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.
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.