Zone1 Might Makes Right

[zaangalewa]

Wars are fought usually by 2 sides that believe they are in the right.

The winner proves might makes right.

That's blatant nonsense. No one makes wars because of "right". A nice story in this context: The king of France had had problems with a city in the upper part of Italy some centuries ago. So he sent an army to punish this city. His military commander found out that the city was governed from a woman - and refused to attack her city with the words "I do not fight against a woman!". Background is the very very old rule: "A man who beats a woman is no man!". One war less on this planet and the planet still turns around the sun.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

It is not right...but it is how it is.

 

[zaangalewa]

It is not right...but it is how it is.

View attachment 995966

Be happy when China now not declares war on you.

“Man has three ways of acting wisely; first, by reflection, which is the noblest; second, by imitation, which is the easiest; and third, by experience, which is the bitterest.”
Confucius

 

[ding]

You didn't cite a source, but anyway, that's similar to the definition I posted earlier, from Oxford dictionary.

Again, the question is, do you actually agree with that idea?

By that logic, anyone can trample all over anyone else, and as long as they get away with it, what they did was morally right.

No. Right makes right.

 

[zaangalewa]

... To a Nazi Hitler was a Hero. Was he?

Unfortunatelly I have to say Hitler seemed to be a brave soldier in World War 1- but on the other side Hitler was born in the cruelness of this war.
A slogan in his elections had been "the general and the private" (private he was on his own and general had been president Hindenburg (who not had been a Nazi)). Hitler was a pragmatist. Also the name "national-socialism" means nothing special. He tried to get votes from the right and also from the left political spectrum - that's all. Btw: When Hindenburg died - (he was old so never anyone speculated whether he had been killed from Hitler) - Hitler also became president. The Weimar Republic's separation of powers collapsed. Right had no might any longer.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

Without power, rights are meaningless. You can assert that you have rights and expect others to respect them, but if you lack the ability to defend those rights by force if necessary, you are merely naive. We must ask ourselves: What are rights? What defines a right, and what makes something 'right'? What does it truly mean to be 'right'?

In this world, it often happens that those who can impose their will through strength become the leaders, and in turn, define what is 'right,' even when they are clearly wrong. Eventually, someone will expose the truth, pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes,

 

[TruthNotBS]

Unfortunatelly I have to say Hitler seemed to be a brave soldier in World War 1- but on the other side Hitler was born in the cruelness of this war.
A slogan in his elections had been "the general and the private" (private he was on his own and general had been president Hindenburg (who not had been a Nazi)). Hitler was a pragmatist. Also the name "national-socialism" means nothing special. He tried to get votes from the right and also from the left political spectrum - that's all. Btw: When Hindenburg died - (he was old so never anyone speculated whether he had been killed from Hitler) - Hitler also became president. The Weimar Republic's separation of powers collapsed. Right had no might any longer.

Hitler was a fully committed national socialist. If you read his writings and listen to his speeches, he believed that capitalism must serve the greater good, especially the nation (volk - the people).