Are morals derived from religion/God??

[borboski]

I think it's a real shame you won't answer my questions. Perhaps I have been a bit agressive, but I think this topic matters.

The only thing I can gather from that paragraph is that you say the "factors and conditions" of liberal democracy are not specific to democracy or any other political system. I don't understand how that statement could be true - if there isn't consensus about what liberal democracy is, e.g. its factors and conditions, then how can one discuss/compare/criticise it? I can only conclude that you use "factors and conditions" very loosely.

You then give a long list of the different ways in which one could have a discussion about liberal democracy. Well, of course - but would any of these ways lead to us concluding that living in a modern liberal democracy meant that you were less likely to access education, employment, live freely and securely without the threat of war or persecution from the state?

The relevance is your suggestion that for a century the West has lived without religious control and on the basis of human laws - if you really do think the sky is falling in, then you need to give some reasoned examples. "It's a mess" - that's what I mean by your seeming desperately fearful...

 

[KAding]

No I do not speak in relation of USA in particular. What I meant by the democratic dictatorship was that in democracy, all you do is elect whoever you want. After you have elected them, they will rule according to what they deem sound and will pass laws for you and you will have to obey them whether you like it or not. Yes you may not elect them another term but while they are elected you have no choice but to obey. You might say that it is possible to remove them from office by the vote of the other elected members and so on. Still the decision is theirs whether this is acceptable or not. So it is democracy in relation to the way how they are elected, but it is dictatorship in ruling although the dictatorship is a bit harsh only because when you say dictator immediately Stalin and others like him come to mind. But if you keep in mind that in a system where the individual/s dictate the rules of the game, then this is dictatorship whether shared or not shared. In this respect I say democratic dictatorship. I hope you grasp the point now.

This would be a parliamentary democracy. Every few years we elected a ruling class. Your description is inaccurate though, since almost all developed democracies are constitutional democracies. Your statement that the rulers 'will rule according to what they deem sound' is only true as long as they stay within the rules of the constitution. This constitution that can generally only be changed through a lenghty process requiring large majorities and usually spanning several elections. As such calling modern democracies 'dictatorial' is incorrect, since dictatorships by definition do not abide to a constitution or the rule of law in general. Modern democracy is not just about elections. It is also about the rule of law.

 

[KAding]

The system under which the USA currently operates is at best a 4 year dictatorship. Unlike the British or Canadian systems there is no such thing as a vote of non-confidence and there is no such thing as a minority government.

Well, that only because he has been directly elected. In the British and Canadian system the PM is not directly elected and thus does not have a mandate of the people. In Britain or Canada the parliament can also not be removed by a vote of no-confidence, because they were elected by the people, like the president.

It is interesting that you would refer to the US as a '4 year dictatorship' unlike Britain while it is in fact Britain that is generally considered the 'elected dictatorship'. After all, theoretically Bush cannot do as he pleases, he has to abide by the constitution. He cannot simply change how the state rules, grant himself more rights or in any other upset the formal balance of power. Compare that with the British system in which one party can a have large majority in parliament with only 40% of the popular vote. The party also strongly controls its members of parliament. Theoretically they can pass a law abolishing elections, they do not need a constitutional amendment to do so. The only reason this works in Britain is because of the strong sense of tradition and the strength of institutions and democratic values.

If there was Bush would not still be president, given his approval rating. Look at what is happening to Blair (from a more democratic country, but still not a true democracy) and compare. Public opinion carries more weight with the brits. Bush has even gone on record saying he doesn't care what the people say, he will "stay the course".

Once a president is in power he can do pretty much anything, as the current president has made quite clear. Even Bush was impeached he'd not be taken out of power before his term is up an he could order pretty much anything in the interim. That isn't democracy. That is a 4 year dictatorship - at best.

I say at best, because even then only the rich and well connected have any chance of winning the presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins the next election, the presidency will have be held by 2 familys for decades. And even Bush the first was tied to the hip of Reagan. When was the last president who came out of simple popular support and not the past power situation? How many of the presidents in history have NOT been born rich (very very few).

There is a two party system and if you don't have the support of one of those parties, forget about it - you can't even make use of the few votes you do get (like in a parliamentary system) - they count for nothing at all in an all or nothing system like the US's.

On top of that you've got the weird electoral thingie where the guy who gets the most votes to be president IS NOT always the one who gets to be president. That alone shows it to be not democratic.

And you are correct that the public has been so disenfranchised that they have for the most part given up. Voter turn out in US elections is shockingly low. Yet everybody maintains the illusion that the USA is a great democracy where the voice of the people is heard and determines the course of the nation. It simply doesn't. It is not often spoken, rarely heard, and almost never acted upon.

