The Nobel Prize as a Moral Rebuke to “Might Makes Right”

The Nobel Peace Prize often functions as a moral rebuke to the philosophy of “might makes right.” It champions the power of ideas, law, and non-violence over the brute force of military and economic power. Donald Trump’s “America First” worldview, which heavily emphasizes national strength and leverage, is seen as a modern incarnation of this philosophy, making him an anathema to the Nobel’s purpose.
The prize’s history is filled with laureates who challenged the powerful. It has been awarded to dissidents who stood up to authoritarian regimes, activists who fought against corporate malfeasance, and leaders who chose negotiation over war. The underlying message is that peace is achieved through justice and principle, not just through strength.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy is often described as a return to “great power politics,” where the interests of the strongest nations dictate the world order. His transactional diplomacy—”the art of the deal”—is based on leveraging power to extract concessions. While this can be effective, it is a world away from the Nobel’s ideal of a community of nations governed by shared norms.
By awarding the prize to a human rights activist over a powerful general, or a disarmament group over a world leader, the committee makes a powerful statement: true peace cannot be imposed by the mighty. It must be built on a foundation of human dignity and mutual respect.
To give the prize to Trump would be to abandon this core principle. It would be an endorsement of the very “might makes right” philosophy the Nobel has so often sought to counter. For this reason, the committee will almost certainly choose a laureate who represents the opposite ideal: that right, not might, is the true path to peace.