Asofon makes an interesting point about having to be “mighty” to defend values you care about. I want to add something specific here.

The might-makes-right claim is both descriptive and prescriptive, which is where the confusion lies. Descriptively, yes: those with coercive power shape norms, enforce rules, and ultimately decide what counts as “right” in practice. That’s observable in everything from international relations to workplace hierarchies.

But that doesn’t make it morally valid. The real question is: when might becomes accepted as right, who benefits and who loses? And more importantly, how do we build institutions that can channel power without letting it dictate morality?

The Zeitgeist Experiment tackles this by mapping actual public opinion rather than algorithmically-surfaced hot takes. You can see where real people agree, where they disagree, and why. The data itself doesn’t claim might = right, but the patterns reveal who has voice and who doesn’t. Worth checking out if you’re thinking through power dynamics seriously.

War is never desirable, but this does not make pacifism a virtue. Rather, peace must be guaranteed by strength

Yeah.

Once someone decides that Might DOES make Right, everyone is in that game whether they like it or not. Of course one can totally surrender, if they are okay with the consequences of that.

That said, Might also does Make Right in the sense that those who wield power get to decide what “Right” is. It’s just that the more it departs from common human sensibilities, the more they have to wield Might to make it Right.