Verified by 
This is an installment in a series called "Ten Principles for Moral Discipline." They are meant to form the basis of a moral, effective school bullying policy.
In the lawless world of nature, Might makes right: the fittest survive; the strongest get what they want; it's a dog-eat-dog world. There is no concept of crime because there is no law other than the law of nature, which is might makes right. If another individual hurts you, there are no police to call for help or courts of law in which to sue them. You can enlist your friends or relatives to help you get revenge against your aggressors, but it is your group's might against theirs. This system works adequately in nature, where hunter-gatherer populations stay fairly stable because their numbers are limited by the available food. Individuals within a group learn to respect those that are stronger than them, a pecking order is established, and aggression is kept in check.
In civilization, human population is able to grow dramatically due to improved methods of acquiring food. Were we to continue living by might makes right, life would become unbearable, as we would be constantly fighting physically to get our needs met, resolve our conflicts, and establish our status. So we replace might makes right with justice makes right. We strive to create and live by moral laws that forbid us from hurting each other, and when we have grievances, we don't get revenge. We take our opponents to a court of law where the judge or jury determines how to resolve the situation.
Justice requires each situation to be judged independently on its merits. The Torah–the Old Testament of the Bible–which deals at great length with crime and punishment, instructs judges that they must not show favoritism. They are neither to judge in favor of the rich/powerful person (in order to spare them public humiliation, or to curry their favor), nor to judge in favor of the poor/weak person out of sympathy. In other words, justice must be unbiased. Sometimes the rich/strong person is in the wrong, and sometimes it's the weak/poor person.
Unfortunately, our level of morality tends to be Weakness makes right. We gravitate towards the apparent underdog. As Wilt Chamberlain said, "Nobody roots for Goliath."
This is the level of morality underlying the anti-bully movement. According to the modern academic definition, (which is not the same as the dictionary definition) bullying involves an imbalance of power in favor of the bully. And we are morally required to take the side of the victim against the bully because the victim is the weaker one.
However, there is nothing moral about a policy of siding with the weak against the strong. When people discover that we will take their side when they display weakness, they can learn to manipulate us with their weakness. They do not necessarily do so consciously. But all living creatures are programmed to try to win, so if weakness gives them an advantage, they will use it as a weapon. If you have children of your own and routinely intervene in the fights between them, you may have noticed that the weaker child–or at least the less aggressive child–has become adept at getting you to fight for them against their stronger or more aggressive sibling. And you will have also noticed that they fight extremely frequently!
In schools today, it is common for the stronger or more aggressive child in an altercation to be labeled a bully by the school administration. However, the alleged bullies often indignantly insist that they are the true victims–that they were only defending themselves from, or getting back at, the kids who started with them–and they are often right! When the school administration tries to comply with bullying policies that require them to take the side of victims against bullies, kids quickly discover that they can subtly provoke a physically stronger but emotionally reactive child to become aggressive, and then that child gets punished for bullying behavior. Why fight a stronger kid yourself when you can get the school administration to do it for you?! Furthermore, by picking on stronger kids, you look tough and cool to your peers. Meanwhile, the punished kids become increasingly angry with their tormenters and with the school, lose motivation, decline in academic functioning, and may end up getting expelled from school. While the administrators may feel proud of themselves for having rid the school of a bully, they fail to realize that they have been duped by other students to help destroy that child!
Thus, moral school bullying policies cannot be based on systematically siding with the apparent victim. As will be explained in a subsequent Principle, school administrations should avoid judging between children. But when situations do require them to judge, they must ignore imbalances of power and assess the situation objectively.
***********************
Read next installment in this series:
Principle Number Five: Love Your Enemy
Read Previous Installments to this series:
Ten Principles for Moral Discipline: Introduction
Principle Number One: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
Principle Number Two: Actions Speak Louder Than Words–Or–Practice What You Preach
Principle Number Three: The Golden Rule
We have also created a proposal for a moral, effective school bullyingpolicy based on the Golden Rule. We welcome you to use it, and if you like it, recommend it to your school administration:
http://bullies2buddies.com/who-we-help/school-administrators/889-...
