> Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
Well... that's what the monarchy practice is all about. God-like status for some god-forsaken reason. Blind sycophancy.
Well... that's what the monarchy practice is all about. God-like status for some god-forsaken reason. Blind sycophancy.
Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.
Surely we should resist our less productive qualities, like sycophancy. Not try to channel it to some "worthy cause".
I don’t see how your view isn’t personally exhausting. And I don’t see what’s so bad about trying to channel our less productive qualities to better ends than letting them run wild and wishing they didn’t exist.
And if we must channel some unavoidable desires then must it be to adore people who won life's lottery? (Or must we heap praise upon someone who appears to have done little to move the needle forward?)
Solving this problem requires solving coordination problems. Solving coordination problems requires creating a sense of community where people are motivated to act beyond their self interest. Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.
The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Citation needed.
> The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Monarchs are born into unearned power, wealth, and privilege. They are the last people I'd consider successful at coordinating humanity for the better. Great Britain's own history is drenched in enough innocent blood. Whatever gains originated there appear largely attributable to luck and or non-royal endeavors.
Others will do otherwise.
You might kick one demon out of the house and get seven in return.
How?
> Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
We've more or less gotten rid of royalty, and now we have celebrities shamelessly shilling just about anything - what an improvement! I would prefer neither, but I don't think that's ever going to happen without people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.
I agree with you on the monarchy, and I'm an atheist as well, and I still can't help but read your comment as divisive and distracting from your earlier argument for a sarcastic barb at the bible.
You haven't even argued against the metaphor at all, you've only stated you think the bible is illogical. For what it's worth there are secular equivalents of this sort of risk analysis metaphor; the bird in the hand, a stitch in time, one today is worth two tomorrows, etc.