Might ain't Right

U complain that morals are subjective, but the very statement “Might makes right.” was, historically, before the concept of justice came into the human consciousness, a foundational moral belief in human societies. Leaders who were strong enuf to take over (by whatever means) were considered to be morally right in doing so.

Fortunately, we humans advanced our social thinking with the concept of justice. But still there are some who don’t seem able to handle that level of complexity.


Justice is nothing without “Might” behind it.

Oneguy, your just stating a truism, like u can’t win the game if u don’t have the most points. The phrase “Might Makes Right” is a concept of discussion from early history of Western Civilization. It has to do with early civilizations accepting the moral that whoever was able to take over rulership ought to be the ruler, as in the case of Kings, supposedly being put in place by God. Or as in it must be God’s will if someone takes over rulership.

The concept of justice changed that moral equation.

When the proponents of justice came along, it was the rule of law that tended to gain pre-eminence.

e.g., in our system of govt (ideally and at times actually) the POTUS is in charge of the military. Objectively, the military has the might, but that might is abdicated to the say of the POTUS, even tho the POTUS might be a sniveling cowardly goldbrick.

 

“Justice is nothing without “Might” behind it.”

Obviously rules can (and in some cases, have to be) be enforced through might, but making ‘might’ the basis for those rules is demonstrably not necessary, and is a bad idea to boot.