Welcome back Robert Tulip 2. To clarify, my point was to describe how might equals right
understands suffering: which is always, in that context, better to give than to receive. Against that framework (which seems to be the norm in world and interpersonal affairs), willingly accepting suffering for something that cannot be expressed as force or dominance, is ridiculous: i.e., why suffer for another (or a principle and ideal) if suffering won't lend itself to greater power and more dominance? If might
equals right, then what
In the context of sheer power, its increase and expansion, legitimacy is determined by what best increases and expands power. Furthermore, this legitimacy is hardly a topic for Socratic discussion or seminar debate: it is imposed and forced. Counter-points and objections are sometimes entertained, but only as tools to highlight weaknesses and faultlines in the greater press for dominance. But there is little room for objections that play upon moral sensitivities or deeper, sustainable human values: these stings of conscience are simply ploys by the weaker to strike back and demoralize the stronger with guilt and shame. And upon closer inspection, these deeper, sustainable human values are actually yet another attempt to force behavior and dominate persons into submission. There simply is no pure moral ground from which one is above the fray of dominance and submission: in reality, morality is the rules one imposes upon oneself to maintain a little self-respect and dignity along the way.
But choosing the suffer, as though suffering is a solution in itself, a kind of magic or medicine: is ludicrous. Suffering is inavoidable and omnipresent.
Eichmann was hardly the first and certainly not the last spoke in the wheel of power that has smashed its way through history since (to utilize a mythic phrase) the expulsion from Eden. Those who offer an alternative to this wheel are pushing against enormous evidence and odds. Those who push hardest get crushed. Actually, all get crushed.