Might makes right?

Classic philosophy topic. Everything from lofty existential debates to the lowliest of gangbanger "respect" is driven by people's personal answer to this question. Do you think a person's actions are justified by whether they get away with them? Or do you think there could be a higher morality at work to aspire to instead? Or do you have another answer altogether?

I find most people by adulthood have decided on a 'main' answer to it for themselves, whether they're consciously aware of it or not. What do you think your personal answer is?

wat

Butts said:

wat

...or do you just dismiss the question? :P

I find myself mostly agreeing with Robert A. Heinlein's position on the argument: "Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst".

Of course, "violence" doesn't always mean physical violence or aggression, but can involve psychological violence, pressure, corporate aggression, enterprise spirit etc. and initiative in general. Strike first, strike hard.

As to whether it makes right...well...if it wasn't so, the concepts of "concluded fact" or "precedent" wouldn't exist. And, for good or bad, everybody, deep inside, regardless of context, admires the "attacker" the one who dares making the first move and getting what he wants, while often the "defendant", especially if he doesn't put up much of a fight, is often scorned and considered worthy of his fate. So yeah, the human psyche, makes the mightiest also to be rightest, de-facto.

Sometimes, this is even accepted de-jure: e.g. a homeowner that leaves his house's door open, usually results in the burglar being treated more clemently (if caught), while muggers can even get away or at least get a lighter sentence for beating somebody up if they can prove they were "insulted and provoked" by the victim (while it should have "respected" the mugger's "alpha superiority" or something). And let's not even mention how big economic crimes that can affect global economy are punished, in proportion, much more lightly than e.g. pushing a bag of weed. Big fish eats small fish.

Maes said:

I find myself mostly agreeing with Robert A. Heinlein's position on the argument: "Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst".

Of course, "violence" doesn't always mean physical violence or aggression, but can involve psychological violence, pressure, corporate aggression, enterprise spirit etc. and initiative in general. Strike first, strike hard.

As to whether it makes right...well...if it wasn't so, the concepts of "concluded fact" or "precedent" wouldn't exist. And, for good or bad, everybody, deep inside, regardless of context, admires the "attacker" the one who dares making the first move and getting what he wants, while often the "defendant", especially if he doesn't put up much of a fight, is often scorned and considered worthy of his fate. So yeah, the human psyche, makes the mightiest also to be rightest, de-facto.

Sometimes, this is even accepted de-jure: e.g. a homeowner that leaves his house's door open, usually results in the burglar being treated more clemently (if caught), while muggers can even get away or at least get a lighter sentence for beating somebody up if they can prove they were "insulted and provoked" by the victim (while it should have "respected" the mugger's "alpha superiority" or something). And let's not even mention how big economic crimes that can affect global economy are punished, in proportion, much more lightly than e.g. pushing a bag of weed. Big fish eats small fish.

Your answer could be considered common knowledge, though well said. But I'm asking you personally: Would you, say, murder someone you didn't like if you knew you could get away with it?


Sorry if that's a very blunt and crude sample question, by the way. I'll try to think of another, if you prefer.

A bit crude indeed, people may think that Doom makes us all violent :-p

For this reason I'll avoid giving a personal answer, however I'll make another "common knowledge" note regarding murder: when trying to find if there's a common element among all human cultures, ranging from the most primitive to the most advanced, the only universally common value is that no society condoned morally unjustified murder, or put more plainly, murder with a good reason.

Of course, the "moral justification" part can vary as wildly as cultures do, but must always be present in some form

On the other hand, murders driven by financial/material incentives are often "understandable" or even "perfectly justifiable", as are those driven by passion, honour or even tradition. The "justification" usually comes from the "common sense": someone who killed for his "honour" or for economic reasons gets more "sympathy" than a serial killer that kills random victims, because the latter is not considered as having a "morally justifiable reason". Needless to say, law enforcement and armed forces have much broader "morality" space.

So, what does this mean regarding your question? If there wasn't common law to forcibly prevent or limit it, murder would be much more common nowadays (older legal systems allowed certain types of murder de-jure) even if completely getting away with it wasn't always possible. Imagine if it was...ouch.

