Might makes right or Might is right is an aphorism on the origin of morality, with both descriptive and prescriptive senses.
Descriptively, it asserts that a society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power, with a meaning similar to "History is written by the victors". That is, although all people have their personal ideas of the good, only those strong enough to overcome obstacles and enemies can put their ideas into effect, and spread their own standards to society at large. Montague defined kratocracy or kraterocracy (from the Ancient Greek: κρ?τος, romanized: krátos, lit. 'might; strength') as a government based on coercive power, by those strong enough to seize control through physical violence or demagogic manipulation.
Prescriptively (or normatively), the phrase is most often used pejoratively, to protest perceived tyranny.
The phrase sometimes has a positive connotation in the context of master morality or social Darwinism, which hold that a society's strongest members should rule and determine its standards of right and wrong, as well as its goals for the greater good。
Might makes right
Might makes right or Might is right is an aphorism on the origin of morality, with both descriptive and prescriptive senses.
Descriptively, it asserts that a society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power, with a meaning similar to "History is written by the victors". That is, although all people have their personal ideas of the good, only those strong enough to overcome obstacles and enemies can put their ideas into effect, and spread their own standards to society at large. Montague defined kratocracy or kraterocracy (from the Ancient Greek: κρ?τος, romanized: krátos, lit. 'might; strength') as a government based on coercive power, by those strong enough to seize control through physical violence or demagogic manipulation.
Prescriptively (or normatively), the phrase is most often used pejoratively, to protest perceived tyranny.
The phrase sometimes has a positive connotation in the context of master morality or social Darwinism, which hold that a society's strongest members should rule and determine its standards of right and wrong, as well as its goals for the greater good。
A heated debate:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/li7rh/how_is_democracy_different_than_might_makes_right/
https://www.163.com/dy/article/FVQQL1FF0541LBHV.html
but am not really interested in Nitzsche. To me, philosophy has to be simple, like APAD :-)))