Reference no: EM133254211

The strongest is never strong enough to be master all the time, unless he transforms force into right and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, a right that seems like something intended ironically and is actually established as a basic principle. But will no one explain this word to me? Force is a physical power; I fail to see what morality can result from its effects. To give in to force is an act of necessity, not of will. At most, it is an act of prudence. In what sense could it be a duty?

Let us suppose for a moment that there is such a thing as this alleged right [of the strongest]. I maintain that all that results from it is an inexplicable mish-mash. For once force produces right, the effect changes places with the cause. Every force that is superior to the first succeeds to its right. As soon as one can disobey with impunity, one can do so legitimately; and since the strongest is always right, the only thing to do is to make oneself the strongest. For what kind of right is it that perishes when the force on which it is based ceases? If one must obey because of force, one need not do so out of duty; and if one is no longer forced to obey one is no longer obliged [to obey]. Clearly then, this word "right" adds nothing to force. It is utterly meaningless here. [...]

Let us then agree that force does not bring about right, and that one is obliged to obey only legitimate powers" (Rousseau, 1987).

1. Standardize the argument Rousseau makes. Be sure to include any implicit/unstated premises and identify any sub-arguments in your standardization.
2. Evaluate the argument Rousseau makes.
   • State the author of the argument and its intended audience.
   • Indicate whether the argument is deductive, inductive or abductive and say why.
   • State whether the argument is valid/invalid, strong/weak and say why.
   • Evaluate the truth of the premises.
3. State whether or not the argument commits any fallacies of relevance and say why.
4. Give your overall opinion as to whether or not you think the argument is good or bad and why.