Does Might make Right?

Does Might make Right?

feelings of empathy evolved from the adaptive benefits of kin selection and reciprocal altruism make 'right'

Might makes right when it is pure. When it's corrupt, it is tyrannical, which makes believing what is right difficult.

I think that it would be helpful if we started the discussion with a definition of right and an argument of whether it exists.

if its from a Darwinian perspective, yes, might makes right.

No.
Otherwise, you can define right as might but that makes what is right identical with what is and this the definition of right is tautological, making every moral statement meaningless.

this makes*

>"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides, Melian dialogue

pure to whom?

The universe.

yes
always

Yeh, if the nazis won, the Holocaust would have been justified

Too bad they didn't win.

Lol, I'm memeing bud. Read Jacques Ellul's Critique of the New Commonplaces, he invalidates the myth of might. Also read John Burnham's Managerial Revolution, he analyzes the new society that would have been ushered in by the nazis and was ushered in by the winners regardless.

>I-I was only pretending of being retarded!

Lol are you stupid? Neither one of my posts was "pretending" to be retarded. The idea that might makes right is common, however wrong. You haven't even read the books I talked about you intellectual jackal. Now go feed off the carrion of some dead prick you faggot.

Evolutionism doesn't concern itself with what is "right".

>Read Jacques Ellul's Critique of the New Commonplaces, he invalidates the myth of might.
Care to give a rough sketch of his argument?

It really doesn't, but it does.

Define might and right for me OP

Those Athenians probaby felt really stupid in 404. Good thing the Spartans are such nice guys unless you are Plataean

everything about humans including their ideas comes from evolution mr science denier

>reads wittgenstein once

It's been a while since I read the book, but might the fallacy is that might doesn't make right if you lose. All the justification of the Holocaust was lost once the nazis lost. Same could be said for any other attrocity that's occurring and is justified by the existence of power. Once the power is lost, it retroactively loses justification, as we saw with the nazis, they became losers and wrong-doers. Hence power justification like that is flawed and illegitimate. Just read the book, its got short chapters and he's a great sociologist anyways.

>It's been a while since I read the book, but might the fallacy is that might doesn't make right if you lose. All the justification of the Holocaust was lost once the nazis lost. Same could be said for any other attrocity that's occurring and is justified by the existence of power. Once the power is lost, it retroactively loses justification, as we saw with the nazis, they became losers and wrong-doers. Hence power justification like that is flawed and illegitimate.
That's the entire point of ''might makes right'' you imbecile. You are in the right so as long you win.

We had a course about him in high school but I've never read him. Did I arrive at his same conclusions or what lmao

>mfw this is the same thing that I said in
a-am I ready to be a philosopher?

>might doesn't make right anymore if you lose it
no shit

Read the book you fucking idiots

No, but there's not a whole lot anyone else can do about it.

might makes right as in subjectively right, but what's objectively right is that might is wrong, as it violates the NAP

Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test. A man falling dead in a duel is not thought thereby to be proven in error as to his views. His very involvement in such a trial gives evidence of a new and broader view. The willingness of the principals to forgo further argument as the triviality which it in fact is and to petition directly the chambers of the historical absolute clearly indicates of how little moment are the opinions and of what great moment the divergences thereof. For the argument is indeed trivial, but not so the separate wills thereby made manifest. Man's vanity may well approach the infinite in capacity but his knowledge remains imperfect and howevermuch he comes to value his judgments ultimately he must submit them before a higher court. Here there can be no special pleading. Here are considerations of equity and rectitude and moral right rendered void and without warrant and here are the views of the litigants despised. Decisions of life and death, of what shall be and what shall not, beggar all question of right. In elections of these magnitudes are all lesser ones subsumed, moral, spiritual, natural.

More like: It doesn't matter if you are right, if you have might.