But the myth of the "Great Democracy" lives a life entirely of its own, quelling the people from serious complaint or uprising, and fuelling nationalism.

This is off-topic so I will just say: modern democracy is not a direct democracy.

 

[KAding]

So much talk about the "horrible things" that the religions offer and about the "broadmindedness" and "modernity" of the non religions option. How amazing that for at least one century (a little less) the world has had no religious control and the "human laws" derived from humans and not based on any religious laws have governed the west at least. Well, gues what. It is a mess. So to all you that shout so much against religions: What have you achieved? What have you brought to humanity as a whole? What did you do to make peoples life better? What has come out (and what is comming) from these new age generation? What have you got to offer?

Well, except for the obvious material wellbeing. Maybe happiness?

http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/hap_nat/findingreports/RankReport2006-1d.htm

AVERAGE HAPPINESS IN 95 NATIONS 1995-2005
How much people enjoy their life-as-a-whole on scale 0 to 10

[B]Nation			Satisfaction with life[/B]
Denmark			8,2
Switzerland		8,1
Colombia (5)	      8,1
Austria			8,0
Iceland			7,8
Finland			7,7
Sweden			7,7
Australia		7,7
Luxembourg		7,6
Guatemala (4)	     7,6
Mexico			7,6
Norway 			7,6
Ireland			7,6
Canada 			7,6
Netherlands		7,5
Malta			7.5
USA			7,4
Belgium			7,3
Germany			7.2
El Salvador		7,2
New Zealand		7,2
Britain			7,1
Honduras (4)	    7,1
Kuwait (4) 		7,0
Saudi Arabia	     7,0
Italy  			6,9
Spain			6,9
Cyprus			6,9
Brazil 			6,8
Venezuela		6,8
Argentina		6,8
Dominican Republic	6,8
Singapore		6,8
Uruguay			6,7
Israel			6,7
Slovenia		6,7
Chile			6,7
Indonesia		6,6
France			6,5
Philippines		6,4
Greece 			6,4
Nigeria			6,4
Czechia			6,4
China (1)		6,3
Uzbekistan (4)	     6,2
India			6,2
Japan  			6,2
Taiwan			6,2
Kyrgezigstan	       6,1
Vietnam			6,1
Portugal		6,0
Iran			6,0
Peru			6,0
Poland 			5,9
Croatia			5,9
Bolivia (4)		5,8
South-Korea		5,8
Bangladesh		5,7
Ivory Coast (4)	        5,7
Senegal (4)		5,7
Hungary			5,6
Morocco			5,6
Montenegro		5,5
Slovakia		5,5
South-Africa	       5,5
Lebanon (4)		5,3
Kenya (4)		5,2
Jordan			5,2
Algeria			5,2
Turkey 			5,2
Bosnia			5,1
Uganda			5,1
Estonia			5,1
Serbia			5,1
Romania			5,0
Macedonia		4,9
Mali (4)		4,9
Azerbaijan		4,9
Egypt			4,8
Ghana (4) 		4,8
Iraq			4,7
Latvia  		4,7
Lithuania		4,6
Albania			4,4
Russia 			4,4
Angola (4)		4,4
Pakistan		4,3
Bulgaria		4,2
Georgia			4,1
Belarus			4,0
Armenia			3,7
Ukraine			3,6
Moldova			3,5
Zimbabwe		3,3
Tanzania		3,2

 

[Sunnih]

I think it's a real shame you won't answer my questions. Perhaps I have been a bit agressive, but I think this topic matters.

The only thing I can gather from that paragraph is that you say the "factors and conditions" of liberal democracy are not specific to democracy or any other political system. I don't understand how that statement could be true - if there isn't consensus about what liberal democracy is, e.g. its factors and conditions, then how can one discuss/compare/criticise it? I can only conclude that you use "factors and conditions" very loosely.

You then give a long list of the different ways in which one could have a discussion about liberal democracy. Well, of course - but would any of these ways lead to us concluding that living in a modern liberal democracy meant that you were less likely to access education, employment, live freely and securely without the threat of war or persecution from the state?

The relevance is your suggestion that for a century the West has lived without religious control and on the basis of human laws - if you really do think the sky is falling in, then you need to give some reasoned examples. "It's a mess" - that's what I mean by your seeming desperately fearful...

Borboski. As I have said before most of what you ask has been clarified before and it does not matter what me or you will say on the topic as you will stay with your oppinion and I will stay with my oppinion. The main difference comes again at the belief in God. So until we agree in that we will never agree on what is connected to that. Therefore I see no benefit whatsoever to discuss any further on this topic. I might sound fearful? It may be so, but the situation is fearful too. Whatever the case, I can not waste more time on this topic. Thank you for your time.

