Does "Might make right"?

[Laika]

Hey everyone,

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

Perhaps a mixture of the two or something more complicated?

Any thoughts?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'm not sure I 100% understand the question. I know that power flows through institutions and people, but the word "might" suggests that few people are deliberately in control.

I think no one's in control, or that the concept is illusory.

I see power as a very chaotic force in our society, and most power happens without deliberate action.

As a very liberal person, I'd prefer a lot less chaos, obviously. And if I had to chose how to curb that chaos, it would be with "correct" methods of control. . . Which would include moral components.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey everyone,

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

Perhaps a mixture of the two or something more complicated?

Any thoughts?

To us depraved moral relativists, the answer is approximately "yes".
Winners get to impose their morality upon the losers.
But the latter will vigorously disagree because there is more than one "right".

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

No, my view is that Right makes Right ..
correct and moral consideration and action.

 

[Sunstone]

"Might makes right": Power, and/or authority, have been appealed to as grounds for morality since time immemorial. But so has tradition, and even reason.

The relation of moralities to power is a complex one. Some morals are attempts to encourage people to obey those in power. Other morals are attempts to curb the abuses of those in power. Some morals have nothing to do with power. And so forth.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Hey everyone,

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

Perhaps a mixture of the two or something more complicated?

Any thoughts?

"Right makes might" until "might makes right."

Humans are flawed creatures, after all. Leaving a large amount of power to one person or group will eventually lead to corruption. Then the corruption will push it's limits and be removed through force, only to be replaced with a new power that will also become corrupt at some point. It's something of a historical theme, a cycle that's thousands of years old.

This has changed lately, but it's only a start in the right direction.

 

[LuisDantas]

Power is largely unrelated to morality.

Power is instead closely related to law, whose main function is to delineate and formalize the expectations of political power.

A sufficiently fascistic state with a sufficiently coward people may corrupt the general perception of morality and either the text or the interpretation of the laws, of course.

Likewise, a sufficiently moral community may develop its core motivations to the point of shaping either the law or its interpretation to further their morality.

Which is more likely to happen is largely a factor of how empathetic the community is. The most egocentric and competitive a society is, the more likely it is to dwell into moral corruption.

 

[Willamena]

"Might makes right" is a figure of speech, not intended as a philosophy to live by. However, "right makes might," as the more profound of the two, is something to live by.

 

[HonestJoe]

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

That’s not a usual interstation of that phrase (though it varies anyway). “Might makes right” is normally about people asserting authority regardless of whether they’re actually in the “right” or not.

On your wider descriptions, I’d suggest a mixture. People in power through some form of effective democratic means are going to have to reflect societies view or right and wrong to get and keep power in the first place and so their views are as likely to be influenced by society as the other way around. Dictators are less likely to follow public opinion but equally are less likely to influence it (though people may feel forced to keep their true opinions to themselves). I certainly don’t think whoever has power in any given time or place changes any fundamental moral principles or concepts of what is truly right and wrong but neither will being morally right necessarily bring a person power – as often as not, it can do the exact opposite.

 

[McBell]

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

Perhaps a mixture of the two or something more complicated?

Any thoughts?

Yes and no.
Does being the most powerful make you right?
No

Are there sheeple who live as though it was true?
Yes.

Prime example are those who make the claim that god can do whatever it likes be cause it is god.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hey everyone,

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

Perhaps a mixture of the two or something more complicated?

Any thoughts?

This is why strength and compassion have to go together. You can't just give away everything you have if you are on your own. You need backup. If you're in a commune you can do that. At times you have to be a bit libertarian. The lifeguard sometimes has to push away the panicked swimmer to keep themselves breathing, so that they can swim back over and help them. There's right and then there's weak. If you're right great, but don't be weak. If you're the only right person and you die, then nobody will be. What is the benefit of a pretty flower that is conquered by weeds?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Power, more than often, decides issues, at least in the short term.
Descisions enforced by coercion rarely if ever survive in the long term.
Decisions enforced by powerful people rarely continue for long after their death.
Decisions based on common agreement are far more stable.

Politics is about enforcing change by manipulation of power. It is tribal in nature, and confontational.
Sucess is ensured by getting the largest part of the population on side. It has nothing at all to do with truth, honesty or keeping promises. It targets the most vulnerable and gullible, and most easily lead in society.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hey everyone,

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

Perhaps a mixture of the two or something more complicated?

Any thoughts?

Well we are still in a society regardless of morals , where physically injuring someone the most determines who is in total charge.

 

[VioletVortex]

In the sense that a strong person could force an inferior counterpart to do anything, yes it does, but really, morals are more of a species, kin, family, etc preservation instinct, so the dichotomy of "right and wrong" has no connection to morals.

 

[LukeS]

Might influences culture, that's all.

 

[osgart]

That's why being American is so good. The Constitution is very wary of power, so power is held in check. That is what enables good to be done at all. Democracy enables good. Might isn't right..

Corruptibility is common. but the people who make right make it so good, that others want to fall in line.

 

[Willamena]

Hey everyone,

Do you think "might makes right", that society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power?

Or do you think instead that "right makes might" and that having true and moral ideas ultimately is the source of power?

Perhaps a mixture of the two or something more complicated?

Any thoughts?

In some things, such as democracy, might does indeed make right. It's not a rule of thumb, though.

 

[roger1440]

Something is right or wrong by it's own merits or lack of, not by a vote.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"Might makes right" is a comment about power, not about morality. It's painting the concept of "right" as irrelevant (or, at best, incidental), in the face of authority backed by power.

Might doesn't make right, it makes the idea of right subjective, based on the whims or agenda of who's holding the gun.

That being said, of course might doesn't actually make right. Then again, why would it?

 

[Ponder This]

Morality is metaphysical. Might is worldly.