Why abolish monarchies? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 10, 2024, 12:37:51 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Why abolish monarchies? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why abolish monarchies?  (Read 2491 times)
Lord Halifax
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,312
Papua New Guinea


« on: August 30, 2021, 05:55:32 PM »


Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.


Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

I guess that's a semantic argument. I don't really see a meaningful philosophical difference between bad and evil - they're both antonyms of good, just one with a slightly stronger connotation. But if we agree that it's bad, that's fair enough.

Evil is an absolute term, bad is a relative. That's definitely a meaningful philosophical difference.
Logged
Lord Halifax
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,312
Papua New Guinea


« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2021, 05:10:21 AM »
« Edited: September 01, 2021, 05:33:02 AM by Lord Halifax »


Wouldn't go quite that far tbh.

Even in the days of absolutism, there were genuinely good kings/queens.

Systems can be evil even if the people within it are good. Any leftist should be well aware of that.

Meh, there are good systems and bad systems - any sort of monarchy other than the totally tokenistic kind is almost always the latter - but "evil" is a term more applicable to actual humans IMO.

I guess that's a semantic argument. I don't really see a meaningful philosophical difference between bad and evil - they're both antonyms of good, just one with a slightly stronger connotation. But if we agree that it's bad, that's fair enough.

Evil is an absolute term, bad is a relative. That's definitely a meaningful philosophical difference.

I don't know what these words are really supposed to mean. On a purely grammatical sense, "bad" is not relative - the relative form is "worse". On a philosophical level, if you view evil as a deviation from / absence of good, then it is in a sense also relative, since it's only defined in relation to good. Either way, I don't see a particular instance of something that could be bad but not evil or vice versa.

Things and people can be more or less bad, only humans can be evil and if they are that's an absolute term. "Sarah is a good person" doesn't mean she has no character flaws, while "Sarah is evil" doesn't leave room for any mitigating circumstances about her character or personality (you can't say "Sarah is an evil woman, but she does have a great sense of humor", once you've characterized her as evil, that's it, she can still be intelligent, good-looking, good at tennis and have other objective features, but you've used an absolute term about her character that can't subsequently be nuanced, whereas you can say e.g. "Ben was a bad man who hurt a lot of women, but he did love his children").  

It's similar to a color being various shades of grey compared to black. You can't be more or less black. In the same way as black is a color which results from the absence (or complete absorption) of visible light, evil implies the absence of any traces of empathy, goodness or mitigating circumstances. Evil is a much stronger and more explicit term than good, which has a broader meaning and is usually used in a relative meaning.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 12 queries.