Robert W Sweet

Life Fighting Robert W Sweet

Fighting has gotten a bad name; it should not be so. Fighting itself is neither moral nor immoral; only its object can be said to be so. We may count the ability to fight well, when applied to a just cause, among the virtues.




To be moral is not to fight no one; to be moral is to fight those who vitiate life and civilization. That the moral are far less willing to fight than the immoral has always hurt societies; the moral would do far better to follow revanchism, a policy of retaliation. Our chief concern should be for, first life, then civilization; fighting may foster life and civilization, and not fighting harm them. If you truly wish to make the world a better place, you should sometimes fight.




Human beings lie along two general continua. One continuum runs from concern for the group to concern for oneself, the other from concern for the long-term to concern for the short. Those who are concerned about the long-term well-being of the group, must ever and anon fight those who are concerned only about their short-term interests. The latter are partisans, not of the group, but only of themselves. We should not feel remorse at hurting blackguards; we are doing society, and perhaps them, a favor. For many, a thrashing is as condign as it is salutary.




"The art of war is an art with principles," said Napoleon, "and these principles must never be violated." The best study of these principles is the lives of those who applied them best. Just as we read great writers to learn how to write well, so, too, should we study great fighters to learn how to fight well. Life Fighting explicates the principles by which Julius Caesar, Richelieu, Talleyrand, Napoleon, and Bill Gates fought, by which they attained their objects.