East of New Zealand, centuries of independence came to a brutal end for the Moriori people in December 1835. On November 19 of that year, a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived, followed on December 5 by a shipload of 400 more Maori. Groups of Maori began to walk through Moriori settlements, announcing that the Moriori were now their slaves, and killing those who objected. An organized resistance by the Moriori could still then have defeated the Maori, who were outnumbered two to one. However, the Moriori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight back, but to offer peace, friendship, and a division of resources.

Before the Moriori could deliver that offer, the Maori attacked en masse. Over the course of the next few days, they killed hundreds of Moriori, cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others, killing most of them too over the next few years as it suited their whim. A Moriori survivor recalled, "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep. . . . [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women, and children indiscriminately." A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession. . . in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. No one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed, and others we killed - but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom."

If rights are "natural," real, and universal, why did the Maori not believe in the Moriori's "right to life"? How did their natural right not to be murdered protect the Moriori, and to whom do the Moriori put their "just claim" to for the violation of this right?

Dr. Cline argues "what barbarian invading forces did is no proof text on morality." Yet my point is that morality is society-specific. For the Moriori, what was done to them was a great evil - and I agree. But to the Maori, what they did to the Moriori "was in accordance with our custom" and not wrong. Dr. Cline postulates that "all rights are simply universal conditions 'which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore.'" Yet the rights of the Moriori were completely taken away as their entire populace was enslaved and murdered. The question of rightness or wrongness is moot, because the Moriori were not prepared to defend themselves against an outside agressor.

Can they or will they?

so then the point is that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes.


This is also kinda old news. I think I heard about this at least 2 years ago.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is it a question of needing to defend our rights? Sure, they won't survive long otherwise. Is it a question of culturally relative morality? There I disagree. Morality is absolute, and it must be so in order to exist.

Oooooh, this is a good thread. Had it been by many other people I'd have just expected "If you're not willing to join the army, you can't talk about rights!" or something, but this is impressive even for you WL =D [/brown nosing] :p

I don't believe too strongly in a concept of 'absolute morality', because I don't believe in a divine overlord or anything of the kin. However, this does not mean that I don't believe certain things are alawys right or wrong; I believe the pinnacle of a society is to permit any act or practice which does not cause direct harm to any others. Ergo, I believe in a form of absolute morality, but one which exists without the presence or sanction of any divine being.

You might note I always specify direct harm, and be wondering what exactly I mean? Well, essentially, if someone wants to take crack, they ought to be permitted, even if their mere doing so causes distress to other people. It's very difficult, nigh impossible, to regulate what we do to each other's emotions, as we then get into controlling behaviour and social interactions - not a road we want. However, if someone takes crack and then beats his wife up, that's another matter entirely, of course.

*snip example*
If rights are "natural," real, and universal, why did the Maori not believe in the Moriori's "right to life"? How did their natural right not to be murdered protect the Moriori, and to whom do the Moriori put their "just claim" to for the violation of this right?

*snip*
Dr. Cline postulates that "all rights are simply universal conditions 'which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore.'" Yet the rights of the Moriori were completely taken away as their entire populace was enslaved and murdered. The question of rightness or wrongness is moot, because the Moriori were not prepared to defend themselves against an outside agressor.

One, what is the connection between rights being universal and their existence if you do not defend them? If rights exist in any form, universal or culturally relative then they should have to be defended to apply.

No right, universal or not, is necessarily going to be respected. This does not mean, however that this right does not exist. If it is not defended, then it's existence may well be seen as irrelevant, but this is not always the case. How do we, now, judge the actions of the Maori in your example. We judge them to have been wrong. We could impose some form of retroactive penalty, some form of condemnation on them, as we have on the Nazi regime of Germany. Rights will not protect the victim of abuse, but they do allow for the justification of any punishment of the abuser.

I do not believe in universal rights as referred to by Dr Cline. But I do believe that there is a set of common standards of behaviour that is constantly being refined and renegotiated that allows for judgements of right and wrong to be made across cultural boundaries.

On the Chatham Islands, 500 miles East of New Zealand, centuries of independence came to a brutal end for the Moriori people in December 1835. On November 19 of that year, a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived, followed on December 5 by a shipload of 400 more Maori. Groups of Maori began to walk through Moriori settlements, announcing that the Moriori were now their slaves, and killing those who objected. An organized resistance by the Moriori could still then have defeated the Maori, who were outnumbered two to one. However, the Moriori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight back, but to offer peace, friendship, and a division of resources.

Before the Moriori could deliver that offer, the Maori attacked en masse. Over the course of the next few days, they killed hundreds of Moriori, cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others, killing most of them too over the next few years as it suited their whim. A Moriori survivor recalled, "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep. . . . [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women, and children indiscriminately." A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession. . . in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. No one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed, and others we killed - but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom."

If rights are "natural," real, and universal, why did the Maori not believe in the Moriori's "right to life"? How did their natural right not to be murdered protect the Moriori, and to whom do the Moriori put their "just claim" to for the violation of this right?

