> Might is right is the norm everywhere at every level not only international politics. The corrolary is that democracy and human rights are a joke.
You are quite wrong, of course, as any reasonably informed observer will know. Whether you're just ignorant or ill-intentioned: It's so easy to fire off these poisonous comments whose effect is to undermine and deligitimize the norms and institutions that keep things reasonably okay, as imperfect as they are. I hope you will never have to yourself experience the difference that you so easily dismiss.
The author of the comment I replied to seems to find it perfectly okay for "might is right" to be the norm. I pointed out that if we believe that this way of thinking is okay at the international politics level then the corollary is that democracy and human right must be a farce. Don't be mistaken, what we see happening at the level of world affairs will trickle down to everyday life. At the world stage, this wicked way of thinking leads to genocides being normalized. At the societal level it leads to societies with no morals. Might is right at every level.
This reads a little different than your original comment, so thanks for adding to it. It's still not quite clear to me whether you're saying "might is right at every level", or "if this line of thinking were to be accepted, then might would be right at every level".
In any case, I don't think either is true, formally or for practical purposes. It also does not follow that accepting "might is right" on the international level makes a farce of the ideas of democracy or human rights, whether one regards it as a desirable state of international affairs or as an undesirable fait accomplit, as we both seem to agree. I will not bore us with logical formalities and stay on the practical side of things:
Because, if you allow any group of actors, or the predominant state of things in any place, on any level, to spoil the whole concept simply by them not adhering to it, then indeed you have needlessly given up everything without even trying. Nothing better can exist when you let bad actors doing bad things define the floor and the ceiling of what can be.
Islands of decency exist. They are flawed, and yet they are the best and only real thing we have in this regard. They are under threat, as you say. Undercutting them by pretending that they have no worth or indeed value at all only plays into the hands of their enemies.
Practically speaking, doesn't using force while preaching democracy just ruin the concept for everyone? If we accept that 'might makes right' in international affairs, we create a world where power—not rights—governs every interaction and where democracy and human rights while they may have tangible reality in some "islands" become propaganda used to gain higher moral ground.
Mostly yes. But No to your first question. Look almost anywhere, anytime, and you'll find force and violence to be the default. That something else exists anywhere at all is an accomplishment; that it doesn't reach everywhere does not make it worthless.
You will also find that force and violence has been done in the name of every good idea that ever came about. If you let good ideas get "ruined" whenever someone uses them as a shield for bad ends, you will have none left. Nothing at all. Just because you gave the bad more power than the good. That is not practical at all, to say it mildly.
I used to believe this, but looking at the history of "israel", the genocides constantly committed in the middle east, etc. It's obvious that your logic would just be legitimizing the current might.
Would your logic apply to all the people of Gaza, would them resisting qualify as "undermine and deligitimize the norms and institutions that keep things reasonably okay"
Of course not, and nothing I wrote leads to that conclusion.
Rejecting the notion that "everywhere at every level not only international politics... democracy and human rights are a joke" does not mean that things are non-horrible everywhere, at every level.
Having a way for the public to regularly and non-violently change leadership and lawmakers, having checks and balances between the holders of power, and certain norms we strive towards is the only thing that gives us a chance at preventing authoritarian, absolutist and arbitrary rule - within the constraints where these things have effect.
That they do not work everywhere and do not work perfectly is a sign that we continue to need them. Concluding the opposite, that they're entirely useless, is not only dangerously foolish and fatalistic, but also logically fallacious.
It's an argument often used by those who wish to undermine these norms and institutions. I don't automatically think that this is you, but it might be interesting to examine your line of reasoning and what makes you read things in my previous response that are not there.
You are quite wrong, of course, as any reasonably informed observer will know. Whether you're just ignorant or ill-intentioned: It's so easy to fire off these poisonous comments whose effect is to undermine and deligitimize the norms and institutions that keep things reasonably okay, as imperfect as they are. I hope you will never have to yourself experience the difference that you so easily dismiss.