Are absolute monarchy and theocracy only irrational and senseless because we look at it with our own biases?

Robert165

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,266
North Georgia
I think the basic rule for judging any action or rule or law in any society should be: does this rule help or hurt the members of that society? If we are using that standard then we can remove any subjective or temporal "bias" from being an issue because you are judging the effects of that society against how it affects it's own members.

Therefor, stoning someone to death for adultery is wrong, because it harms someone whereas adultery may be objectionable it doesn't actually cause any real harm.

Planning to kill the head of state who is violent or tyrannical under these standards is morally correct action because the first rule is what is good for the society as a whole. Planning to kill the head of state who treats the subjects well, planning to kill the head of state in that situation simply because you want to be the new head of state and you take the crown by force, is wrong, and may very well be deserving of the death penalty.

For anyone to say that even this version of morality is subjective I would say that they are wrong. Humans are a pack/social creature. We function best by banding together and working together. It is a matter of biology, not philosophy.
 
Nov 2014
421
ph
Is something like Chinese or Byzantine autocracy or Islamic theocracy crazy and irrational only because we look at it from the perspective of modern liberal philosophy? But they actually make sense and are rational within their own philosophical worldview?
I think the basic rule for judging any action or rule or law in any society should be: does this rule help or hurt the members of that society? If we are using that standard then we can remove any subjective or temporal "bias" from being an issue because you are judging the effects of that society against how it affects it's own members.

Therefor, stoning someone to death for adultery is wrong, because it harms someone whereas adultery may be objectionable it doesn't actually cause any real harm.

Planning to kill the head of state who is violent or tyrannical under these standards is morally correct action because the first rule is what is good for the society as a whole. Planning to kill the head of state who treats the subjects well, planning to kill the head of state in that situation simply because you want to be the new head of state and you take the crown by force, is wrong, and may very well be deserving of the death penalty.

For anyone to say that even this version of morality is subjective I would say that they are wrong. Humans are a pack/social creature. We function best by banding together and working together. It is a matter of biology, not philosophy.
How do you define rule well, a monarch who plans to impose a state religion or religious preferences may be seen as bad by secularists but good by the religious majority, at which point your philosophical biases come into play. Like if the Shah decided to save his crown by going the Saudi route and proclaiming Iran to be an Islamic State run by shariah. And as for jailing for adultery or sodomy, it may make sense within the framework of a Confucian state, where the government assume the role of safeguarding the moral standards of the population.
 
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
There's no requirement for that to be the case. The Monarch's affairs is whatever they want it to be.
Monarch is the state. The state affairs are judicial, executive, and legislative. Judicial and executive are safety and security affairs. The legislative in addition to security and safety concerns includes taxation and spending.
 

Robert165

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,266
North Georgia
How do you define rule well, a monarch who plans to impose a state religion or religious preferences may be seen as bad by secularists but good by the religious majority, at which point your philosophical biases come into play. Like if the Shah decided to save his crown by going the Saudi route and proclaiming Iran to be an Islamic State run by shariah. And as for jailing for adultery, it may make sense within the framework of a Confucian state, where the government assume the role of safeguarding the moral standards of the population.
Rules would be defined by what does or does not cause harm:

1- Physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
2- Material damage.

Outlawing homosexuality, therefore, would cause no harm. It might be very objectionable to outlaw homosexuality but it would cause no harm. Stoning someone to death for a homosexual act however, would not be allowed, because stoning is an act that causes harm. What would be the penalty under such a system if homosexuality was outlawed and you needed to make a penalty? I don't know. But any form of physical punishment or violence could not be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
421
ph
Is something like Chinese or Byzantine autocracy or Islamic theocracy crazy and irrational only because we look at it from the perspective of modern liberal philosophy? But they actually make sense and are rational within their own philosophical worldview?
I think the basic rule for judging any action or rule or law in any society should be: does this rule help or hurt the members of that society? If we are using that standard then we can remove any subjective or temporal "bias" from being an issue because you are judging the effects of that society against how it affects it's own members.

Therefor, stoning someone to death for adultery is wrong, because it harms someone whereas adultery may be objectionable it doesn't actually cause any real harm.

Planning to kill the head of state who is violent or tyrannical under these standards is morally correct action because the first rule is what is good for the society as a whole. Planning to kill the head of state who treats the subjects well, planning to kill the head of state in that situation simply because you want to be the new head of state and you take the crown by force, is wrong, and may very well be deserving of the death penalty.

For anyone to say that even this version of morality is subjective I would say that they are wrong. Humans are a pack/social creature. We function best by banding together and working together. It is a matter of biology, not philosophy.
How do you define well, a monarch who plans to impose a state religion or religious preferences may be seen as bad by secularists but good by the religious majority, at which point your philosophical biases come into play. Like if the Shah decided to save his crown by going the Saudi route and proclaiming Iran to be an Islamic State run by shariah. And as for jailing for adultery, it may make sense within the framework of a Confucian state, where the government assume the role of safeguarding the moral standards of the population
Rules would be defined by what does or does not cause harm:

1- Physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
2- Material damage.

Outlawing homosexuality, therefore, would cause no harm. It might be very objectionable to outlaw homosexuality but it would cause no harm. Stoning someone to death for a homosexual act however, would not be allowed, because stoning is an act that causes harm. What would be the penalty under such a system if homosexuality was outlawed and you needed to make a penalty? I don't know. But any form of physical punishment or violence could not be allowed.
Isn't that a philosophical bias in of itself, as I said, what is or is not a good government depends on your philosophical framework, unless you are arguing on the basis of self evident rights. And not everybody agrees on metaphysical first principles, or even what good means.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,773
Monarch is the state. The state affairs are judicial, executive, and legislative. Judicial and executive are safety and security affairs. The legislative in addition to security and safety concerns includes taxation and spending.
you failing to come to grips with the concept of absolute monarchy. there are no limits to what are state affairs in an absolute monarchary, it's whatever the monarch says they are.
 

Robert165

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,266
North Georgia
Isn't that a philosophical bias in of itself, as I said, what is or is not a good government depends on your philosophical framework, unless you are arguing on the basis of self evident rights. And not everybody agrees on metaphysical first principles, or even what good means.
For anyone to say that even this version of morality (do no harm) is subjective I would say that they are wrong. Humans are a pack/social creature. We function best by banding together and working together. It is a matter of biology, not philosophy.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,362
Sydney
worked for two years in Libya in Homs on the coast between Tripoli and Misurata
I'm pretty sure ordinary Libyans looks upon Qaddafi rule with longing for the good old days
the fate of women was certainly far better , sending them to school was compulsory and enforced
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegreathoo
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
you failing to come to grips with the concept of absolute monarchy. there are no limits to what are state affairs in an absolute monarchy, it's whatever the monarch says they are.
No because a monarch is bound by the nature of his job. The nature of his job is to secure the realm, provide safety and collect income, just like every state ever did. If he does not do that, someone else will and he will no longer be a monarch.