Philosophy Now Forum

This has been touched upon in other threads and I want to explore this more deeply. I think the most extreme form of this would be megalomaniacy where the head of the country can do what he/she wants without answering to anyone. I don't think anyone regards the US, Israel nor other western powers as being megalomaniacal, but are still feared because they have the might, i.e. nuclear weaponry, so the rest of the world plays along usually (but there are exceptions such as Isis).

Is might makes right a legitimate doctrine? Is this the way it always has to be? What do you think?

PhilX

No, it doesn't make right, that is why it is used.

No matter how it's dressed up: the superior (or, more wisely applied, inferior) might always makes the rules (the right).

http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1332

Power (or might): my capacity to enact change. This can be the brute power of the physically superior man, the seductive allure of the temptress, the whisper of a compelling message into a significant ear, the vigorous application of reason, the subtle application of charisma, the overt application of the 'stick', the 'gun', the 'bomb' and on and on.

Another way to look at it: 'might' is the capacity to 'convince' the other guy ('the other guy', as descriptor, includes the natural 'world') of the 'correctness' of your position, or of 'you'.

'Convince' -- as I use it here -- can be the application of the reasoned argument, or, the 'convincing' slam in the head with a length of pipe, or, the use of a technology to alter a circumstance (building a dam, for example), and on and on.

#

It should be noted: a more accurate, refined, sharp, statement might be: 'the wise application of might makes right'.

A superior 'might' applied stupidly will generally fail against the wise application of an inferior 'might'.

#

'Right': that which is due me by virtue of my assertion and defense (or offense). If a 'right' must claimed for me by another, offered to me by another, then it is privilege, not 'right'.

Please note (and I include this in anticipation of the inevitable question): simply because someone (or something) else has a superior, or more wisely applied, 'might', this obligates me in no way to submit.

I may 'comply' till the time when an opportunity arises to revolt, or, I may openly, from the beginning, defy the other's 'might', or, I may go underground, hiding from the other till my chance comes to redress injury.

henry quirk wrote:http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1332

Power (or might): my capacity to enact change. This can be the brute power of the physically superior man, the seductive allure of the temptress, the whisper of a compelling message into a significant ear, the vigorous application of reason, the subtle application of charisma, the overt application of the 'stick', the 'gun', the 'bomb' and on and on.

Another way to look at it: 'might' is the capacity to 'convince' the other guy ('the other guy', as descriptor, includes the natural 'world') of the 'correctness' of your position, or of 'you'.

'Convince' -- as I use it here -- can be the application of the reasoned argument, or, the 'convincing' slam in the head with a length of pipe, or, the use of a technology to alter a circumstance (building a dam, for example), and on and on.

#

It should be noted: a more accurate, refined, sharp, statement might be: 'the wise application of might makes right'.

A superior 'might' applied stupidly will generally fail against the wise application of an inferior 'might'.

#

'Right': that which is due me by virtue of my assertion and defense (or offense). If a 'right' must claimed for me by another, offered to me by another, then it is privilege, not 'right'.

Please note (and I include this in anticipation of the inevitable question): simply because someone (or something) else has a superior, or more wisely applied, 'might', this obligates me in no way to submit.

I may 'comply' till the time when an opportunity arises to revolt, or, I may openly, from the beginning, defy the other's 'might', or, I may go underground, hiding from the other till my chance comes to redress injury.

EXCELLENT

henry quirk wrote:Please note (and I include this in anticipation of the inevitable question): simply because someone (or something) else has a superior, or more wisely applied, 'might', this obligates me in no way to submit.

I may 'comply' till the time when an opportunity arises to revolt, or, I may openly, from the beginning, defy the other's 'might', or, I may go underground, hiding from the other till my chance comes to redress injury.

How you define things is entirely your prerogative, but the above seems extreme if the 'might' you wish to avoid is "the seductive allure of the temptress, the whisper of a compelling message into a significant ear, the vigorous application of reason, the subtle application of charisma."

Brit Dems wrote:EXCELLENT

Hmm. Perhaps it's just me.

"the above seems extreme"

Extreme for one is just practical for another.

Eye (and mind) of the beholder.