might makes right

[mikehendo]

Should might make right?

[randomperson2]

Wow this is just begging for some Machiavelli isn't it?

The way this question is put I believe tha answer is no. However, that is not the way it so often works. As it is the victor that writes the historys, without fail might does make right in the end.

[peter-griffin]

:grandfather clause:



:explosion:

[Grumlen]

Spooty random peoples answering questions exactly the same way I would . . . damn them.

But yeah, even in the cases where "might" doesn't make right, it's because enough weaker people banded together to become stronger, thus becoming the current "might."

[Seraphim]

I'd have to say, superficially yes, but in reality no. I don't care how much power you have, doing bad stuff is still... ya know... bad.

[Salvation122]

[quote="mikehendo";p="394411"]Should might make right?[/quote]
This question is rather silly. Whether it should make right or not, it always, always will. Adapt, accept it, and move on.

[elroy]

In before 'OMG THA USA ABUSING POWER!!111' post.

[asdf]

no it shouldn't, but it does.

[Mr.Shroom]

[quote="mikehendo";p="394411"]Should might make right?[/quote]

A cooler version of this would have perhaps been: Imagine a society in which might DOES make right. Can such a society still be moral and perhaps, 'good'? Would it erase all potential for 'civilization'? Does 'might' have to be expressed in physical strength alone? Discuss.

Feel free to take a crack at that one. Might be worth it to salvage a thread. Consider it one of those "I will if you will" moments.

[Grumlen]

But yeah, even in the cases where "might" doesn't make right, it's because enough weaker people banded together to become stronger, thus becoming the current "might."

I think that answers your question shroom, though maybe not the answer you were looking for. Whether the society is moral or not depends on the morals of those with the "might." But regardless of what people may think, might does and always will make right. It's just that an individually weak majority has a "might" of their own.

[randomperson2]

Ahh, here we go, something I can jump on.



Ok, Given Shrooms question, It seems that you have to make a distinction between a Hobbesian state of nature society which would focus on human nature and preclude any kind of social contract. In this case it would preclude civilization as the strongest man would always be on top and eventually taken down by the weakening of age.

As for whether might must be expressed in terms of physical strength alone, I think the answer is clearly no. In International Theory any description of "hard power" includes both military and economic power. I think what it boils down to is the "might" is really anything you have at your disposal to accomplish your means.


The morality is a different issue entirely, before this question can be addressed the term morality must first be defined.

[Mr.Shroom]

I think thats fair, as to include the concept would REALLY strech what Thomas meant. I mean, if its not so much a rational acceptance of terms as it is a forced state due to you being weak? Its hardly a mutally consigned loss of freedom\gaining of freedom.

Heres a sketchy concept for the cultural values and morals under the 'might=right' ideal:

-The most important person in the world is you. The most important things that occur in the world is what you want and how the world effects you.

-The only way to change something is to do something. The only reason you can't do something is if you're not strong enough to or someone is stronger than you and is stopping you. Levels of strength and types of strength, however, can be changed without resistance beyond the self.

-Do what you want to do untill someone stronger than you stops you. If someone stops you, knock them aside. If you can't, you obviously don't deserve to do what you want. That is what everyone else wants to do. Everyone is looking out for their own self-interest.

-The highest goal you or anyone else can reach is the ability to be truly free to do what you want, relish in your emotions, and have the power to keep it that way for as long as possible.

How would this work out? Can it? This also takes us back to Grumlen. Would you say that perhaps this is a more natural version of what truly goes on in the world?

[randomperson2]

Taking these one at a time.

-The most important person in the world is you. The most important things that occur in the world is what you want and how the world effects you.

This seems to be the way the world works. It might not be pretty or nice but, I have said it before and I'll say it again. At the point that something doesn't affect me, I don't really care.

-The only way to change something is to do something. The only reason you can't do something is if you're not strong enough to or someone is stronger than you and is stopping you. Levels of strength and types of strength, however, can be changed without resistance beyond the self.

This also seems to be the way to world works. Nobody does anything unless it helps them. If you want to change something that only directly affects you, the only way to change it is to make your problem somebody elses problem.

If you were to replace the phrase someone else with the government you would have exactly what happens today.

-The highest goal you or anyone else can reach is the ability to be truly free to do what you want, relish in your emotions, and have the power to keep it that way for as long as possible.

This is the goal my entire life is geared toward. To me that sounds like pure and simple ambition.

[Grumlen]

Actually, thats exactly the way things work in our world. As I said, might is relative and just because an individual person is weak doesn't mean that they can't become strong by finding and allying with like-minded people. This is the reason we have governments. Don't assume that might is an individual thing, which appears to be what you are doing.

[Deacon]

It all boils down to strength and weakness, whether physical, mental, or emotional. Everyone person and every organization has traits in those areas. Depending on the situation, that trait can be a strength or a weakness. It all boils down to control by leveraging your strengths against another's weakness.

Does the exertion of control mean that whatever form the exertion takes is morally right, good, acceptable, etc? Of course not. But you don't have much of a choice if you're not the one in control