Does might make right?

Question

I say it does. The reason is its nature's way. The lion can eat the water buffalo if it is strong enough to kill it. Also, if might does not equal right, then every person needs to divide their wealth between everybody else on the planet. You do not have the right to live better than someone else. Fundimentally at least, might does make right.

Answer 1

Good question.  In Thucydides' "The Peloponnesian War", the Athens argued that might makes right in a famous debate with the Mileans (right before they annihilated the Mileans).   In Plato's "Republic", Thrasymachus also agreed with you.  Socrates provided an interesting rebuttal to Thrasymachus, but Glaucon and Adeimantus defended Thrasymachus so well that Socrates confessed he could not refute the idea.  However, the early moderns took a different approach to the question.  Machiavelli showed in his "Discourses on Livy" how the weaker can overpower the stronger and therefore become the stronger.  In his "Second Treatise on Civil Government", Locke argued that might makes right in the State of Nature, but a new form of justice takes place when the weaker band together against the stronger and create government, and this justice is enforced by the might of the government (which is always in the State of Nature).

The problem I have with "might makes right" is that it cannot be used to justify your actions.  For example, if you were taken to court on charges of assault and you defend yourself with the argument that you were mightier than your opponent and thus you were right to harm him (or her), then according to your argument, the court is right to punish you despite the fact that you were right simply because they are mightier than you are.

Answer 2

I say it doesn't. Your logic is fatally flawed.

Unstated assumptions

1.) Naturalistic Fallacy: "Because something is natural it is right"

Most poisons and diseases are natural. The fact that a lion can kill something doesn't mean you should without reason.

2.) "If it doesn't equal what I think, then it must be something absurd: Problem: The absurd thing hasn't been proven or disproven: only stated. Thus, this is nearly a "stawman" argument (distraction).

3.) Equality of People: This is only true in terms of moral rights, not in terms of entitlements. I do not have to divide my wealth among all people and there is a reason far beyond "strength." The dividing factor is productivity; I do more in a day than many people do in a month. Ergo, I live better than most on the planet. To hold otherwise would be to make myself a slave to their wants: with my efforts fueling them in exchange for their wishing.... When one person works for the sake of another without just compensation it's called slavery; the number of masters does not matter (be it one man or the whole earth). I do have the right to live better than someone else, if I earn it.

"Equality" is a politically loaded term. There is no such thing. There are people who can run faster than I can. There are people who are physically stronger than I am. How do you compare two people from each of these categories? Is it better to be fast or strong? Is it better to be skilled at one task  or the other. Apples or oranges? There's no comparison. A fast man is not the same as a strong man and vice versa and they are not "equal." There is no right answer as to which is better to be and they both have the same rights morally.

What I said is a fact, the political feelings people feel against what I just said comes from racism, which is the bullshit, mistaken belief that skin color or some other insignificant factor makes one better or worse.

If someone thinks they are "entitled" to a free live without effort; then they can try to pick it off the bush where they think it grows.

Productivity, not brutality, is what makes right. The greatest of wealth among all the world has been built through mutual trade....

Answer 3

I agree.

The philosopher who has developed this idea, by the way, is Spinoza: according to him, every being has a right to do whatever is in its *power* to do.

Answer 4

If that is the case, it would be "right" for my might to murder you.

The Law of Identity, when applied to Man, states that his nature is such that at birth he is endowed by his existence with individual sovereignty. When he gives up part of it to the "common sovereignty" which we call the "consent of the governed," it implies that he has such sovereignty to give up.

Might in the wild is different than might in reason. Man is the "rational animal," and as such, "right" is that which is good for the species and for each individual, without which there would be no species.

That which is good for the individual is to protect his sovereignty, with might, if necessary.

Answer 5

Might is right, but the way you have explained it.  Just look deep within and find out what is Might.  If you can't find it, it isn't right, if you can, then it is right.

Answer 6

I don't agree with you my dear.

Just like you said, IF!meaning, its not a justification always.

I would say, its the other way. Right makes Might.

Why, these people who are rich are not rich simply because they steal their wealth from some where no, they work hard to get it and because they are well conversant with the law, hence are able to manipulate it, hence giving them the right to enjoy their benefits.

Thanks for asking

Answer 7

I disagree.

Sure a lion can kill and eat any prey if the lion is skillful enough, or if the prey is just plain dumb. That does not make it right, or wrong for that matter. It just is. Though nature does seem to favor 'might', survival of the fittest and all, it does not mean that is the right or wrong way, just effective.

Might does not entitle you to have power over others, it just enables you to.