The Strongest Person’s Right

The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will—at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?

Even the strongest person cannot stay in control forever unless he turns strength into a right and obedience into a duty. Hence the right of the strongest. Although the phrase seems ironic, people actually present it as a fundamental principle. But will anyone ever explain what the phrase means? Force is a physical power, and I cannot see how force can create any moral obligation. Giving in to force is an act of necessity, not a free choice. At most, giving in is a sensible precaution. How can giving in to force be a duty?

Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause: every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force: in this connection, it means absolutely nothing.

Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I maintain that the only result is a heap of nonsense that cannot be explained. For if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause. Any greater force takes over the right of the force before it. As soon as we can disobey without punishment, disobedience becomes legitimate. And since the strongest is always right, all that matters is finding a way to become the strongest. But what kind of right disappears when force fails? If we are forced to obey, there is no need to obey out of duty. And if we are not forced to obey, we have no obligation to obey. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force. In this context, the word means absolutely nothing.

Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated. All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand surprises me at the edge of a wood: must I not merely surrender my purse on compulsion; but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to give it up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.

Obey those in power. If this means giving in to force, it is good advice, but unnecessary. I can guarantee that no one ever disobeys it. All power comes from God, I admit. But so does all sickness. Does that mean we are forbidden to call a doctor? A robber catches me by surprise at the edge of a wood. Must I hand over my wallet only because I am forced to? Or, even if I could hold on to my wallet, does my conscience require me to hand it over? After all, the pistol he holds is also a power.

Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers. In that case, my original question recurs.

Let us agree, then, that force does not create rights. We are required to obey only legitimate authorities. If so, we return to my original question.