just to write it all out for clarity (not because I think you misunderstood):
the might makes right that I was pointing at is an attitude of "winning is everything. winners are superior, no matter how arbitrary or unfair the game."
the might makes right that you're pointing at is the fact that in the struggle to define laws and norms, there are winners and losers.
I think it's just a question of values. there is no "neutrality" - there is always a fight between competing values, and everyone picks a side. the value that says "winning is everything, winners deserve everything, losers can die in a ditch" is a bad value to me.
just to write it all out for clarity (not because I think you misunderstood): the might makes right that I was pointing at is an attitude of "winning is everything. winners are superior, no matter how arbitrary or unfair the game."
the might makes right that you're pointing at is the fact that in the struggle to define laws and norms, there are winners and losers.
I think it's just a question of values. there is no "neutrality" - there is always a fight between competing values, and everyone picks a side. the value that says "winning is everything, winners deserve everything, losers can die in a ditch" is a bad value to me.