Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
Why is to wrong to harm people for no good reason? Why is injustice wrong? It is for me a moral that does not spring out from consequences, but rather a moral wrong in itself.
I don't know, why is it? The modern answer is a utilitarian one, we do not allow people harm others because in that sort of society everyone is at risk, and we try to reduce injustice because it benefits social cohesion. The historically acceptable answer is that we are all children of God and therefore all entitled to fair treatment as his children and equal dignity as brothers and sisters who procede from the same Father.

There is not, nor has their ever been, a purely secular moral argument - the closest are the Deistic arguments.

Monarchies appear to benefit the societies that have them, even in the Middle East the monarchies are at least marginally better than the oligarchies, Tyrannies and Dictatorships.

Presidents will never achieve the same weight that a royal family will. Power lies in tradition related to persons and their blood. The PM is a nobody, he has his position on the mercy of the voters and his political partners - a very significant weakness, that I dear say is a symptom of a well-functioning democracy; this smaller focus on individuals.
Your idea of a "fell functioning" democracy is a Constitutional Monarchy where the focus of pomp and ceremony is on the Monarch - take a look at Italy, France or Israel, or Greece or the USA for that matter. Without a monarch you have a vacume in the public imagination - and it is filled. Take a look at the cults that grew up around Bush after September 11th!

Any person with powers represents a potential hazard, but if the democracy functions well - then the threat represented by a president is significantly lower as his position is not tied to his name in the same way that the position of a monarch is. In a future crisis, it would be easier for a monarch to put himself at thee helm, as he is a constant - 'always' been there and will 'always' be there, regardless. In a well-functioning democracy, a president would just have been one of many people appearing as adults, striving for the position.
Except monarchs are usually raised not to be like that, Presidents/Prime Ministers have to work for their position and the fragility of that position makes it more likely they will cheat to stay their. I don't want anyone "striving" to rule me, I'd rather have an apathetic ruler with good ministers. For illustration see Russia and Italy, compare with Spain and the UK.

It doesn't work, you see; the monarch is a bug in the system - just like any dictator would be. We make sacrifices to get the moral aspects of things right (though I don't think we are dealing with any major sacrifices here).
No, it works, it just doesn't sit comfortably with your idea of democracy. Without a King you might get Berlusconi, or worse Putin. Imagine if Tony Blair had been able to become "president", how much quicker would the UK have gone to War - and would there have been an investigation afterwards?