Might Is Always Right Or Right Is Might??

"Might is always right" is a phrase that has both positive and negative attributes to it depending on the situation. It mostly describes that people on power are the ones who determine what is right and what is wrong. It is mostly used in a negative sense to mean that one who is powerful can have great control over their actions and can at times also turn their wrongs into rights. It mostly threatens the freedom of expression, discourages any scope of counter arguments and alternatives that might have the potential to favor a group of people and their ideas.

However, the right is might meaning also depends on the situation and the cause as well. During ancient period as decisions were considered final. The kings and their warriors defeated the weaker kingdoms and annexed them to their existing and that is how great kingdoms came into existence. The king and his trusted warriors would set the rules and run the kingdom. The supporters of the King also considered it essential in maintaining the political scenario while the opponents considered it morally unjustified.

Is might is always right or right is might? It is a perennial philosophical dilemma that has been discussed for centuries. "When it comes to using force or power, what's the right thing to do? Does being morally better and supporting what's right mean you'll always win in the end?"

So, basically, it's asking if doing the right thing and being morally good always makes you stronger and helps you win.

The Peloponnesian War, in which Sparta and Athens fought against each other for their hegemony in the 5th century BC, is narrated by the principal ancient account we have today about this war, namely the history of Thucydides. In the work "History of the Peloponnesian War", the author related the Athenians’ statement: "what the weak must suffer and what the strong can do." This principle was then advanced as the ultimate reasoning of might is always right.

We need to try delving into it and it is imperative to understand whether the concept is totally unfair or it also does have some positive outlook too.

Might Is Right or Right Is Might

When we study history we will always find that there were mighty kings who ruled and some of them were very successful whilst some even though were very powerful initially could not hold on to the throne and the kingdom for long? The question is why? To understand it better we need to completely reverse the phase and it will become, "Right is might". Plato had said " Do not expect justice where might is right". Many Kings though mighty could not hold for long because their might was tyrannical, devoid of justice, where common people had no say even though they were innocent. One of the greatest examples of such a dictatorial style of rule is that of Adolf Hitler. He believed in the survival of the fittest and his style of justice was widely unappreciated or rather still remains as one of the most degrading and horrifying time in the history of the human race.

However, there are times when might needs to take over, like for instance, the Gulf War. In the early 1990’s Saddam Hussein had ordered the invasion and occupation of neighboring Kuwait. The Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab powers were alarmed and called upon the Western nations and the United States to intervene. Saddam Hussein defied the United Nations Security Council’s demand to withdraw from Kuwait and thus U.S.A led a massive air strike offensive known as the Operation Desert Storm. The attacks went on for 42 days by the allied coalition both in the air and on the ground till the Iraqi forces in Kuwait had either surrendered or fled. In this case this show of strength or intervention was necessary not just to stop Saddam Hussein from capturing parts of Kuwait but also stop the menace that he and his son were subjecting on the people. This was a situation where might was indeed right. This was deemed necessary at that time considering the atrocities of Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. It is estimated that Saddam Hussein was guilty of killing 50,000 of Kurds. For 20 years the Iraqis were subjected to inhuman torture, murder, and rape under the reign of Saddam Hussein. So in this case the might of the coalition was thus necessary to end the torture and lead the Iraqis to freedom.

Right is Might Examples from Throughout History

This conflict of right is might meaning holds true in various examples throughout the history. It can be observed in different dimensions as we study some historical cases in detail.

While the victory of the United States over the British Empire during the 1776 American Revolution is a classical instance demonstrating the triumph of the underdog over apparent superiority. It had to do with being not just having superior weapons or fighting prowess. The colonists felt very passionate about a number of issues including their freedom from the oppression of the tyranny and setting up of the new republic.

The determination of their generals and persistence, actually played a key role in their victory. In other words, it was not an endeavor where a handful of people with guns knocked out the well-equipped British Army, it was a battle for equality and freedom, which they won eventually.

It may be possible to assemble a similar focus for the WWII exigency. There is no doubt that if the Axis would have been able to remain united economically and militarily, it would have been able to achieve major victories against the Allies(led by the United States, Britain, and Soviet Union)

Did people try to stop the Nazis because they genuinely wanted to help or because they felt they had to stop the evil they were doing?

Not so long ago, the former racist white supremacist apartheid government of South Africa used harassment, banning and imprisonment as punishment for leaders of the African National Congress (ANC) including Nelson Mandela when they fought for equal rights. Their ability to stand their ground didn’t stop until the whirlwind of worldwide disapproval has already shredded apartheid's unethical core.

The factor of non-violent defiance to apartheid that originally made ended was : either the force and determination of the ANC or the truth of their ethical cause?

It Might Be Right Story

On the other hand, this story also portrays how. “Might is right”, as people were forced to live a pathetic life under the brutal leadership of Saddam Hussein and his son Uday. Though in the end “might of the coalition” brought an end to the end of a barbaric leadership but the world came together to fight for what is actually “right”. The basic rights of the Iraqis, especially the Kurdish people, the fight to have a life of freedom and dignity.

