Generally, how this trope is treated depends on the nature of the story, and whether it’s the antagonist or protagonist who is making the case. If it’s the antagonist making the case, it’ll be treated as an incorrect view; if it’s the protagonist, then it’ll be treated as a correct view.
The Villain's Case
In the first case, the one making the claim may be a Straw Nihilist who thinks the society in question is so far deeply corrupt and fallen, that there is nothing to be done, and it must be permitted to die, lest its corruption spread. If the antagonist is a more Well-Intentioned Extremist (not to say the two can’t overlap), they may think that tearing the society will be for the betterment of everyone. The protagonist may not contest how bad the society is, or may even agree with the villain about the state of things, but decides they still care enough to try and make it better. Alternatively, while the protagonist may agree that the place itself is beyond saving, the people aren’t, and will fight to protect them. On that note, while society’s leadership will likely be bad people, there can and probably will be good people in the system, who are trying to make it better. At any rate, more often than not, the solution to this issue often turns out to be vigilantism, as the existing law enforcement will often be too corrupt to maintain proper order, at least until someone else takes control. In doing so, the vigilante may end up being a symbol that inspires the people to do better, leading the society to improving.
An example of this usage would be Batman Begins (which provides the page quote): Ra’s al Ghul claims that Gotham has become so corrupt and rotten, that nothing can be done to fix it, and that the only solution is to cull it. While Bruce concedes how corrupt Gotham is, he still holds to the notion that it can be made better by people willing to do good, and commits to doing as much.
The Hero's Case
In the second case, when this claim is made by the protagonist, chances are the story will side with the protagonist’s point of view; there may be discussion or debate amongst the characters, but this perspective will ultimately be determined as the “correct” one. As a rule of thumb, the society in question will be a Crapsack World, ruled by some form of government that's corrupt to the core (often The Empire, but it can also be a People's Republic of Tyranny, or even just the Wretched Hive), with the protagonist likely being in some kind of an underground resistance, or as part of a major opposing faction, often, but not always, as a leader, or otherwise high-ranking. That being said, there may still be some good people as part of the system, possibly with their own dreams for reformation, but the bad parts of the society will prevent them from accomplishing such things. Often times, these people will either be killed off (either through accident, or the machinations of their own society) or defect to the protagonists' side. In the event that neither happens, there’s a good chance that the protagonists themselves will kill these characters off.
An example of this usage would be Altair: A Record of Battles. The Balt-Rhein Empire is a violently imperialistic faction, built entirely on brutal conquest, and is described (and outwardly depicted) as a monster that must keep consuming, lest it consume itself. Though there are Imperial characters who express a real desire for reform, they are not given the chance to enact these, as the protagonists refuse to consider the possibility. Ultimately, the Empire is destroyed, and the Baltic region is annexed by Turkiye; it’s only then that conditions begin to improve in that region.