TheeXile said:

Your answer could be considered common knowledge, though well said. But I'm asking you personally: Would you, say, murder someone you didn't like if you knew you could get away with it?

I'm going to step in and answer this question as though you asked me.

I would try to murder someone if I assessed the upside as outweighing the downside. I'm not just talking about myself; I believe this is true for everyone. For some people, the downside is the mistaken belief that they'll be punished for the act when they die. For some people, the downside is in the potential repercussions that come from being prosecuted. For some people, the downside is the extreme feeling of guilt and personal shame that come from committing the act. This last factor is probably the most powerful factor of all. We are social creatures and we now live in a strongly post-industrialized society. The benefits we get from cooperating and getting along with other people far outweigh the benefits of murdering people. This is true for the majority of people the majority of time.

My assessment should be able to reconcile any confusion you have about the morality of murder and our varying willingness to commit the act.

Maes said:

A bit crude indeed, people may think that Doom makes us all violent :-p

For this reason I'll avoid giving a personal answer, ...

:P

Well then, when I get back online I'll find a less crude question to use.

Needless to say, law enforcement and armed forces have much broader "morality" space.

Convenient, ain't it? ;)

Do you think a person's actions are justified by whether they get away with them?

Anyone can justify anything at any time. Whether they convince others to buy their justification is another matter.

Or do you think there could be a higher morality at work to aspire to instead?

There is no formula for morality. It cannot be calculated. There is a simple demonstration for this. Murder is widely considered to be immoral, yet overpopulation leads to disease, poverty, and war. When the well being of one group of people is mutually exclusive with the well being of another group of people, who is morally right? And if you believe something like "There's always the opportunity for people to find a way to get along" then I suggest you think long and hard and reflect on what is flawed about your thought process.

TheeXile said:

Classic philosophy topic. Everything from lofty existential debates to the lowliest of gangbanger "respect" is driven by people's personal answer to this question. Do you think a person's actions are justified by whether they get away with them? Or do you think there could be a higher morality at work to aspire to instead? Or do you have another answer altogether?

I find most people by adulthood have decided on a 'main' answer to it for themselves, whether they're consciously aware of it or not. What do you think your personal answer is?

As a humanist, I believe in the ethic of reciprocity.

exp(x) said:

As a humanist, I believe in the ethic of reciprocity.

I used to too, but now I'm starting to question the value of human goodness for its own sake (which is what the just treatment of others assumes: That they deserve it). There's just too many discrepancies to ignore.

Nevertheless, I still hold to it as much as I can. I think it's a cop out to do otherwise, unless you have a very good reason.

Sorry, this was in doom general when I posted.

I think that getting away with something does not justify an action.

AndrewB said:

There is no formula for morality. It cannot be calculated. There is a simple demonstration for this. Murder is widely considered to be immoral, yet overpopulation leads to disease, poverty, and war. When the well being of one group of people is mutually exclusive with the well being of another group of people, who is morally right? And if you believe something like "There's always the opportunity for people to find a way to get along" then I suggest you think long and hard and reflect on what is flawed about your thought process.

Actually, I like this moral example better than my fictional one (which I've since removed).

It's possible we may not live in a moral world, but I don't think any belief to that effect will serve a useful purpose. Getting away with exterminating a population may work, but there probably was a better alternative that could have worked a lot better. Even if, in the end, you're "forced" to compromise, it's giving up and accepting that that was the only way to do it that's the only real 'wrong' in the end (as that's basically accepting there is no morality).


Ideally, I'd like not to have to morally compromise at all.

Well, I think you have some good ideas but are still a little bit too entrenched in idealism and wishful thinking.

TheeXile said:
Do you think a person's actions are justified by whether they get away with them?

Not justified, enforced. Justifications are always mutual.

Or do you think there could be a higher morality at work to aspire to instead?

I'd even say that the concept of higher morality is an effect of the enforcement of unjustified positions. It goes along with injustice. If you lay a claim on something, such as a special or ultimate justice, it's because it has not been agreed to by concerned parties. Thus higher justice can be a mishmash of imposed injustice and unattained justice.

Or do you have another answer altogether?

Injustice is any situation of inequity, so the ability to enforce things is not just because the involved parties are by necessity not equals, except maybe in relation to other less just enforcements. Enforcement is an effect of accumulated power, which is a situation of contention, even when it is not violent, explicit or tense. Tension will generally be higher when both parties are more equal, as enforcement is questioned or questionable, or the more each party fails or refuses to see or consider the other's position.

AndrewB said:
overpopulation leads to disease, poverty, and war.

You could argue we produce enough to house and feed the world at its current population but we don't because we spend much effort producing a relative inequality to enforce things on each other. We are a species that still acts as if we were battling for survival, but since we are dominating the world, we are our own main opponent. Both in our mutual conflicts and in the way our own actions affect us through our altering environment.

I think the answer to the OP is "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I have no idea where that saying comes from.

exp(x) said:

As a humanist, I believe in the ethic of reciprocity.

Me too.

Danarchy said:

I think the answer to the OP is "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I have no idea where that saying comes from.

But why do you believe that? God? Karma? Or perhaps just because it's a behavioral strategy you've adopted to be compatible with civilized living and that you don't question it otherwise?

Ask yourself, though, in the latter case: If you were subjected to intense poverty, violence, or war, would you still hold to that belief? In other words, are you only being "as good as life allows you to be?"

Might doesn't necessarily mean right. However, might may make you the winner. In which case, you may be in a position to decree what it right.

Enjay said:

Might doesn't necessarily mean right. However, might may make you the winner. In which case, you may be in a position to decree what it right.

Isn't that the very definition of what is right? From the most primitive societies to the most bureaucratic and square-headed Kafkaesque societies with thoroughly coded legal systems, somebody has to arbitrarily decide what is right and what is wrong. No matter if he's called the tribe's Alpha Male, Chief, Chieftain etc. or the nation's King, Prime Minister, Dictator, Poglavnic, Fuhrer and what have you.

OK, societies with a legal system delegate this responsability to legislators and law enforcement, but these are just institutions that derive their powers from a greater one, and typically split between legislative (the guy that writes a law) and executive (the grunt that will shove the supposed nightstick of "justice" up your ass if you don't behave, so to speak.

How that "greater power" came to be is another matter though (the general question is how authority is established and maintained).

The only limiting factor is that no society ever tolerated individuals that kill other members of their society randomly and in cold blood, because they are too unpredictable and dangerous to keep around for the good of the society as whole. Even if such individuals come to power, they will soon be overthrown because they don't follow any apparent rules and thus can't guarantee any degree of fairness or justice to the ones they rule, so rising against them is no worse than "sticking around and seeing how it turns out".

Thus none ever managed to pass that as "right". Of course, killing opponents randomly and in cold blood, e.g. when conquering or during war, is considered perfectly acceptable by the inflicting side, and it's also expected from the victim side. So was slavery and killing members of "lower classes" within the same society, even in the Western world. A medieval British Lord had the "right" to kill an arrogant peasant for little or no reason and "answered only to God" for his actions, while the peasant had practically no rights.

Maes said:
Isn't that the very definition of what is right?

Not necessarily, although it's a fascist little word, down inside. Etymologically it means not bent, as in "a right line". Not crooked, not imperfect. The origin may stem from standing straight (or proud). The phrase is saying that superior power defines what is correct. It's also the equivalent of the broader "good" applied to morals, applicability, competence or judgment.

But I wouldn't say it implies an imposition through strength except subtly from the image of a figure standing straight.

In the discussion, or course, if you take it in opposition to positions that oppose might as a rule, you also get the term "just" which ultimately implies being well, passing through the Latin term for law.

Also: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are always bad men.

PS: Heh, "the strong do wrong".

TheeXile said:

I used to too, but now I'm starting to question the value of human goodness for its own sake (which is what the just treatment of others assumes: That they deserve it). There's just too many discrepancies to ignore.

Nevertheless, I still hold to it as much as I can. I think it's a cop out to do otherwise, unless you have a very good reason.

I don't think deserving (deservement?) factors in. Many, many religions have concluded in one way or another the Golden Rule is a good ground start for human interrelationships, but many have inevitably realized forgiveness, tolerance and unbound kindness must accompany the sentiment. I can, however, see the problems with the practical implications of the so called 'platinum rule', the one which also takes into consideration other people's wants.

