Andrew Mino
2102
Answered
at 5:09pm on February 26th, 2008
Truthfully, those two schools would have a hard time mixing. "Might is right" has the definite connotation of whoever is the strongest gets to do whatever they want, and thus it is "right" by ability of action. Whereas living a virtuous life and being considered good, has the note of being held to a standard set by an external authority.
Truthfully, "might is right" is logically flawed in that, it attains ends, but it does not actually define a viewpoint beyond that of a singular person or group. What is right or wrong (from a human or sociological perspective; we'll leave theology out of this for now because external authorities are easy cop-outs) is defined not by a singular individual, but by the affirmation of a group of people, and that group of people is often held to larger groups of people as a whole.
For an individual, or a government, to operate off the "might is right" idea, must enforce their actions or rules via might, or threat of might (psychological manipulation can qualify as might in that it has the ability to move opinions from one direction to another without the person or society's clear, direct, and conscious affirmation of that opinion being good or right). Any other acts would thus render the individual or government to not be acting off the standpoint of might. For example, a dictator is ruling his country with an iron fist. The vast majority of the people under his control disagree with his opinions, policies, and actions. They believe he is not right on both a moral and factual standpoint. Whether they act on it is another story entirely, and even if some do, and he kills all who oppose him, he has not in fact made himself right. There are still those who disagree, and some who still might not comply with his actions. His actions are right for him and his government, but they are right for no one else.
The question now arises, is there an ultimate right and an ultimate wrong? If the ultimates do not exist, then truthfully, right is defined by the individual, and thus might is subjectively right to each individual who applies it. However, the world has not operated in this way. While there are a great many theories and beliefs as to what is right and wrong, in general there are many things that are held in common despite a variety of options. The fact that the concepts of right and wrong exist beyond the individual conception and have been applied to the world and in the world everywhere human society has existed (in other words, every society has had some concept of there being a right and wrong that is not individually determined) would point to there being some kind of standard as to an ultimate right and wrong. The argument of there being no universal right and wrong is not a new one. The Sophists tried it, and Socrates beat them. Nietzsche tried it, and proclaimed it as a result of "God's Death", but instead the body that has held those beliefs has changed and adapted and is still encountering life and growth, and the common human experience of there being a right and wrong beyond themselves (this is encountered at some level in every human life, even if it is discarded early on, it is still encountered) was never truthfully addressed in Nietzsche's argument beyond that of the pining of the undermen.