 

[Sunnih]

This would be a parliamentary democracy. Every few years we elected a ruling class. Your description is inaccurate though, since almost all developed democracies are constitutional democracies. Your statement that the rulers 'will rule according to what they deem sound' is only true as long as they stay within the rules of the constitution. This constitution that can generally only be changed through a lenghty process requiring large majorities and usually spanning several elections. As such calling modern democracies 'dictatorial' is incorrect, since dictatorships by definition do not abide to a constitution or the rule of law in general. Modern democracy is not just about elections. It is also about the rule of law.

No. The dictatorshipsh have a constitution that they abide by but the constitution itself is biased and in their interest. Also you seem to forget that the constitution of the "Constitutional democracies" is also formulated and chosen by this "elected ruling class". Whatever the case the argument is the same as I have said before although as I said dictatorship is a bit harsh to use in the case of ruling within democracy. However, the underlying principle is the same. This is the point.

 

[Sunnih]

Well, except for the obvious material wellbeing. Maybe happiness?

http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/hap_nat/findingreports/RankReport2006-1d.htm

How about the list of crime and suicide from those same countries?! Oh, I forgot that most of the suicides are because of happiness!

Are you serious when you present those statistics? Who can verify such? It is no more than garbage just like the statistics of any dictatorship that will surpass anything you have brought in those statistics you have presented.

 

[wilberhum]

How about the list of crime and suicide from those same countries?! Oh, I forgot that most of the suicides are because of happiness!

Are you serious when you present those statistics? Who can verify such? It is no more than garbage just like the statistics of any dictatorship that will surpass anything you have brought in those statistics you have presented.

Sure he is serious. :thumbs_up I have seen several similar stats. Do you only reject them because you don’t like the results? :skeleton:

 

[Sunnih]

Sure he is serious. :thumbs_up I have seen several similar stats. Do you only reject them because you don’t like the results? :skeleton:

No. Just because statistics in general are a very wild guess. This one in specific is dreaming with your eyes wide open.

 

[wilberhum]

No. Just because statistics in general are a very wild guess. This one in specific is dreaming with your eyes wide open.

Then why don't you find some stats? :skeleton:

 

[Sunnih]

Then why don't you find some stats? :skeleton:

Because I do not believe in their authenticity and correctness. Otherwise I would bring you the opposite of what he brought. But I can not present to you what I myself do not believe even if it justifies my position.

 

[wilberhum]

Because I do not believe in their authenticity and correctness. Otherwise I would bring you the opposite of what he brought. But I can not present to you what I myself do not believe even if it justifies my position.

Well I ask the question;

Do you only reject them because you don’t like the results?

So I guess the answer would be YES!

 

[Sunnih]

Well I ask the question;

So I guess the answer would be YES!

No. Can you assure me that it is correct and that really at least the majority of people have answered whether they are happy or not? Just to believe that such is correct is madness. (Sorry no offence meant).

 

[Pygoscelis]

An interesting way to get rid of the ruling elite in a democracy would be to have some government officials be drafted instead of elected. Random draw. The implications of that (good and bad) are rarely discussed.

 

[KAding]

No. The dictatorshipsh have a constitution that they abide by but the constitution itself is biased and in their interest.

That is not the definition of 'dictatorship' generally used in the social sciences. Normally it is defined as control by a person or small group without any serious constitutional oversight. It usually means there is no independent judicial branch. Another problem with your approach is that it completely ignores the other branch in modern democracies, that of the legislative branch. The whole principle of separation of powers is non-existent in dictatorships. Since neither the legislative branch, nor the judicial branch are independent there are no real institutions that can check if the rulers are abiding by any kind of constitution. Same goes for the press, which is usually very restricted in dictatorships.

Some definitions of dictatorship:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dictatorship
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030347/dictatorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

Also you seem to forget that the constitution of the "Constitutional democracies" is also formulated and chosen by this "elected ruling class".

Thats why I said the process of constitutional change is lengthy and complex. In almost all countries it requires at the very minimum fresh elections and thus a fresh parliament. Any rulers wanting to change the constitution will have to face the electorate before their changes can become law. So they are very much restricted in their actions. Formally, a ruler can't grant himself more powers based on a one-time popular mandate alone without first facing the 'will of the people'.

Whatever the case the argument is the same as I have said before although as I said dictatorship is a bit harsh to use in the case of ruling within democracy. However, the underlying principle is the same. This is the point.

