[AnimalMuppet]

No. Might makes it happen, but it doesn't make it right. That's the difference between "is" and "ought".

The alternative is that we have no category for "ought" or "should be" - that "is" is all there is, that there is no hope to improve the world, nor any way to suggest a direction to improve it in. That's a pretty hopeless outlook, and one that I reject.

But you're right that "should" or "ought" often needs to have some might behind it before it becomes an "is"...

[empressplay]

Sorry but this is a simple binary: the person with no gun will always do what the person with the gun tells them to, or they will get shot and probably die. That's reality.

For the last 20 years or so we've been living in a world where the US called the shots pretty much everywhere, and we were cool with it because (most of us here) were on the US 'side'. 'Globalization' during this period was and is a complete sham, meant to sell people on the idea that their countries were independent and not subject to the Pax Americana.

But make no mistake, they were absolutely subject to the Pax Americana.

And now, China is challenging that, Russia is challenging that, and we're back to the people with the biggest guns win, as it has always been.

If you had hope it was a false hope, an illusion, sold to you by Uncle Sam, who was secretly manipulating the policy of most of the governments on the planet while spruiking 'democracy' and 'independence' that only exists so long as you do what Sam wants.

[chillacy]

I don't think this comment addresses the (very philosophical) point of the parent poster when they try to explain the difference between "is" and "ought" by doubling down on details of the "is".

To me it looks like this comment describes in detail how international relations work through realpolitik (which I agree is basically how it's done if you want any semblance of predictive power, as opposed to focusing on any stated moral values of players).