James Griffin

Hitz
Ancient Geeks
19 November 2015
Does Might Make Right?
In Book one of the Republic, Thrasymachus one of Socrates cohorts, poses his idea of
what justice should be, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger
(338c). As a denizen of the modern world, surrounded by the tales and dogma of liberal
democracy and ideals, his statement appeared utterly ludicrous to me, at least at first glance. But
I was promptly reminded of the title and premise of an old book that I had stumbled across some
years ago, Might is Right by one Ragnar Redbeard (a pseudonymous white supremacist). And
after some careful deliberation, Ive decided to play the advocatus diaboli, and propose that in
fact might does make right. I should add that this does not reflect my personal beliefs- I just think
that this is a rather rigorous and thought provoking argument that deserves more respect than it
generally receives. I must also note that many of my ideas and thoughts will most likely be very
similar to some of the works that we are slated to read in the future, but most of the thoughts
portrayed here will be some modification of my own. I might also add, that some interpret
Thrasymachus definition to pertain primarily to obeying the laws of a city, but for the sake of
argument, Ill assume that he meant what he said as an all-encompassing statement of the
concept of justice.
I will begin by arguing from the perspective of an individual with no in depth knowledge
of the ideas of justice, a tabula rasa per say. From its barest interpretation, justice is how things

and actions should be distributed on a normal basis, especially after some wrong has been
perpetrated upon someone else. For example, if I were to pay a farmer three sheep for 12 bundles
of wheat, Id expect to receive the 12 bundles of wheat. Similarly, if you were to throw a stone at
me, Id expect to be able to throw a stone back at you. These presumptions are only fair in at
least what Id expect to be a basic just dwarf. If I were to throw a single stone at you, and you
were to throw a single stone at me, I believe it is a safe bet we that can assume that you will wind
up getting the better end of the exchange. Thus, at least in this instance, justice would be to the
benefit of the stronger.
But just how might this pan out on a larger scale? Let us assume that we have two
relatively analogous peaceful villages that are no more than a mile away from each other, with a
river teeming with aquatic life dividing the two partway between the two. After a more than
century of co-existence, with both villages prospering in their lush paradises, a citizen of the first
village has a novel idea. If there were some way they didnt have to share the river with the
second village, they could become twice as wealthy. So this enterprising citizen convinces the
village council to begin hosting monthly training sessions in an effort to build up the martial
prowess of a large portion of the polity. Eventually the time comes, when there is a dispute over
fishing nets becoming entangled. Both villages marshal their young men, and march out to fight
the other. In the ensuing clash, the young men of the second village are utterly trounced by the
men of the first village, and the victors raise the village of the defeated. A prisoner from the
second village, as his home crumbles to the ground mutters the phrase, it isnt fair; to which a
venerable villager of the conquerors replies, vae victus. The first village spent the time
preparing for conflict, and building its strength, so it is only fair and just that they would be
victorious, and thus correct in burning the second village to the ground.

So far, I have been arguing under the presumption that justice is what is right, and what
is right is just. Personally, I see no need to deviate from this rather rudimentary assumption. But
how does one decide what is right, dare I ask? Id posit that what is right or rather what is just, is
decided by might, ergo, might does in fact make right. For the sake of my argument, I will
assume that the term violence is synonymous with might (Im borrowing this analogy from
Freud, but Im leaving his arguments for the wolves.) Long before civilizations and city-states
came into being, mankind operated under the so called, law of the jungle (to borrow a line from
Kipling). The law of the jungle is distinct in that it is no law in the formal sense, it is simply a
state of anarchia in the strictest sense of the word. In a world operating under this law, violence
is or rather, was, the great arbitrator of any and all conflicts between man and beast. The
strongest and the smartest would prey upon the weakest, and that is simply how things were, this
is what was right. The only reason mankind rose out of this dismal state, is that the strong
realized that it would be more profitable and safe to simply force people to bend to their whims
through the threat of raw violence, rather than actually carrying it out. (An argument could be
made that it was not the strong but the weak banding together in coalition against the strong
which brought our species out of the gutter, but I cannot in good conscious accept this. If the
weak when combined are capable of matching or besting the strong, does this not imply that the
weak have in essence become the strong?) From this condition, laws were formed, and
eventually rule of justice was established.
Of course there is a case to be made against the argument that might makes right, one that
is heavily entrenched within morality and our modern society. We know for a fact that the
physically mighty no longer dominate over the weak, this is evident by the mere nature of the coexistence between the Annapolis naval academy and St. Johns College. This can also be seen at

the beginning of the Republic, when Socrates is coerced by men who argue that they are stronger
than him, but are ultimately humbled by him only a few pages later.
But these arguments are founded in what I believe to be a fundamental misinterpretation
of what might is supposed to be. Most people believe might is rooted in the actual physical
strength or mental acuity of an individual, which generally it is. But I dont believe that is a very
good interpretation or definition of might, as there are far too many loopholes and possible
alternatives to pure force and brainpower. Take for instance, Socrates within the Phaedo; he is
without a doubt mentally superior to all of his contemporaries, yet it is safe to say that he is not
mightier than them, (regardless of whether or not he actually wanted to commit suicide). Or
examine Agamemnon in the Orestia; he is by far the most powerful individual in the entire Greek
world. He has the strength of a lion, the intelligence of a classical scholar, and an unmatched
amount of wealth; yet he still is felled by his comparably feeble housewife. I believe a safe
interpretation of the word might is the ability to overcome or reign victorious, especially with
respect to conflict. Let me illustrate some cases using this viewpoint. If the 300 from Herodotus
Histories were to defeat Xerxes, they would be considered the mightier. As they were incapable
of staving off the Persian tide, they are not. The same holds for every other instance of conflict or
war we have examined, from Troy in the Illiad to Odysseus in the Odyssey (man vs nature in this
argument). But I must also add the caveat, that to be considered the mightier, one either has to be
actively prevailing, or have won.
Now that I believe that I have sufficiently elucidated what I mean by might and justice,
and the correlation/causation between the two, I will end here, so that the reader may formulate
their own thoughts. (In short, I am having much difficulty in trying to prove this wrong, any
assistance would be much obliged.)