Like we had discussed earlier, this adage has many dimensions. The story of David and Goliath also tells us the same story that might is not always right. David was a shepherd boy who lived in Israel. He would tend to his sheep during the day and would play his harp in the evening. After tiring battles the king of Israel loved listening to David’s harp as his tunes were very soothing. However, soon a giant Goliath started threatening the people and the Jewish soldiers and would brag about his strength and challenged the soldiers. He was sure that none of the Jewish soldiers could defeat him. The Jewish soldiers were very scared of Goliath, but little David said he could tackle the mighty Goliath who was terrorizing the people. With the help of a sling little David hit the giant Goliath on his head and killed him, while all of Goliath’s friends fled, thus saving the Jewish people from the giant. Though David was small but he dared to face injustice with courage. He was fighting for what was right and the victory was his.

If we study the human psychology, we will find that humans have a tendency to get carried away when one has the strength. History shows that when people have power it gets to them and at a certain time they start throwing their weight around. It happens around us all the time. It happens at every level. The plight of women being  oppressed being the weaker sex, the poor getting oppressed because they don’t have the strength to fight the rich, so on and so forth.

The Concept That Might Be Right

The idea that "might is always right" refers to the fact that historically, those with the highest strength, wealth, and ability to command got to set the rules and laws. They refer to rulers and empires who, by threatening force, imposed their will. Violence can trump moral concerns, as proved by the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan's Mongols, and other modern authoritarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

The protagonist holds this view: that, whatever your great intentions, power is the only means to achieve goals. There is no point in speaking of principles and common human rights if you are weak and unable to force others to comply with you. Whether something is equitable or unfair greatly depends on who has the power to win.

The Right of War Origin

The contrary view of right is might meaning is that morality will eventually win out over immorality, even though corrupt individuals can use their power to stay in power for a while. In the well-known saying by Martin Luther King, Jr., "the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice,"

Human beings are more powerful than tyranny and oppression through their resilience and struggle for equality and freedom. It can be seen in the anti-colonial independence struggle in India and Africa, the civil rights movements to equalize different races, and the fall of the oppressive USSR regime.

When a regime or entity uses obedience without any ethical principle, its seeds are thrown towards its own ruin. The desire for freedom, equality, and human dignity cannot be permanently tamed by military power.

Despite the fact that the road is long and hard, eventually, doing the right moral thing reinforces and invigorates the movement towards change that the oppressors aren't able to reject forever.

The Might and Right Cycle

According to me, history always follows same never-ending cycle highlighting power and justice. Force can be employed to keep the power in the hand of the wicked ones for some time and also to eradicate, oppress, discriminate and make human rights redundant. Nevertheless, many of the things will pass, and the pain and suffering of the oppressed group will make them become more and more angry and hateful.

What, then, would trigger such moral and ethical decisions that forces people to persevere in their efforts despite the immoral sights and extend their dedication? 

Moral conviction is like a brave flame burning inside you. It's what keeps you going, even when challenges seem too much to handle. This inner strength is unique; nothing, not even force, can replace it. This is what gives their minds the bulwarks that allow them to see through the mists and fog, illuminating their path even during the difficult years and decades they float through.


Moral Progress's Long Arc

Although sometimes societies are complex and the morals of people can be imperfect, the influence that these features bring about can be beneficial for the community. At last, you concede that there is no morality as in “absolute immorality” or “morality” in a sense and there is only good and bad according to what is moral. 

In the past, there were times when people used to say that they are the agents of the justice, but besides bringing peace, they were evil people themselves and they produced injustice and harm.

Historical examples such as the Crusades, colonization, and the French Revolution illustrate how extreme circumstances can lead to actions that contradict the initial claims of justice and righteousness. Despite claims of noble intentions, these events often resulted in the perpetration of great injustice and cruelty.

The history does so many times demonstrate that what appears just and perfectly fair can be harmful to the immediate results. Sometimes in the instances when justice is delayed, there is a lot of burden and misery due to straining of the process. 

Ethical facts may take a few eras as much time to be previewed, progress, loses, and setbacks being what happens all the way. Indeed, the proverb captures a timeless truth. Justice is often depicted as slow but sure, implying that while it may not always happen quickly, it ultimately prevails, shaping a better future through patience and perseverance.

Uncertain Universal Solution

In my view, there is no strict, definite response to the right is might or might is right dilemma that can be applied to all situations in human relations.

Therefore, empires that are established by the laws and power without considering the moral aspects are most likely to be short-lived empires.

Even in societies who define themselves as being civilized and human, we still see cases of human rights infringements and dignity abuse. The utilization of force in the name of justice, as guided by values of peace, fairness, and people dignity, is a lifelong mission for humanity.

It's vital that the power of any magnitude should always comply with what is deemed just; otherwise, the power and justice should never be disconnected. Being a true leader and influencing on the global level normally comes from ethical dilemmas like what's right and what's wrong.

It is like the concept of bending the history line toward justice is more prone. Besides, it may be daunting to stay upbeat and modify our schemes often. Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and reconfirm our dedication to the outlined principles frequently to make the world a merciful and just place for all.

“Might is always not right”, because not all mighty people have the mental strength to be righteous, just and hence the ones who are stand out and become leaders. They have etched their names in the hearts of people and in history because they have used their power for the benefit of the masses.

Might when paired with what is right is a great force that can change the entire narrative. We need to have that might deep inside us to stand up for what is right, like little David had. We need to be mighty within to make a difference.