Queen to abdicate?

Phil_aka_Pip

@ICBM @Gassage @digitalscream Sir Thomas More was right: read Utopia

Phil_aka_Pip

digitalscream said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

except that absolute power corrupts absolutely so your 50% probability of a single dictator being fair is IMO a bit optimistic.

That would be fine, were it an actual fact rather than an oft-repeated soundbite

I think it is both

Nitefly

Phil the Greek is my hero.  And he's escaped the dead pool for another year!

CabbageCat

VimFuego said:

EDIT: in reply to catty.

well, the problem is (and this is in danger of getting a bit meta conversation) there is no right or wrong, only what we generally agree is right or wrong. If I eat a steak, most people would agree that is not wrong. If I eat a steak made from human, most people would agree that is wrong. However cannibalism, in a state of nature, it is neither right nor wrong, it just is. it is only our perceptions that make something wrong (well, unless you're the one being eaten, I guess for them it is always wrong).

I 100% agree. And I'm sure you can therefore see why the statement, "Some systems are inherently more moral than others" causes the little question marks to appear over my head.

VimFuego

I think this is one of these things we'll just have to disagree on. To me, morals are made up and political systems are made up. Some political systems are just more conducive to supporting the behaviour that we regard as either more or less moral. So, and at the risk of doing a Godwin, Hitler killing all them people in the camps wasn't inherently immoral, it is only immoral cos most people deem it to be. He would have been far less likely to achieve the sort of power needed to do what he did in an open and transparent system.

I accept that it is not the system itself that is either more or less moral, as the system is no more capable than a suspension bridge of exhibiting behaviour of any sort, however but I think it's clear that what I meant was that some systems are more likely to nurture good morals or more moral people than others, even if it isn't the system itself that is moral. And this goes back to my initial point (that morality is a sliding scale and not an absolute, it is possible to be more moral or less moral), that some systems are more moral (or, if you prefer, more likely to ensure moral behaviour) than others.

dafuzz

 

TTony said:

dafuzz said:

but they should have to work for their money (no, travelling the world getting entertained by dignitaries is not work,

Oh, it absolutely is.

Bloody hard work.

I used to think that people at work who were forever jetting off to different places for meetings, presentations, conferences (etc) were really lucky - what a life!  And then I got to do it for a while, and it's shit.  You're forever jet-lagged, trying to sleep on planes, and eating shit airline food.  You get to see the inside of an airport, a taxi, the hotel, another taxi, an office, a taxi, the airport with little chance of seeing anything of the country you're actually in.  And when you get back to the office, no-one else has done your work for you as they all think you're off on a jolly and they resent you for it.

The royals have to do it whilst smiling, trying to engage in polite and informed conversation with people that I'm sure even they would rather not be anywhere near, without any chance of going on a bar crawl when the meeting's over.  Because the meeting is never over for them.

And, to finish it off, everywhere smells of paint.

Whatever else people say/think about the royal family, what they do is definitely work.

I've done it too and I tell you it's fucking great, am hoping to land a new job doing exactly that again and can't wait. But what on earth makes you think the experience of you and I travelling for work is in any way comparable to that of them? I imagine the ordeal is made immeasurably less gruelling when you have an army of lackeys to book everything, carry your luggage for you, basically make all the arrangements and ferry you around without you having to stress about finding luggage, missing connecting flights, endless queues and all that stuff. Also: who's asking them to do all this shit? Not me. I'd rather they stayed home and distributed soup to the homeless.

I don't follow your argument at all. As I said I like the idea of them, but am fed up paying for this nonsense when they could be just as good a tourist pull (probably better) if they sat at Buckingham Palace all day and waved at tourists through the window. And the arrogance of the fuckers! The reason their 'job' is hard is because they have no goals and nothing to strive for, not because their lives are intrinsically difficult or exhausting.

I like Stavros and Hewitt Jnr though I must admit. They should have more japes really, they all should. Turn them into a reality show like the Osbournes. Syndicate it across the world - that'd pay for them. The Only Way Is Windsor

chillidoggy

In my view, morals change over time with people's perceptions, fashions, and behaviour. What was regarded as totally immoral in the 1930's may not be so these days (I'd cite homosexuality as just one example).

Who decides what's morally right? You do as an individual. And those views will naturally differ from person to person. Clearly there are some things upon which the vast majority of us agree with from a moral stance, and conversely some things upon which we don't, but that's the human race for you. 

A moral is a perception, a view of a standard of human behaviour which is not fixed, it is a personal belief issue. We can all get caught up in the kind of moral outrage promoted by Twitter, and the media networks, but ultimately it boils down to what you feel as an individual.

Actually, I do not believe the Queen will choose to abdicate. 

FX_Munkee

@Sambostar is Prince Philip and I claim my £5.

frankus

Gassage said:

I want to be clear on this.

I support equality and equal opportunity.

So, if the royal family were elected, I'd support it.

Okay, so here's the ballot sheet:

• Over-privileged ex public-schoolboy
  
• Another over-privileged ex public-schoolboy
• An ex public-schoolboy who was pretty privileged
• An ex public-schoolboy who thinks the whole concept of privilege is specious.
  

Question is, are we electing royals, the house of "commons", BAFTA winners, BRIT Awards, the chairman of a bank, the board of trustees for the BBC, the directors of OFCOM etc?

It's a tough decision isn't it?

Fretwired

frankus said:

Gassage said:

I want to be clear on this.

I support equality and equal opportunity.

So, if the royal family were elected, I'd support it.

Okay, so here's the ballot sheet:

• Over-privileged ex public-schoolboy
  
• Another over-privileged ex public-schoolboy
• An ex public-schoolboy who was pretty privileged
• An ex public-schoolboy who thinks the whole concept of privilege is specious.
  

Question is, are we electing royals, the house of "commons", BAFTA winners, BRIT Awards, the chairman of a bank, the board of trustees for the BBC, the directors of OFCOM etc?

It's a tough decision isn't it?

Sums it up :-)