Dr. Cline argues "what barbarian invading forces did is no proof text on morality." Yet my point is that morality is society-specific. For the Moriori, what was done to them was a great evil - and I agree. But to the Maori, what they did to the Moriori "was in accordance with our custom" and not wrong. Dr. Cline postulates that "all rights are simply universal conditions 'which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore.'" Yet the rights of the Moriori were completely taken away as their entire populace was enslaved and murdered. The question of rightness or wrongness is moot, because the Moriori were not prepared to defend themselves against an outside agressor.

OK. This jumbles multiple separate concepts together and does not make much sense.

I seriously doubt you take the position that you imply: that might makes right and that rights are the privilege of the victorious.

Yet my point is that morality is society-specific.

I would be even more specific; I believe morality is society-sponsored but individually determined. Yes, many people do take on the majority's opinion as to what their morality is shaped like, because many people do not want to go out on a limb and think about what exactly their moral standing is in life when they wake up in the morning.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

Thomas Jefferson

No, if you're not willing to defend your rights, then you're not willing to defend your life, if you're not willing to defend your rights or yourself, then you're either dead or a slave. It's as simple as that, the only way to ensure one's rights and one's survival is through violence. And if your not willing to hurt another person, then they're willing to enslave and hurt you.

Well thought out and an interesting topic, but I am still not going to own a gun. :p

"Death is easy, murder is inconceivable." Mohandanas Ghandi.

A great man, but he fought against a moralistic society, when fighting a moralistic society peaceful resistance (a condtridiction in itself.) is the better of two options. Or in others words if one society isn't willing to "kick a man when he's down" then peace can be had through peaceful means. But still, the resistance part, resistance is agression, and agression is violence. Therefore they used violence to defend themselves, but weren't forced to kill, nor would they.

But like I said against a moralistic enemy such actions normally succede. But against an unconventional moralistic enemy or (unmoralistic enemy)(Which is a contridiction, because you can't have society without some morals. Even if they're twisted by conventional standars.) such actions are folly. As Whispering Legs informed us, such actions would lead to slavery or death (and slavery is a demeaning institution that forces both master and slave to act unnaturally.).

Or in other words one must know when to fight and when to parley. But in both cases violence in it's many forms is the only road to success, to survival. So impart to my previous post if someone isn't willing to defend their rights with violence, then they have little to no chance of survival.

And survival is what this existence is about, isn't it? To live long enough to spread your genetics, and to ensure our offspring have a chance to do the same. I personally a Gaianist (Beleiver of Gaianism.) beleive that our offspring are our reincarnations, our afterlife ... so to speak. So if violence is the only way my soul, my spirit won't fade into the abyss, then so be it. I will teach my children, and grand children, and great grand children (Gaia willing.) how to defend themselves and their family with the utmost force avalable to them. Whether it be lethal or non-lethal.

Well thought out and an interesting topic, but I am still not going to own a gun. :p


And no one should ever be required to do so either. However, I should hope you'd be willing to pick one up and fight back, if the above ever happened to you. My country's motto is "Freedom fo those who would protect it. That is how I feel. Freedom and basic rights are very exspensive. One should always be prepared to pay the bill.

Bravo. A fantastic effort to take a clip from Guns, Germs, and Steel and turn it into a "war protesters are misguided and naive cowards," argument.

That excerpt was about the organization of societies, not about the principles thereof.

Any society that has reached the chiefdom level of complexity (one guy in charge who can collect taxes and lead warriors/hunters) will organize manpower for its defense. The Moriori people were merely tribal (a vague sense of shared culture and language, but no real loyalty), and so they were not organized enough to defend themselves. Even though they had a culture of peaceful resolution, if they had a central organizing authority they'd have mounted a defense.

Even if they were a brutal and bloodthirsty tribal society they'd still have been overrun, because people on one side of the island would not have contributed to the defense of those on the other. Much like how Eastern states would not defend frontier states under the Articles of Confederation.

Absolute morality is a farce.
No one can be absolutely moral, and Christianity inspires neither absolution, nor morality.

Rights exist in the minds of those people who are inclined to preserve a certain way of life, or benefit society.
Ideally, in a utopic world, you should always be entitled to certain "unailiable rights" if you will, yet, a time may come when someone else wishes to infringe on those rights.

Not everyone are warriors, and this is so becuase of good reason.
War does not create, or make anything stronger, that has a positive outcome.
The Right will say that you should fight for your rights, and war is needed to preserve our way of life, yet, our "way of life" has not been threatened since WWII.

The left will merely accuse the right of warmongering, and yet lack the strength of thier convictions to go after the person who infringes on the most rights of anyone on the planet. (Guess who?)

In the end, all that matters is that personal morality be observed.
Should you fight to preserve them?
Sometimes, but with people as stupid, petty, and corrupt as we are, whos to say your morals are worth a crap?

Might makes right. Rights aren't preserved by defending them. Rather, they are created by enforcing them.
The only moral imperative is to act in a way that isn't counterprodective to your own goals. It is an imperative that many people ignore, unfortunatly.

