Enough Already with the Experiments - Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Non. I am not saying that every moral view is equally correct - what I am saying is that the whole notion of 'correct morals' is flawed; in the objective sense, that is.

I am not interested in utility at all. What is wrong and what is right in my view, does not depend on the society. I have an absolute view of morality, morality that is not objective. It makes no more sense to talk about objective morals than an objective taste in foods (what tastes 'good' and what tastes 'bad').

The difference between food and morals should be obvious: taste in foods is foremost a private matter whereas morals mainly involve other people. While taste may largely be genetically coded, morals are to a less extent and may thus be debated and/or shared.

You personally may find such a view on morals problematic, but it still represents morality. A subjective perception may be shared by everyone on the planet, but it is still not objective. This means that subjective morals may be applied universally and with consistency.

Many people might agree that respect for the individ is important, and so do I - but as with any other moral idea, I consider it to be subjective. Subjective, yet something for every society.





Well, I do not intend to debate this topic as there is not much to add to it. The reason why I brought it up is indeed to demonstrate that any chain of arguments must start with secular logic. Any religious logic is a consequence of a secular one.

So, consensus morality.

So how is Norway being a monarchy "terribly wrong", by your own argument it is just your opinion.

[Tellos Athenaios]

See, I just interpret that as some cultures being less moral.

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.

It's also a truism that all systems have bugs and if you work to iron out the bugs of something but keep the improvements of the features, you get something better. So Norway would end up even better than it is now by ditching the monarchy: a bug in the working system that is Norway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's also a truism that all systems have bugs and if you work to iron out the bugs of something but keep the improvements of the features, you get something better. So Norway would end up even better than it is now by ditching the monarchy: a bug in the working system that is Norway.

Ah, but here's the rub, is the King a bug, or the lynchpin of the system?

[edyzmedieval]

I'm a monarchist and always have been. Monarchy, at least for my country, brought stability and development far beyond than many people would have imagined.

Unfortunately, all of the advances the monarchy has done in Romania has been annulled by the communist regime following soon afterwards.

[gaelic cowboy]

Ah, but here's the rub, is the King a bug, or the lynchpin of the system?

Any monarchy is basically a closed system if that system requires a lynchpin to stay closed then it is inherently unstable once the pin is removed the system collapses.

far better to design an open system at least it would fail safe

[Viking]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are using the terms in an inappropriate manner. Any idea is a 'personal affective', in the end.

Only if you refuse an objective morality.

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.

So, to summerise, in your personal opinion a King is a flaw. That's not a moral argument, it's exactly what I said it was in the beginning, a vague personal distaste.

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 lots of conflicting moralities. Not better. Consesus morality is how we generally run our legal systems, it's why after hundreds of years we have decriminalised homosexuality, because the consensus changed. It has to be underpinned with something else though.

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.

I think you're still in a relativistic trap. None of your arguments apply to Norway, because Norway is one of the best governed nations in Europe - with a King. One could turn it on its head and say that the real injustice is done to the Norwegian King, who must bear the weight of a whole country simply by unfortunate accident of birth.

[Viking]

Only if you refuse an objective morality.

Which I do. So where does that leave your argument, exactly?

So, to summerise, in your personal opinion a King is a flaw. That's not a moral argument, it's exactly what I said it was in the beginning, a vague personal distaste.

Per above, you have not refuted anything. You use your own unproven assumption to prove something.

So lots of conflicting moralities. Not better. Consesus morality is how we generally run our legal systems, it's why after hundreds of years we have decriminalised homosexuality, because the consensus changed. It has to be underpinned with something else though.

Reaching consensus on laws is a different matter from reaching consensus on morals. It could be deemed necessary to agree with a law despite its moral implications (no law at all could be a greater disaster). Furthermore, of course, even if you believe an act is immoral, it does not follow that you support the idea of it being banned.

I think you're still in a relativistic trap. None of your arguments apply to Norway, because Norway is one of the best governed nations in Europe - with a King.

I'll be more specific: the outcome of the system as a whole works. The outcome for the majority in Nazi-Germany worked well too, before things went downhill. However, none of this tells us anything about whether it is right to have a monarch, or whether Hitler was the right sort of leader.

If this particular position in society is to work properly from my point of view, the relevant person cannot be born into his position.

One could say that the rule of the people was to be a part of the desired outcome. From this point of view, the monarch is a flaw because he represents the opposite - rule of bloodline.

One could turn it on its head and say that the real injustice is done to the Norwegian King, who must bear the weight of a whole country simply by unfortunate accident ofis forcing him.

That as well. Nobody is forcing him though, one should add.