The Brussels Philosophy Meetup

Does strong mean bad?
Does strong mean good?
Do we (not) in any case naturally aspire to be strong?

Observing how we humans behave, we may quite readily conclude that we tend to hold contradictory views and attitudes regarding these questions.

"God (meaning 'good') is almighty"... Is this claim, assuming it means equivalence (A<–>B) (not) a truism? Is strength (not) intrinsically a quality that is morally good? A more particular example: if the condition of poverty (i.e. economic weakness, as opposed to wealth = economic strength) were not morally bad, would our global fight to eradicate poverty not be ethically meaningless?

On the other hand, there is also our (universal?) cultural meme of the weak (sometimes referred to as "underdog") who both awakens and deserves our sympathy in its fight against a giant evil, be this latter a living monster or an uncaring, ruthless (or Kafka-esque) "system"...

Is sympathizing for the weak (nevertheless not?) always rational and ethical?
To return to our example of our global efforts to eradicate poverty, if rich people (i.e. the economically strong) would be considered (as they often are!) to be bad (by reason of their wealth), and poor people (the economically weak), by reason of their poverty, to be good, would this again not make our fight to eradicate global poverty immoral??

Wealth (in general, strength) seems to be both good and bad... Is this a real paradox? Or are our ideas of the interrelationships between strong, weak, bad and good simply confused?

Continuing our unpacking... How are strength and power related? Is power always bad? Let's consider political and military power, and the power differentials between rivals/opponents/enemies. Is it true (or not) that "power always corrupts"? In a conflict or competition (2 different scenarios in fact), is the party possessing the greatest power by definition the "bad guy"? Is power, it could alternatively be argued, not a continuum - there always being those with more power than us and those with less? And if so, from what point in the continuum does power "corrupt"?

What is the connection between strength and merit? Is a strength that is earned (not) by definition a good reward? Yet, if this merited strength means you becoming the "bad guy", what type of reward (or reasoning) is this in fact?

If the Cyclops had been the size of a beetle and Odysseus had killed it by simply crushing it under his foot, would Odysseus return home as a virtuous hero, or would he be perceived instead simply as a stupid bully? If Penelope's suitors had instead been just one half-starved weakling who had no chance of winning her heart, would that (not) have made the suitor and his motivations any less unethical?

Does the concept of "strength in numbers" (not) apply also when it comes to ethics? Does "a hundred good men" make their formed group also good? Is a thousand good men ethically better than a hundred?

The concept "victim", along with denoting someone who has experienced misfortune, typically also connotes both "innocent" and "weak". By framing oneself (or others) as "victim", it may be easier to win others' sympathies than by framing oneself (or others) as, for example, a "failed perpetrator who got back what they deserved". Especially effective in a conflict situation, peceiving one party alternatively as "victim" or as "failed perpetrator" can make a critical difference in our judging them as either "good" or "bad".
Are such perceptions and judgments nevertheless (not) irrational and thus ethically ungrounded??

In assessing which of two (or more) conflicting parties is the "good guy" and which is the "bad guy", should their powers relative to each other be - or not be - a contributing determining factor?

A more extreme form of argument that we seem nowadays to all-too-frequently come across: strong/weak is basically the only factor determining good or bad. In this case, the question arises as to whether it is weakness or strength that is the ethically good... (We may find it interesting to compare Christian vs Nietzschean ethics...)

So, in this season's opening meetup, we'll have a chance to explore what roles strength-and-weakness considerations might well play (rationally or irrationally) when we make ethical assessments, and, if necessary, how to possibly correct our errors of judgment.

We can also enjoy, at least I hope, meeting up with one another again! 😍☕️🥡🥂

Illustration: Caravaggio's Davide con la testa di Golia (3rd version, Galleria Borghese)