TheeXile said:

But why do you believe that? God? Karma? Or perhaps just because it's a behavioral strategy you've adopted to be compatible with civilized living and that you don't question it otherwise?

Ask yourself, though, in the latter case: If you were subjected to intense poverty, violence, or war, would you still hold to that belief? In other words, are you only being "as good as life allows you to be?"

To be quite honest, I think there is ingrained in everyone a certain set of morals. Call it natural instinct or a gift from God or whatever, but it's there. I find the most likely reason is that it's there for the ongoing perpetuation of our species. We are social animals, and thus must look out for one another to protect one another. In my opinion, society is starting to crumble because people keep finding new ways to screw each other over. If we could all look beyond personal vendettas and be satisfied at not controlling others, we'd all be happier people.

Stuff like war and violence damages the psyche, and in my opinion, makes it aberrant. That's the other thing. All the people creating violence and war, telling lies, etc. are just making things worse by desecrating the instinctual inclinations of people. We're straying from a path of cooperative survival into selfish individualism which will inevitably destroy us.

Danarchy said:

Stuff like war and violence damages the psyche, and in my opinion, makes it aberrant. That's the other thing. All the people creating violence and war, telling lies, etc. are just making things worse by desecrating the instinctual inclinations of people. We're straying from a path of cooperative survival into selfish individualism which will inevitably destroy us.

That's why people's answer to this question should not just be a function of their 'instinct'. Probably too much to ask, though.

Might Makes Right is a law of nature. It derives directly from natural selection. What sets humans apart from the other animals is our ability to transcend what is natural. We have the ability to ask "Why should strong survive while the weak perish? Why should might make right?"

Yeah, we can ask ourselves that question, but tell me one field of our lives where the "mightiest" doesn't survive or achieve his goal, other than when there's no competition for the goal at hand.

Stronger and more organized armies with a leadership to match win wars. Stronger football teams win matches. Stronger lifters lift heavier weights. The most testosterone-laden thug beats the weaker thug (or a mugging victim) into submission. More dominant males get all the chicks and pass their genes, you name it.

You can also define "might" differently: the most aggressive business on the market wipes the competition, the smartest (thus mightiest in his field) student gets better scores, the forum admin can ban the forum troll because he's the "mightiest" in that context and so on.

At least I've never heard of anyone with a solid preparation, the proper means and an aggressiveness towards reaching his goal that lost it to someone more weak-willed or mild-mannered, at least if said goals involves imposing one's will and interests over those of others (solitary goals are another matter).

In other words, only the leftovers are left to the mediocre and the weak, and surely not something as prized as deciding who's right and who's wrong. That's the ultimate prize for the mighty: deciding who's right and who's wrong by being able to control other people lives or fates, in good or bad.

For those not "mighty" enough to rise in status themselves, through history there were only two options: either be the victim, or joining/working for the dominant power. Come think about it, very little has changed compared to the ancient Greek view of classes and social hierarcy: it's still Lords, Guards and Peasants/Slaves. Padrones y peones.

Danarchy said:

To be quite honest, I think there is ingrained in everyone a certain set of morals. Call it natural instinct or a gift from God or whatever, but it's there.

Why do peoples' morals vary greatly depending on where they're born and the upbringing they have? If it were really ingrained then we would see an even spread of attitudes across the world, not the patchwork quilt we currently have.

I find the most likely reason is that it's there for the ongoing perpetuation of our species. We are social animals, and thus must look out for one another to protect one another.

This is true enough.

In my opinion, society is starting to crumble because people keep finding new ways to screw each other over.

This implies that society was a pillar of justice and peace until just recently. What about the witch burning of centuries past? What about The Spanish Inquisition? Haven't there been untold wars and conflicts throughout the millenniums? Surely this is obvious enough. No, as much as things may suck for many people in the world right now, it's plain ignorance to imply that things used to suck less. While I've heard the "society is crumbling" turn of the phrase "the sky is falling" many times, I've yet to hear a single person justify that statement in any coherent way.

If we could all look beyond personal vendettas and be satisfied at not controlling others, we'd all be happier people.

