I will counter the ‘might is right’ philosophy with asserting that, instead, humans do whatever is the easiest option to do, and this includes satisfaction of ones own conscience.
People aren’t inherently good, nor bad. They are inherently lazy. The most efficient and economic (I use the word to mean all forms of economics) option is the one that we are biologically evolved to seek and prefer; as is every animal on this planet.
Which is why we have a difference in social behavior in person and online as a society. One realm requires a far more difficult and costly tax for the same behaviors than the other.
So, “might is right” shoving its weight around isn’t a matter of requirement or not. It’s simply an easier solution for those who use it. They would rather not design alternate solutions than objectification and exploitation of others because, for them, to do so would be harder and less economic; which would be pointless and senseless to them.
For others, the emotional pull of their consience is too great to prefer other alternatives than whichever way they currently live in regards to contexts outside of their normality.
Generally speaking, people are non-violent and non-confrontational in most invironments because it’s easier and more efficient than a regular iteration of violent or confrontational exchange.
This gets somewhat flipped when pressures are intense and enough humans are piled into a small area and their emotions are kept on edge at a consistent rate.
The confrontation inherently increases because lashing out is easier than bottling up, and it aids in survival skills where everyone else is too busy pushing everyone else around because they are focused on their own bubble and all of its pressures in an environment with very little pressure release valves for tension.
The human body and brain inherently prefers the easiest and fastest solution with the highest reward return.
‘Might is right’ is simply easier, faster and more rewarding for some.
For others; not at all.