Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
All of this feeds back into the original debate, because as far as I can see the only objection to monarchy in Norway is a personal affective one, not a moral or logical one. Logically the Norwegian system works, and it is a truism that whenever you try to improve on something that works you break it.
You are using the terms in an inappropriate manner. Any idea is a 'personal affective', in the end.

Logically, the system in Norway does not work if a monarch is defined as a flaw. In the same way, the system would work if you do not define him as a flaw, as you do not. That's the only logic to speak of. Logic works only relative to things. Logic does not produce what works and what does not until you define the rules.

Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
So, consensus morality.
No, that is not my goal - nor do I consider that realistic. I think debate is healthy, though of course - too much friction could be very problematic.


So how is Norway being a monarchy "terribly wrong", by your own argument it is just your opinion.
As would any other moral idea be, making the issue regarding monarchy no different from the rest. Though, while it does not follow from other moral ideas, I could say that it is related to them and draws from them. Ideas such as justice and a general disdain for those in power - in this case, almost their entire lives.