 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
1. Karen Hudes linking a source of information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdQB1aOFlYY
2. The source of information linked by Karen Hudes.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
3. A reference made on page 31 of 36 (.pdf copy) to Meber's definition of power leads to Max Weber
http://sociologytwynham.com/2013/06/04/webers-definition-of-power/
The Discover here is Max Weber and a method of perceiving and measuring human action from a specific point of view that appears (at first) to be immoral.
If the point of view were moral than the measure of said POWER would follow along the lines of right (defensive power in opposition with offensive, criminal, power) and wrong (offensive, criminal, power) whereby criminal power is clearly indicted as such.
If the point of view were amoral then both viewpoints (right and wrong) would be expressed as such by the amoral viewpoint whereby the reader is then left to decide (moral) or not decide (amoral) if one side is right or the other side is right: or wrong.
If the point of view were immoral, then the whole concept of right and wrong (which exists as a demonstrable fact) would be swept under the rug so as to empower the immoral side with the power of deception: immoral knows that targeted victims are ignorant and therefore powerless in defense.
Additional Max Weber information:
http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/weber11.html