Sure, but where do the vendettas and need to control come from? The vast majority of conflicts boil down to a fight over personal wealth and well being. So I guess you could rephrase your statement to read "If we could all look beyond our personal need for food, water, and shelter, we would all be happier people." Maybe now you can see why your statement is ridiculous.

Stuff like war and violence damages the psyche, and in my opinion, makes it aberrant. That's the other thing. All the people creating violence and war, telling lies, etc. are just making things worse by desecrating the instinctual inclinations of people. We're straying from a path of cooperative survival into selfish individualism which will inevitably destroy us.

We get it already. You want world peace. You want everyone to just get along. I guess I can't really blame you for wanting that. However, you've taken it a step too far by basically letting it cloud your perception of what is realistic and what is not. You've abandoned all regard to the true workings of society. You just want to curl up into a ball and imagine a world where everyone has everything they need to survive without having to do anything and nobody ever dies. Guess what? We don't live on an infinite plane of rich soil, fresh water lakes, underground oil patches, and bottomless pits for our garbage. We live on a sphere. And that is a really big problem. Try to understand why.

Chilly Willy said:
What sets humans apart from the other animals is our ability to transcend what is natural.

If you want to call the ability to manipulate and modify objects in complex and developing ways in order to alter the environment in sake of the progress of the species to "transcend nature," go ahead, but I'd use more precise wording to avoid getting those facts mixed in with speculations about letting a last breath out that scurries off to the Almighty or some such.

Maes said:
Yeah, we can ask ourselves that question, but tell me one field of our lives where the "mightiest" doesn't survive or achieve his goal, other than when there's no competition for the goal at hand.

It might be wise that you're using the word with quotation marks.

Stronger and more organized armies with a leadership to match win wars. Stronger football teams win matches. Stronger lifters lift heavier weights. The most testosterone-laden thug beats the weaker thug (or a mugging victim) into submission. More dominant males get all the chicks and pass their genes, you name it.

Arguing the winner wins is a winning proposition, but an empty one. In a couple of examples you're being more specific, and while the weightlifter one seems pretty straightforward, I'd say in general many factors play in to what succeeds, even in the long run, often not-so-evident ones. "Better suited people are generally better off" seems more applicable than the phrase we're discussing, which has other implications.

In other words, only the leftovers are left to the mediocre and the weak, and surely not something as prized as deciding who's right and who's wrong. That's the ultimate prize for the mighty: deciding who's right and who's wrong by being able to control other people lives or fates, in good or bad.

For those not "mighty" enough to rise in status themselves, through history there were only two options: either be the victim, or joining/working for the dominant power.

While (complex) hierarchies are evident, this seems like a square and rudimentary way to approach how society works. I expected more from one posting from the cradle of western philosophy :p

"Might makes right" represents an ideological standard, which fascism clearly falls into and represents in the 20th century. The nihilistic reliance on force to impose social custom and precedence. While might in the more traditional and strict way certainly does apply as a factor in determining success (and hence the imposition of ways), the way "might" applies as a way to success in general is when it's reduced instead to a more ample and less polarized "with a will and a way". That is, to have the disposition and relations to succeed. You cannot isolate social actors from society, so elements like gregariousness, using failings as a strength and complex associations which make more straightforward might ineffective all factor in to determine what works in society and who makes it to the end of the day in any good shape.

AndrewB said:
So I guess you could rephrase your statement to read "If we could all look beyond our personal need for food, water, and shelter, we would all be happier people." Maybe now you can see why your statement is ridiculous.

My earlier point above was that those resources may well be there for everyone, at least now. We don't however, seem to know, want or be able to organize ourselves in making sure we all get enough of them to be better off. Maybe some key resources are missing, throwing off the possibility to sort everything out more effectively, but maybe any such organization is inconvenient or not applicable somehow or we're developmentally incompetent and socially stupid.

AndrewB said:

Why do peoples' morals vary greatly depending on where they're born and the upbringing they have? If it were really ingrained then we would see an even spread of attitudes across the world, not the patchwork quilt we currently have.

Well, then why do most religions in the world have the same basic morals? Killing is evil, stealing is dishonest, etc. A few things like that are in basically every religion. The reasons for radically different societal mores, like different cultures finding different excuses to kill people, has to do with this twisting of the psyche I was talking about. Over time, war violence and hardship make people believe weird shit, but I think anyone who trust in their heart/soul/instinct will find reason.

