Is a monarchy a moral system of government if...

[an anarchist]

... the king is a moral man?
Does democracy require its citizens to be moral in order for it to be a moral system of government? If the citizens are immoral, how can a democratic system be moral?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

You are correct.

We, in the US, discovered the last 5 years, that an immoral citizenry, can actually bring an immoral person into leadership.

The citizens get what the majority wants.

 

[Rival]

I think there's no such thing as a moral system of government. Any and all institutions are corruptible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think there's no such thing as a moral system of government. Any and all institutions are corruptible.

Yep, agree with this.
The nature of the corruption and risks can vary between systems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... the king is a moral man?

There's no such thing as a moral king.

Legitimacy of a government comes from a mandate from the people. Monarchy denies this mandate, which is immoral, IMO.

 

[Heyo]

There's no such thing as a moral king.

Legitimacy of a government comes from a mandate from the people. Monarchy denies this mandate, which is immoral, IMO.

What about a monarchy where the king is elected?

 

[Heyo]

... the king is a moral man?
Does democracy require its citizens to be moral in order for it to be a moral system of government? If the citizens are immoral, how can a democratic system be moral?

There is no such thing as a moral person or moral institution. Only actions are moral (or not).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about a monarchy where the king is elected?

Elected and then keeps the office for life? You're still denying the people their right.

Elected from some limited group of aristocrats? That's also a problem for other reasons.

Elected for a short term, and anyone is eligible to run for the office? I wouldn't call that a monarchy.

 

[Heyo]

Elected and then keeps the office for life? You're still denying the people their right.

Elected and then keeps the office for four years? You're still denying the people their right for 3 years, 11 months and 29 days.

Elected from some limited group of aristocrats? That's also a problem for other reasons.

Elected for a short term, and anyone is eligible to run for the office? I wouldn't call that a monarchy.

And what about constitutional monarchies like in the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium etc?

No, I think it is useful to keep to the principle that only actions can be (im)moral.

 

[Meow Mix]

I am reminded of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who was the first to march an army on Rome. He took absolute power with the intent of reforming the Senate (such as doubling its members) and ironically tried to use the office of Dictator to reduce the chances of a future tyrant.

When he was finished, he abdicated absolute power and walked unprotected, offering to give any Roman citizen an account of his actions.

(I mean, he also murdered a bunch of political opposition though, with the exception of a young Julius Caesar -- whoops)

I think in theory a king or queen could perform the duties of office with the people's best interests in mind (but who defines that?). But monarchy is a terrible system because even if you get a philosopher-monarch, you're probably not going to get a good successor and it will eventually (or probably quickly) go to the dogs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

... the king is a moral man?
Does democracy require its citizens to be moral in order for it to be a moral system of government? If the citizens are immoral, how can a democratic system be moral?

First of all, you ask about monarchy, but then you mention democratic.
They are different, you know.

 

[Brickjectivity]

... the king is a moral man?
Does democracy require its citizens to be moral in order for it to be a moral system of government? If the citizens are immoral, how can a democratic system be moral?

No government is moral. Ideally we should be able to live without any, but what is moral is noot yet practical. You might say we are choose one evil over another.

 

[viole]

... the king is a moral man?

Our king is not so moral, if we consider affairs with other women immoral.

However, his main job is to look regal when presenting Nobel medals, and try not to fall from a horse.

Ciao

- viole

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Elected and then keeps the office for four years? You're still denying the people their right for 3 years, 11 months and 29 days.

And what about constitutional monarchies like in the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium etc?

No, I think it is useful to keep to the principle that only actions can be (im)moral.

Ugh...

Our technical head of government is the Queen of England.
Perhaps calling an institution or structure 'immoral' is not factually accurate. However it's an apt description about how I feel about the arrangement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Elected and then keeps the office for four years? You're still denying the people their right for 3 years, 11 months and 29 days.

I don't think that any system of government should only consult with the people on election day.

Regardless, I'd say that if there are signs that the people have had a strong change of heart since the last election, elected officials are duty-bound to take this into account (such as by dissolving Parliament and holding a new election).

When you elect a monarch for life, you not only have the problem that people can sometimes change their minds; you're also dealing with a largely different group of people. After, say, 20 or 30 years, the electorate will include many people who weren't of voting age (or maybe weren't even born) when the king was elected.

And what about constitutional monarchies like in the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium etc?

They're something less than full democracies, and all deny the rights of their citizens to some degree. How much they do this depends on the specifics of each country's system.

No, I think it is useful to keep to the principle that only actions can be (im)moral.

I never said anything different. My point is that a monarchy isn't a monarchy unless certain actions happen... i.e. denial in some form of the right of the people to choose their government.

I'm saying that the actions that are necessary for a monarchy to exist and perpetuate itself are immoral.

 

[Kooky]

In my humble opinion, the only truly moral system of government is one that works without oppression. I frankly wouldn't care who wears fancy hats or holds speeches, as long as their government is one that is based on the mutual consensus of all its people.

Factually, that seems to be almost never the case for monarchies, which tend to based even more on authoritarian beliefs and oppressive practices than many other forms of government.