I think his example shows what happens to 'rights' when NO ONE will stand up to defend them. In such a case, said rights do not, in practice, exist.
the Pacifist retains their human rights so long as the Warrior is willing to defend them. should the Warrior choose not to, then the Pacifist will, in all likelihood, have three choices:
1. Become a Warrior, and fight.

2. Flee-if you can, but remember you can always flee, but rare is the case of escape.

3. Become a Slave/corpse.

Your rights exist, as long as either you, or someone else, is willing to do violence to defend them, to protect them.

Ghandi's techniques worked on England, because of English Morality, which morality is, was, has has always been, protected by those willing to do violence, whether Soldiers, or...others.

They would not work on a man like Adolph Hitler, or Joseph Stalin... or Mao Tse Tung, or any of the millions of wannabees and admirers of those men.

it was not peaceful protest that drove the Third Reich back into a bunker, and brought it to the point of suicides. It was men willing to do violence. the peaceful protesters were rounded up and sent to the death-camps.

Right is only protected by the threat of Might. This does not mean 'might makes right', but rather that without the willingness to fight, your right makes no difference. They become Academic, hypothetical, nonextistent.

OK. This jumbles multiple separate concepts together and does not make much sense.

I seriously doubt you take the position that you imply: that might makes right and that rights are the privilege of the victorious.

I do take the position that if you aren't willing to stand up for your rights, they can hardly be said to exist.

As it's not always necessary to use violence to stand up for your rights (depending on the nature of your opponent, which you must recognize), efforts by people like Gandhi have been successful in history. Yet these are not the only examples that history provides.

It may be that one must be as prepared for a violent, physical defense of one's right as well as a verbal, non-violent defense - depending on which one may be more effective and less costly. Take for example the sad state of military defense that the Russian princes had prior to their destruction by the Mongol hordes - yes, they indeed went out to fight, but they were not prepared to fight the relatively small groups of Mongols - which they outnumbered - because they lacked a political unity and a military that could have defended them - because they were unwilling to act together and lay down preparations for such an event. By the time the Mongols showed up, it was much too late to do anything.

No, if you're not willing to defend your rights, then you're not willing to defend your life, if you're not willing to defend your rights or yourself, then you're either dead or a slave. It's as simple as that, the only way to ensure one's rights and one's survival is through violence. And if your not willing to hurt another person, then they're willing to enslave and hurt you.

You are a very paranoid person. I've never defended my rights or my life, and I've never used violence for any purpose other than entertainment. And yet I am alive, and free. You see nobody is trying to take my rights away, or enslave me, or hurt me. Nobody. Anywhere.

You are a very paranoid person. I've never defended my rights or my life, and I've never used violence for any purpose other than entertainment. And yet I am alive, and free. You see nobody is trying to take my rights away, or enslave me, or hurt me. Nobody. Anywhere.

Violence is not always necessary - but people surrender their rights without even opening their mouths. And some, like Chamberlain, were willing to sign away the rights of others just on the slim hope that the talk and the signing would forestall a violence that was inevitable.

Your rights exist, as long as either you, or someone else, is willing to do violence to defend them, to protect them. Or as long as no-one is trying to remove them. Do you truly believe that the only reason I am not a slave is the existence of a standing army in my nation?

Violence is not always necessary - but people surrender their rights without even opening their mouths. And some, like Chamberlain, were willing to sign away the rights of others just on the slim hope that the talk and the signing would forestall a violence that was inevitable.
That's pretty rhetoric, but it isn't an argument. Some people may be prepared to give their rights away. So?

Or as long as no-one is trying to remove them. Do you truly believe that the only reason I am not a slave is the existence of a standing army in my nation?

Can you, like the Russian princes of the 1200s, count on the idea that a feeble military can forestall anything that might happen? No. Even a strong one? Perhaps not.

But, it might give someone pause. There are certainly African countries with such feeble armed forces that a few adventurous mercenaries have attempted their own takeovers.

If you're from the UK, I could say that the only reason you're not a native speaker of German is that the UK had armed forces in WW II, and was willing to use them.

Can you, like the Russian princes of the 1200s, count on the idea that a feeble military can forestall anything that might happen? No. Even a strong one? Perhaps not.I can count on it not mattering at all while there is absolutely no threat to my nation. The security of my nation is ensured by diplomacy and economics. The military is just window dressing.
But, it might give someone pause. There are certainly African countries with such feeble armed forces that a few adventurous mercenaries have attempted their own takeovers.They also have undeveloped economies, poor populations that don't take part in the economy, tiny, unresourced, corrupt police forces, etc.
If you're from the UK, I could say that the only reason you're not a native speaker of German is that the UK had armed forces in WW II, and was willing to use them.You could also say that we don't need to train for a war that has already happened, and that the fact that there was a WWII doesn't mean WWIII is inevitable, and that there hasn't been a war between democratic nations since god knows when, and that not every nation that has won democracy from dictatorship has won it with violence.

So it depends on who you're enemies are, and how far they are from you, and what threat they pose to you.