Which is Right?

Palomar · 2005-06-11 13:12:00

*Your thoughts?

--Cindy

Rxke · 2005-06-11 15:19:58

Either might be right

Trebuchet · 2005-06-11 20:44:08

In the long run, right makes might... but you have to use that might to keep rightness alive. The reflexive pacifist who will never take up arms and tries to prevent others from taking arms in his defense is evolution waiting to happen.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-12 07:59:20

It depends on the circumstances and one's definitions. If "right" is determine dby the victor then might and right are one and the same.

Chronic pacifists might hold that might is itself the very antithesis of right. Until someone stomps them, of course.

I'd argue that they are two separate but not mutually exclusive qualities. Might can erode right, but no more so than weakness.

But if one of the two is to be lacking, tis better to cultivate might for in voctory one can define right to their choosing.

Grypd · 2005-06-12 10:07:17

Im a firm believer that right makes might, But to have a very strong load of might in the background, just in case. Oh and smile while your doing it and sympathise as well, it will make the other guy feel a bit better when you do what you have to do.

reddragon · 2005-06-14 17:39:01

But if one of the two is to be lacking, tis better to cultivate might for in voctory one can define right to their choosing.

But your followers must believe that you are right. Otherwise they won't have much reason to fight for you.

Probably neither right nor might can exist alone. A righteous civilization that is weak will be destroyed by others. (Unless it somehow has now competitors, in which case it might survive.) A mighty civilization that has no principles of righteousness, on the other hand, will destroy itself.

But what is "right" anyway. We argue over it in political and other discussions and still find no conclusive answer in many areas. (Not to say that it's all completely relative; there's some black and white, but there's a lot of shades of gray.)

dicktice · 2005-06-19 09:11:32

The "Golden Rule" is right--meaning correct.

Commodore · 2005-06-19 09:34:41

Might makes what is. Whether its right or not is up for the individual to decide.

Power is just a tool.

reddragon · 2005-06-19 13:03:10

One of the most powerful types of might is influence, since it gives one access to the might and resources of many people who will follow an influential leader and which are much greater than the might or resources of any one alone. Influence is often gained by persuading others that you are right and that if they follow you they too will be right. To a very large extent this is how religious leaders gain influence, and to a fairly large extent it is how political leaders gain influence as well. To be fair of course, influence is also gained by showing that you have the power to crush your enemies and advance your supporters, but there is at the least usually a pretext of morality and often a good deal of the real thing although it is sometimes misguided.

dicktice · 2005-07-10 10:42:08

The topic being Right, not Might, what is your point?

clark · 2005-07-12 05:56:01

Might makes Right is the equivalent of Right makes Might.

Through the application of force, in any context, one can create an environment by which a defined morality or ethics can be established that will justify the previous use of Might. In essence, might is capable of engendering a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the end state exonerates the previous actions that brought about a new state of “Right”.

An example would be the American Revolution whose members used force to institute a new “Right”, and with their victory, was codified as an act of patriotism.

In the situation of Right makes Might, we see an equal but opposite corollary to the previous statement. Right, in essence, acts as a catalyst to form the building blocks of a sustained effort to overcome adversity. It unites disparate and disjoined parts into a coherent whole, allowing for a synthesis of the whole to become greater than the parts.

An example would be the Civil Rights movement, where a century’s long struggle for equality was able to overcome the combined Might of racism and oppression.

The fundamental difference between both statements though is one of endurance. Might, if it is not successful enough, lacks the long term coherencies to maintain itself against adversity. It is more suited for making radical and short term changes.

Right is suited for making long term and lasting changes through a slow process. When actual force is used to apply the morality and ethics, it is usually done when an apparent and direct threat is presented, and few if any other options are available.

Neither is right or wrong.

The question should be, which one is acceptable?

Earthfirst · 2005-07-13 21:19:35

The strong run the world so might makes right, that is just how the world works.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-14 11:42:29

I don't consider exploiters "strong." I consider them weak. They have too much reliance on those beneath them.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-07-14 23:34:06

Hmm, this is a tricky subject. Right can make might, but that doesn't necessarily occur. However, Might does not make right under any circumstances.

IMHO, on almost any issue there is a definate right and wrong side. Sometimes finding the side that is "right" (that is, the side that brings the most benefit to the universe as a whole) is more difficult than others, and it's never a question of black or white. It's a matter of finding which side is the lighter shade of gray. The "right" argument may be accompanied by "might" (the ability to bring about change in politics, society, etc.), or it may not. Regardless of the amount of might supporting right, the correctness of the right argument does not change. You can have the most powerful military in the world supporting your cause or merely yourself, in either case, the rightness of your side is completely unchanged.

Likewise, might does not bring about rightness. The two entities are entirely independant of each other, thus the more powerful side of a debate may or may not be the right one. A well-paid highly-trained lobbyist may have a wealth of might in congress, but whether or not s/he is lobbying for the right side depends on the side, not his/her skills. If arguing for increased funding for NASA, I would venture to say that the lobbyist is both mighty and right; if arguing for the destruction of all manned spaceflight in the United States, IMHO, the lobbyist is mighty but wrong. Neither might makes right nor does right automatically make might.

That's the first thing I've posted here in more than a month, and I really hope it wasn't just a bunch of gibbrish.

Stormrage · 2005-07-17 19:45:35

There is no such thing has a universal right. It's an opinon which differs from diffrent people. Some people may have the same right because of the education they receive (e.g. Americans told Capitalism was right while communists was wrong. Vica versa) but it still differs from people to people.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-11 13:12:00

Re: Which is Right?

#2 2005-06-11 15:19:58

Re: Which is Right?

#3 2005-06-11 20:44:08

Re: Which is Right?

#4 2005-06-12 07:59:20

Re: Which is Right?

#5 2005-06-12 10:07:17

Re: Which is Right?

#6 2005-06-14 17:39:01

Re: Which is Right?

#7 2005-06-19 09:11:32

Re: Which is Right?

#8 2005-06-19 09:34:41

Re: Which is Right?

#9 2005-06-19 13:03:10

Re: Which is Right?

#10 2005-07-10 10:42:08

Re: Which is Right?

#11 2005-07-12 05:56:01

Re: Which is Right?

#12 2005-07-13 21:19:35

Re: Which is Right?

#13 2005-07-14 11:42:29

Re: Which is Right?

#14 2005-07-14 23:34:06

Re: Which is Right?

#15 2005-07-17 19:45:35

Re: Which is Right?

Board footer