This implies that society was a pillar of justice and peace until just recently. What about the witch burning of centuries past? What about The Spanish Inquisition? Haven't there been untold wars and conflicts throughout the millenniums? Surely this is obvious enough. No, as much as things may suck for many people in the world right now, it's plain ignorance to imply that things used to suck less. While I've heard the "society is crumbling" turn of the phrase "the sky is falling" many times, I've yet to hear a single person justify that statement in any coherent way.

I never said that society used to be perfect or anything. It has, aside from some pockets here and there, been pretty terrible. But really, it seems fairly obvious that we're on a pretty steep downward slope right now. The economy is fucking up because we allowed some greedy assholes to run it based on phantasmal numbers. We've fucked up the global climate to the point that survivability is going to become pretty damn hard, and yet those in power have convinced the majority that nothing is wrong and the toxins we dump into everything is hurting nothing. We're tearing apart the economy and killing innocent people in a series of wars based on lies.

Right now society is looking just like Rome before it's downfall, France before they killed their monarchy, and Russia before the Reds took over. The western capitalistic model we've grown used to isn't going to last much longer.

Sure, but where do the vendettas and need to control come from? The vast majority of conflicts boil down to a fight over personal wealth and well being. So I guess you could rephrase your statement to read "If we could all look beyond our personal need for food, water, and shelter, we would all be happier people." Maybe now you can see why your statement is ridiculous.

It goes way beyond just basic survival. Someone with power has all they need for them and their family to survive. Stepping on the backs of others to get more is just greedy and wrongheaded. My statement isn't ridiculous at all.

We get it already. You want world peace. You want everyone to just get along. I guess I can't really blame you for wanting that. However, you've taken it a step too far by basically letting it cloud your perception of what is realistic and what is not. You've abandoned all regard to the true workings of society. You just want to curl up into a ball and imagine a world where everyone has everything they need to survive without having to do anything and nobody ever dies. Guess what? We don't live on an infinite plane of rich soil, fresh water lakes, underground oil patches, and bottomless pits for our garbage. We live on a sphere. And that is a really big problem. Try to understand why.

As myk is basically arguing, I don't think we're actually at a point where we've run out of resources. Considering that Americans eat way more than they need and we throw away probably a third of the food we produce, then add that together with the other well-off nations, we could probably feed all the people starving right now. Right now we have many unproductive members in our society. If properly motivated, we'd be able to create the infrastructure needed to power, water, and shelter everyone in the world (and if you don't think we have enough water, look at the oceans...in the Middle East they use distillation plants and they have no drought problems despite living in an arid climate). If we actually used technology to progress society instead of to serve the greed of the elite, we could be able to possibly fix these problems further and fix our environment.

It's real easy to be cynical. You don't have to help out or look for solutions that way.

Danarchy said:
Well, then why do most religions in the world have the same basic morals? Killing is evil, stealing is dishonest, etc. A few things like that are in basically every religion.

You can see a parallel of this phenomenon in life.

Living beings share genetic similarities due to heredity, and life forms tend toward certain structures dependent on their functions even when they arrive there from different genetic branches.

Religions share traces and traditions with those popularized by lasting cultures or empires, and additionally share various traits because they serve a certain set of social functions.

The forms of religion, the concepts and objects handled by religion and the genesis of religion can all be accepted well enough as natural phenomena. It's not hard to see the "supernatural" as an essentially semiotic set of elements.

Danarchy said:

Well, then why do most religions in the world have the same basic morals? Killing is evil, stealing is dishonest, etc.

Even those have their exceptions: e.g. killing infidels is not a sin in many religions, and may even be considered righteous (the "moral justification" factor I mentioned time and again).

Certain cultures then prize stealing (or the ability to do so), e.g. Albanians even get offended if someone they consider a friend doesn't steal from their house, and most Cretan fathers wouldn't give their daughter's hand to someone who's not able to steal a sheep or goat.

The only thing you won't find in any culture is tolerance vs acting randomly and unpredictably, especially in a way that damages others without anything to class it as "moral" or "righteous". Everything else however is pretty much fair game.