It is not correct though. There is no opposition in a dictatorship, there is no independent judiciary, there is no free press, no right to demonstrate, no right to create political parties, there is no independent legislative branch. All these factors, which are as much considered a core of modern liberal democracy as elections, fundamentally change the dynamics of rule. Dictators are simply not restricted in such ways.

 

[KAding]

How about the list of crime and suicide from those same countries?! Oh, I forgot that most of the suicides are because of happiness!

Suicides are IMHO not a valid indicator for measuring the average happiness among a population. Suicide is clearly a cultural phenomenon, it is more accepted in some cultures and a taboo in others. And lets not forget that there are hardly any mental health doctors in the developing world, so there are few to actually diagnose it.

Are you serious when you present those statistics? Who can verify such? It is no more than garbage just like the statistics of any dictatorship that will surpass anything you have brought in those statistics you have presented.

Of course I take the statistic with a grain of salt, but it certainly can't be dismissed that easily. How can it be verified? I would say, read the research paper and the methodology they used. I'll quote a bit from the FAQ from the studies website:

Definition of happiness:
Happiness is defined as 'the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of her/his life as-a-whole favorably'. In other words: how much s/he likes the life he leads.

Can happiness be measured?
Thus defined, happiness is something that we have in mind and that can be measured by questioning. The affective component of happiness (hedonic level of affect) can also be measured using non-verbal indications.

Can I trust self-reports of happiness?
Like any self-reports, self-reports of happiness are liable to various distortions. Still these distortions appear to be modest. Research has shown reasonable validity and reliability. The literature on this matter can be found in section 2 of the Bibliography of Happiness and a good review papers is Ed Diener’s. ‘Assessing Subjective Well-Being: Progress and Opportunities’ in Social Indicators Research, 1994, Vol. 31, 103 - 157

So this is the measure of self-reported happiness. A simple question. "Are you happy?". Of course there are cultural issues with this, perhaps in some cultures there is a certain stigma attached to saying you are unhappy? But still, I think it is a fair indicator. You want to dismiss all statistics (except oddly enough those of rape and suicide apparently), but what is the alternative really? Anecdotal evidence? Gut feeling? You'll be hard pressed to use in-depth qualitative research methods and be able to compare countries as a whole. Whatever you want to say against statistics, they perform reasonably well when predicting elections, so on what grounds can you so easily reject them when people are asked if they are satisfied with their lives?

And as a final teaser:

Does happiness decline in modern society?
No, happiness is on the rise. Not only has average happiness risen somewhat over the last 30 years, but due to rising longevity the number of happy life years has increased spectacularly. A recent paper is ‘Rising happiness in nations 1946-2004. By Ruut Veenhoven and Michael Hagerty, in Social Indicators Research, 2006, vol. 77, 1-16.More literature can be found in the Bibliography of Happiness, section 5a2 on Trends in happiness

 

[Trumble]

Theoretically they can pass a law abolishing elections, they do not need a constitutional amendment to do so. The only reason this works in Britain is because of the strong sense of tradition and the strength of institutions and democratic values.

Not quite true. They could pass such a law in the House, but it would only become law if the monarch, as Head of State, consents to it. How much of a safeguard that would be is questionable, of course. In practice royal consent is just window dressing today but in the case of the sort of changes you suggest it might well not be.

Otherwise I would bring you the opposite of what he brought.

You can't measure 'happiness' reliably, of course, but if the stats are based on 'quality of life', perceptions of quality of life or general contentment the figures are pretty much what I would expect and are certainly not just a "very wild guess". It's particularly significant that places like Switzerland, Finland, Denmark and Austria (rather than the US, UK, France, etc) are at the top; those countries consistently place top in such surveys and anyone who has visited them will understand why. The only one that looks odd to me is Columbia, but then I've never been there so can't really comment.

If you are claiming that somehow folks in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Iraq, Serbia, Macedonia etc are actually much 'happier' than those in the countries I listed above I think it's up to you to produce something to back it up.

 

[KAding]

No. Can you assure me that it is correct and that really at least the majority of people have answered whether they are happy or not? Just to believe that such is correct is madness. (Sorry no offence meant).

Assurances? These figures are the result of scientific research on happiness. If you want details and 'assurances' read the website, or even better, read the scientific papers that form the basis for these figures I posted:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/keyliterature.htm

Website:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/

 

[ranma1/2]

Lets get off the politics discussion and stay on topic if possible.

 

[wilberhum]

Lets get off the politics discussion and stay on topic if possible.

:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up
This morning on CNN I heard that there is some scientific evidence that morals evolved. I have looked for supporting evidence, but I haven't found any.

But it makes sense. If your group has morals, your chance of survival is increased.