Devil's advocate..

[The Grand Nudger]

Genkaus introduced that third criteria as something he thought I was implying, from which he tried to argue that it could serve as a wedge to differentiate between better and worse political systems. I don't accept that as a necessary metric.

I read the same thing. I didn't see him call it a necessary metric, just one that your comments would imply - one that would appear to be amenable to you. Try the inversion (of multiple parts), would a government that acted in the absence of any clear method of determining something be better, to you? A government that did not act in the presence of a method of making clear determinations?

The opinion you expressed seemed to be important to you when considering the matter at hand, would it not also be important to any government amenable to you considering the same subject? It hardly seems arbitrary...it seems like it's based on your well reasoned opinions on the matter.

(I would have made a challenge on different grounds - the difference between right and wrong as originally expressed in the question, and right and wrong as it pertains to how something "fits" a persons opinions or stated views, or the implications of the same)

[Angrboda]

Genkaus introduced that third criteria as something he thought I was implying, from which he tried to argue that it could serve as a wedge to differentiate between better and worse political systems. I don't accept that as a necessary metric.

I read the same thing. I didn't see him call it a necessary metric, just one that your comments would imply - one that would appear to be amenable to you. Try the inversion (of multiple parts), would a government that acted in the absence of any clear method of determining something be better, to you? A government that did not act in the presence of a method of making clear determinations?

The opinion you expressed seemed to be important to you when considering the matter at hand, would it not also be important to any government amenable to you considering the same subject?

I think you've gone off the rails. I made no such implication. The rest is obiter dictum about genkaus' reasoning based on the assumption that I had. I think his point, if he would ever get to it is that western political systems impose less on their citizens than Sharia based theocracies, thus western based systems are better. That I can't agree with for the reasons stated. The OP introduced the question, I believe, to be which system is more morally right than the other, though there is some ambiguity in his phrasing. To which I would submit I haven't seen a well reasoned argument to indicate that one is more morally right than the other. Genkaus took an earlier stab at it which I demurred to opine upon.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I don't know if I could agree to that either. Both systems impose a great deal.

[genkaus]

I gave no such condition. The condition you propose is a completely separate question from whether one system is more morally right than another.

I thought that condition was implied by your statement that you share western values. Also, the condition I propose relates to the moral rightness of a system at political level.

The only absolute moral law which I would acknowledge offhand is that might makes right.

That would make my argument much easier - the secular countries are more powerful, therefore their value system is more right.

Furthermore, you cannot examine the value of one maxim in isolation from the whole.

I'm not - I'm taking its value for granted based on an assumption of agreement. Sorry for that.

And while I would agree that political right and moral right are related, you can't simply juxtapose one upon the other and hope for it always to apply.

I thought we were talking about the moral rightness of a political system - meaning the moral was already juxtaposed upon political within this discussion.

And finally, all political systems impose themselves arbitrarily on those who are governed, so there is no such unimposing system to turn to for relief; you have erected a utopian alternative which does not exist save for those places where anarchy rules, and not even then.

What do you mean "arbitrarily"? The way I see it, the impositions of most secular systems are with just cause and in line with the purpose served by the political system.

---

Genkaus introduced that third criteria as something he thought I was implying, from which he tried to argue that it could serve as a wedge to differentiate between better and worse political systems. I don't accept that as a necessary metric. Where and when it might serve as one depends on a lot of things. It's not an arbitrary standard that I would endorse as an absolute law. Moreover, the only political system in which it applies absolutely seems to be one that neither exists in a pure form, nor seems to be a very effective political system where it approximates it.

I didn't posit it as a necessary metric or an absolute law - I used it a thumb-rule which I thought would be agreed upon by both.

There is the political platitude that the government which governs least, governs best. I think this is ultimately where Genkaus was headed. However the government that governs the least is no government at all. I think the implied meaning of this platitude is that the government which does the least beyond that which it necessarily should do, governs best. So the best government is one that does the least without sacrificing any essential goods. And that leads us back to the horn of the dilemma, as what are essential goods is a matter of values. And that brings us right back to where we started from.

Are essential goods a matter of arbitrarily chosen values? The implication I drew - that "it is wrong to impose one system over another" - wasn't because we share the arbitrary value system A.

A lot of values are religious and/or cultural and therefore arbitrarily chosen. But some are universal and characteristic of human beings. Freedom or autonomy is one such essential good that is not reliant on the value system.

---

That I can't agree with for the reasons stated. The OP introduced the question, I believe, to be which system is more morally right than the other, though there is some ambiguity in his phrasing. To which I would submit I haven't seen a well reasoned argument to indicate that one is more morally right than the other. Genkaus took an earlier stab at it which I demurred to opine upon.

The reason being that you don't accept my assumed metric.

The puzzle you were trying to solve was deciding between the moral rightness of two systems - and to solve that you need some standard or rule to judge moral rightness. I made an assumption regarding what rule would be accepted by both parties - but if that is not acceptable, then state your criteria and I'll make another attempt.

[Angrboda]

The puzzle you were trying to solve was deciding between the moral rightness of two systems - and to solve that you need some standard or rule to judge moral rightness. I made an assumption regarding what rule would be accepted by both parties - but if that is not acceptable, then state your criteria and I'll make another attempt.

That's just it. I don't have such a standard. I believe that morals are one part evolved psychology and one part cultural conditioning. I see no way to get around that morals are culture specific, and I don't know enough about how evolution influences morals to draw from there.

[genkaus]

That's just it. I don't have such a standard. I believe that morals are one part evolved psychology and one part cultural conditioning. I see no way to get around that morals are culture specific, and I don't know enough about how evolution influences morals to draw from there.

What about the third alternative? Derived from rational considerations.

[Angrboda]

That's just it. I don't have such a standard. I believe that morals are one part evolved psychology and one part cultural conditioning. I see no way to get around that morals are culture specific, and I don't know enough about how evolution influences morals to draw from there.

What about the third alternative? Derived from rational considerations.

I don't believe morals derive from rational consideration. That would just be introducing an arbitrary and illogical standard.

[genkaus]

I don't believe morals derive from rational consideration. That would just be introducing an arbitrary and illogical standard.

Deriving them from rational considerations would be arbitrary and illogical? Wouldn't it be the complete opposite?

[Mystic]

Or it can be neither logic or culture but something different?

[Angrboda]

I don't believe morals derive from rational consideration. That would just be introducing an arbitrary and illogical standard.

Deriving them from rational considerations would be arbitrary and illogical? Wouldn't it be the complete opposite?

No. Would you derive my favorite food from a rational consideration of facts about me?