Might doesn't make right. Or does it?

[Sir Doom]

So I was thinking about this in the shower this morning. I'm not exactly sure how to articulate what I'm saying, so I'll just go ahead and say what I thought and hopefully discussion will make it into something.

First, I want to be clear that I equate 'might' in this old phrase as 'power' in its rawest form. I think 'might' is only used because it rhymes. Anyway here's what I thought:

A slave is more powerful than a dead man.
A servant is more powerful than a slave.
An ally is more powerful than a servant.
A friend is more powerful than an ally.

I mean all of these in relation to self. I know a lot of these terms are interchangeable and not mutually exclusive, but I think what I'm trying to say is that the most powerful human in the world would be the one who has the world as their friend as opposed to any other option.

 

[Iti oj]

amen ! friends and favors the greatest currency of all

 

[Revoltingest]

"Might" wins.
"Right" & "wrong" are illusory.....or at most irrelevant.

 

[Sir Doom]

"Might" wins.
"Right" & "wrong" are illusory.....or at most irrelevant.

I think synonymous is what I'm going for

 

[waitasec]

seldom, if ever, do you see anyone with any amount of power without friends/allies in the right places

 

[Orias]

Does might equal right?

This is something I often have to consider, as martial artist it is very important to my personal philosophy.

Might only equals right, if it can be exercised intelligently.

If a weaker, and physically less competent being cannot intellectually or even physically defend himself, then might in this case is right. Because imposition is not concerned with the morality of the issue, but why its seeking to impose in the first place.

However, if might does not intellectually exercise its might, then its not right in the sense that there are likely mightier and more intellectually viable candidates to advocate "right".

It is all extremely subjective, and if a physically incompetent person is intellectually aware of what stimulates another to be mighty then they should be aware of the liability they have brought onto themselves.

With that being said, might can also be intellectually stimulated, and does not have always be referenced in the physical manner. In this essence, might always equals right, because if one cannot conjure a meaningful or evident flaw in might then it will be deemed weak, and albeit, unworthy of mercy that it wishes to be shown.

Is this clear enough? I can try and reword it if necessary.

 

[Me Myself]

It does, in a sense.

That`s why people who are the right right should be more powerful

(this sounded like anti socialist prpaganda )

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the most powerful human in the world would be the one who has the world as their friend as opposed to any other option.

But this says absolutely nothing. Hitler was more powerful than Rabbi Alexander Zusia Friedman.

 

[Orias]

But this says absolutely nothing. Hitler was more powerful than Rabbi Alexander Zusia Friedman.

This is because Hitler had a more threatening sword.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's contradictory to think about, the mightiest man on the earth is not the mightiest compared to the rest of the earth.

 

[Skwim]

Might doesn't make right. Or does it?

Don't take the saying "Might makes right" too literally. It's merely a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment that might often triumphs over right, and in effect establishes the new "right."

 

[Orias]

Exactly, strength diminishes with time.

 

[Music]

If morality is subjective - and it is - wouldn't it logically follow that might makes right?

 

[Skwim]

If morality is subjective - and it is - wouldn't it logically follow that might makes right?

Take us through the steps.