Does might make right?
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.
Does might make right?
This kind of question about authoritarian ethics just keeps coming back from the dead. The contrast with the rational approach just isn’t working to make the point about why might can’t make right. So here’s a different kind of answer. The mighty seem always to want to use their might to make the right be what they think is in their best interests. But here’s what is surely one of the most interesting things about life, regardless of whether we’re talking about the lives of individual people or whole countries. Neither one is really very good at recognizing what is truly in their own best interests, and not very good either at recognizing the best ways of getting what is truly best for them instead of just getting whatever they want. The reasons for this strange phenomenon vary. Always managing to get your way by force dulls the acuity of your judgment. You never have to learn from mistakes. Take Trump. He just makes up the facts as he goes along. Then he has to live with the consequences of his bad judgment and pretend to like them too. What kind of self regard can you have after having habitually lived like that? How assured can you be that the people around you really care about you? Be careful of what you wish for because you just might have the power to get it. Sometimes I even think that those who act like this judge themselves, find themselves lacking, and then punish themselves for their own wrong-doing. How else to explain such self-defeating behavior and unhappiness among the mighty? The same points can be made about countries as has been made about individual people. The secret to avoiding all this is that our happiness always depends on others. So if everyone only does what’s best for themselves then we all mutually defeat our own best interests and no one, no matter how powerful, gets what they recognize deep down is really best for themselves. Might can’t make right because love can’t be commanded.
Does right make right or does might make right?
This is one of the most famous questions in all of Ethical Philosophy. It was expressed brilliantly in a dialogue between Socrates, Gorgias, Pollus and Callicles in the book, Gorgias (ca. 400 BC) by Plato. It was also an important part of the debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus in the first few chapters of Plato's famous book, The Republic (ca. 400 BC).The essence of the question came down to the ideals of Socrates -- that there is an invisible realm of Forms, of Truths, of Divine Guides, that tell us right from wrong, and we know it in our hearts -- we all do. He called these the Virtues, like Justice and Temperance.Those who debated fiercely with Socrates were the conservative noble class in Greece, who were used to power and to bossing slaves around. They emotionally argued that Self-control was for Slaves, and that they teach their young noblemen to satisfy all their desires all the time, and to fight to take what they want. It was the right of nobles to grab, to push, to be greedy, to enjoy the lusty life — it was “healthy” and “natural” to do so. Socrates was a wimp, they said. Nature itself demands that the Strong dominate the Weak — it is the law of the jungle, and it is the law of Great Kings. It is Natural Law.Ultimately, Socrates lost his argument with them, because they accused Socrates in court of corrupting youth with his “Idealism”, and Socrates was condemned to death by hemlock. So, one can then argue, that Might Makes Right.However — Plato ensured by his writings that the dialogues of Socrates would never be forgotten — and on the basis of the Life of Socrates, a whole new field of thought was created, named Philosophy. From those first beginnings, Aristotle created the world’s first University (the Lyceum) which taught Metaphysics (Idealism) and built upon that a Science of Logic (Analytics) which regulated the sciences of Physics, Astronomy, Geology, Botany, Biology, Zoology, Anatomy, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetics, Drama and Criticism.In other words, Western Civilization finally distinguished itself from Ancient Civilization. So, now one may argue that Right makes Right.
Bill of rights help??
After reading about how the Constitution was written and ratified, why it has lasted so long, and some things citizens might do to support it, you get to write your own “Bill of Responsibilities.” Compose a prioritized list in descending order of ten responsibilities you think each citizen has to make the system work well in securing the lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyone???????? can someone answer this for me? i can't think of any except for the ones already in the bill of rights
What does the phrase "might makes right" mean?
Why don't you guys ever search this stuff for yourself? here ya' go... the phrase is most often used in negative assessments of expressions of power. In my simple explanation of things if you can't follow the wikipedia stuff below.... Just because you have the power over people to force or change things, does that make it right? Remember they say it's usually used in a negative way. Say a country makes war (using their might as in power) with another country because they don't agree with the beliefs of that country, so say they justify it as the right thing to do just because they can. PERSONALLY, I think that when you are doing the right thing, then you are truly mighty. We won both WW1 and WW2 but I see the US as fighting against true evil then. As for the "wars" since, having been politically motivated and with hidden agendas, have we really ever won any of those, truly? Now if we go into conflict to really save some innocents without political agenda because it is motivated by pure goodness and the right thing to do, you could see the USA mighty once again.
Might makes right. True or false?
No, that's ridiculous. Most people don't believe this, either. Otherwise rape and murder would be legal. Slavery would be cool... Of course it doesn't make right. Right is having might and using it to relieve suffering and not cause it.
What does it mean to say that “might makes right”?
Others have answered this question well, so I will add the origin of such a phrase. It comes from the Melian dialogues as imagined by the great historian Thucydides, covering the negotiation between 5th century BC Athens (powerful) and the island of Melos (small and not powerful).The Melians appealed to Athens’ sense of decency and decorum, claiming that they were a neutral polis and not an enemy. The response of the Athenians is telling and in a way, terrifying:‘The strong do as they will. The weak suffer as they must’In other words - might makes right.
What does Machiavelli's The prince say about 'might makes right'?
First of all, read 'The Prince.' There are many good translations, and it is short and easy to understand. You will then know what you are talking about. You will not find Niccolo saying, anywhere, that might is, or makes, right. What you will find is, explicitly stated once and implicit throughout the rest of the book, the statement that while it is always better to be good than to be evil, ethical considerations are irrelevant when it comes to political and military success. The best men are not going to make successful politicians: successful rulers tend to be calculating, ruthless and amoral. Looking at the world around us - in our day as well as his - I think he was right.
Is the saying "might makes right" right or wrong? Why?
The concept here is that power to enforce one’s will is the same as moral high ground. This is an old concept which is evidenced in judgement by combat. Two parties disagree and the king says to fight it out and winner take all. Perhaps this is more entertaining than a facts and evidence based trial, but I think it is intellectually and morally lazy.If we accept the Might Makes Right premise, then we must also accept that babies are never in the right compared to adults or larger children because they lack power to enforce their will. Similarly, small armies are always wrong when they disagree with larger, more powerful armies. in general less powerful persons are always wrong when in conflict with more powerful persons. Power (might) could be physical or financial or influential or some other competition or comparison.I suspect that after the above terms most people would realize that the Might Makes Right premise is ridiculous. Consider then the tenacity this concept has demonstrated in the human condition. The fact remains that part of our basic survival instinct is the deference to perceived power. And thus the concept remains in use.