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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because you define what's meaningful?

Subjective morals do not equal personal morals. If objective morals did exist, they could be personal; but they did not have to be right - they could be objectively irrelevant or objectively wrong.. Subjective vs. objective is characterising morals and moral judgements as a whole.

The right and wrong of subjective morals is meaningful because it gives the sort of guidance that morals is supposed to give. Even if objective morals did exist, one would never manage to agree on how they should be practised and what to do when they seemingly contradict - meaning that the notion of right and wrong has big problems right from the start. If one cannot agree universally on what is right and wrong, then the fact that morals were objective would be nothing but a fun fact. No human could possibly know whether or not it was acting according to the right set of morals.

Nope, still not getting it.

Objective: Something which is not dependant on the perspective of the subject (me) and therefore is always "true". I shall not consider "false" statements becase they are merely the antithesis of true ones.

Subjective: Something which is so from the subjective's perspective but not universally so, and therfore not actually "true" but merely appears to be so/approximates truth.

So, my understandin of morality is the division between right and wrong, which is universally applicable in every instance and is built into the fabric of the universe, it is not objective. Ergo, what is Right or True in one instance is also Right or True in every other instance without excpetion.

What you are talking about is not morality, but subjective utility, this is basically Sophistry. The idea is that "these morals are benificial for this society, therefore they are 'good'". The problem with that model is that one can only interrogate a society on its own terms, and the question of whether the society itself is bad never comes up. This is where multiculturalism has run aground, trying to give equal weight to every cultural view and then just unravelling in a mess.

None of this is morality.

And what we have is uncertainty, so that is what we have to work with. Chosing to ignore this uncertainty may only ever be done through secular logic. Any non-secular logic depends on secular logic in this fashion - it relies on the fact that you can trust yourself and your observations. Descartes tried to save himself from this question, but his attempt fails ("I think, therefore I am" - but of course, Descartes could be a long chain of different identities highly similar. But I digress.).

Yes, it is "wild" speculations. Yet, what I talk about could be true regarldess of how "wild" people of this time would consider it. So, if one is actually to get some sense of overview on things, one must account for all possibilties. These possibilites could have a real impact on daily life, both directly and indirectly - only assessing them may tell. The indirect impact in this case, is to weaken the idea of religious logic as somehow independent of secular logic.

I recently read in the Guardian an article that argued that this universe was probably created to be ergonomic for the creation of life by people in another universe, and that this explained the habitablity of our universe. Further, it was argued that this was more likely than a divine creator because once a sentient lifeform existed in one universe it would create other habitable universes, and then others would be created...... etc.

This ignored three points.

1. That we might be the "first" universe.

2. That this still doesn't explain the existence of a first universe, even if it isn't us.

3. That this whole speculation is based on something we think we "might" be able to do.

In other words, it's about as likely, if not less so, than a Divine Creator.

Wild speculation based on that sort of "evidence" is significantly beyond the realms of all but the wackiest theology.

So, as I said, we have one universe to work with, making wild suppositions about other universes that may or may not exist, and which we will never visit, is just an exercise in intellectual vanity. It is considerably less useful in my view than the discussion we are having now.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Morals depend heavily on culture, and cultures often have conflicting views of what is immoral. To me that alone suggests there is no such thing as an objective morality which is somehow inherent in the universe.

Anyway, according to physics what we will very probably end up with after we've all been incinerated by the Sun or frozen to death for lack of light if we keep managing to avoid incineration is the utter destruction of the universe into loose photons so far apart from each other that there's no putting them back together.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Morals depend heavily on culture, and cultures often have conflicting views of what is immoral. To me that alone suggests there is no such thing as an objective morality which is somehow inherent in the universe.

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.

[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]

Nope, still not getting it.

Objective: Something which is not dependant on the perspective of the subject (me) and therefore is always "true". I shall not consider "false" statements becase they are merely the antithesis of true ones.

Subjective: Something which is so from the subjective's perspective but not universally so, and therfore not actually "true" but merely appears to be so/approximates truth.

So, my understandin of morality is the division between right and wrong, which is universally applicable in every instance and is built into the fabric of the universe, it is not objective. Ergo, what is Right or True in one instance is also Right or True in every other instance without excpetion.

What you are talking about is not morality, but subjective utility, this is basically Sophistry. The idea is that "these morals are benificial for this society, therefore they are 'good'". The problem with that model is that one can only interrogate a society on its own terms, and the question of whether the society itself is bad never comes up. This is where multiculturalism has run aground, trying to give equal weight to every cultural view and then just unravelling in a mess.

None of this is morality.

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.

I recently read in the Guardian an article that argued that this universe was probably created to be ergonomic for the creation of life by people in another universe, and that this explained the habitablity of our universe. Further, it was argued that this was more likely than a divine creator because once a sentient lifeform existed in one universe it would create other habitable universes, and then others would be created...... etc.

This ignored three points.

1. That we might be the "first" universe.

2. That this still doesn't explain the existence of a first universe, even if it isn't us.

3. That this whole speculation is based on something we think we "might" be able to do.

In other words, it's about as likely, if not less so, than a Divine Creator.

Wild speculation based on that sort of "evidence" is significantly beyond the realms of all but the wackiest theology.

So, as I said, we have one universe to work with, making wild suppositions about other universes that may or may not exist, and which we will never visit, is just an exercise in intellectual vanity. It is considerably less useful in my view than the discussion we are having now.

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.

[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.

[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.