The Right of the Strongest

The strongest can only be the master if he transforms:

• strength into right
• obedience into duty.

This is the basis of the right of the strongest.

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, it is an act of prudence.

How can it be a duty?

If this “right” exists then it will lead to a mass of inexplicable nonsense.

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.

The strongest is always in the right.

The only thing that matters is to act as to become the strongest.

But what kind of right perishes when force fails?

If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we should obey.

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.

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. 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. Should I not surrender my purse? Or should I give it up?

His pistol is also a power.

My original question recurs if:

• force does not create right
• we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers