Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
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.
That is though to dodge the question. You will need to make a circular argument at some point, argumenting like you do, because moral needs to start somewhere - a few things are the building blocks from whom every other moral conclusion must come from. If I say something is wrong, then it simply is. What is wrong and what is right varies from culture to culture. If I, on the other hand, claimed that it was wrong because it collided with some already established moral idea, then I would naturally have to argue my case.

There is not, nor has their ever been, a purely secular moral argument - the closest are the Deistic arguments.
Yet any religious argument starts with a secular one:

Conclusion: a god does exist
Question: is what this god says is right and wrong, actually what is right and wrong?

That a god can be a source for moral is not at all self-evident. Maybe it is the righteous people that go to hell, that is the price for being righteous - whereas those who take the easy path and spend the eternity in paradise are the morally corrupt people.


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!
Who is the president of Germany? I have really no idea. Berlusconi is the PM, not the president.

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 chea to stay their.
That's what we have the rest of the system for. You need to demonstrate how one probability is bigger than the other.

Neither PMs nor presidents are raised to be dictators either, so your point is moot. Monarchs, on the other hand, are raised to be at the top of society.

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.
What is your beef with countries like Finland or Iceland? Germany? You ought to be careful when drawing conclusions on an entire range of ways to have a country ruled, from individual countries. Compare Finland and Saudi Arabia instead and see what you get. QED!

I do not want anyone to rule me at all - monarchs and presidents alike - but alas, that seems unrealistic.

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?
What works and what does not is a matter of definition. We could pick 100 random and innoccent inhabitants and subject them to torture and maiming in order to make the general populatoin considerably happier. Some would say that it works, others would say that it doesn't.

The president that I want is a toothless and ceremonial one - someone whose name is unknown to large portions of the society, simply because he is someone of little importance.