How can i as an atheist justify the divine right of kings?

>>2607639
You can't. You gotta find another reason

>>2607639
>how can I acknowledge the power of a being that I don't believe in
>not b8

Memes aside anon, you could probably argue secularly that certain individuals are more qualified to lead society than others are. For instance, most kings are superior in that they were more well-educated or forward-thinking than other individuals. Inbreeding and degeneracy set aside, most kings were set up to be more well-educated than the general populace and thus entrusted to make certain laws rather than letting the people vote on it. While this may not have worked in practice, theoretically it'd be a secular justification.

Looking at individuals like Caesar or Bonaparte or even within Republican societies, like Lincoln (inb4 confederates), Roosevelt (the first one of course), and Washington proving themselves to be superior individuals prior to taking office.

>>2607664
yes but how do i justify hereditary monarchy?

>>2607670
Well, they'd be educated privately, have a better understanding from birth of the authority they'd be wielding (In theory) and be more prepared than the average man off the street would be if you gave him a crown and a sceptre.

>>2607639
>How can I retain my own beliefs while still being an edgelord?

You are trying to justify something that you know doesn't work.

>>2607639
>How can i as an atheist justify the divine right of kings?
muh genetic purity
muh fitness to rule
muh leadership qualities

>>2607781
yes?

God is real
God wants X to rule
X has authority to rule

I don't see where your personal belief fits in to the argument faggot. God is real, atheism is a meme religion, get over it.

File: pepe the crusader.jpg (14KB, 279x223px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 279x223px

>>2607781
>>2607789
>>2607796
I kinda wish god is real, to bad he's not

>>2607639
combine it with eugenics for the ruling class

>>2607639
You couldn't even justify it if you were Christian

Condensed into one worldwide narrative, the story of human monarchy gets distilled to its essence: it sucked. Srsly, all over the world, it worked about the same way, and that was “badly”. The whole theoretical advantage of monarchy is that it avoids succession disputes. Only it doesn’t– no matter how sacredly the king vows that his successor shall be his well-beloved son, some cousin or uncle or general or duke is likely to object once the old man is laid out. Plus, of course, a new king is often a child, or at best inexperienced and dominated by his elders; very often this becomes institutionalized in some way.

Japan in this period provides a nice example. It became customary for the emperor to abdicate in favor of an infant relative– becoming the Cloistered Emperor, a position where he could wield the power while the child did all the onerous ceremonies. Only the military took over the actual administration of the country, producing the shogunate. Only the shogunate was hereditary, so there was a problem of infant shoguns… no problem, an older relative became the shikken, the shogun’s protector. For a time all four levels of this ridiculous hierarchy perpetuated themselves. (Nor did this prevent the country from being fragmented between senior and junior lines of the imperial family.)

If you did get a strong king, that often just meant that he had the resources available to spend his entire reign at war, or that he was enough of a sociopath to stop rivals before they could get going– usually by murdering them.

Elective monarchies in theory could choose only strong candidates, but of course the electors normally had little interest in electing anyone who would restrain their own freedom.

>>2607639
read hobbes

File: pepe2.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>2608615
thank you for your opinion reddit

>>2607639
>How can i as an atheist justify the divine right of kings?
This is what happens when you're exposed to a ton of information without critical thinking. Get the fuck off /his/ and get your shit in order

"How do I justify my retarded beliefs while holding onto my other equally retarded beliefs"

Hmm, well OP, you could always pick up a fucking book and stop asking 4chan to create your opinions for you.

But Idk something about genetics or something?

>>2608796
>>2608749
>they don't want to butcher the middle class, burn their books, end the enlightenment and return man to a more innocent state of being with the ultimate goal of returning to pure animality without reason or self-awareness

>>2608814
Cool. I'll just be on the winning side, putting bullets in the filthy wannabee animals and taking their land like it's the scramble for africa all over again.

You don't. The divine right of kings probably dates back to the first dude who piled shit up really tall and called himself king, and when questioned about why people should follow that gay shit he said obviously because god wants him to be king

>>2607639
Are you trying to justify the pathetic shams of modern monarchy or the true sovereigns of the past who led the country?

>>2608814
>innocent
have you ever seen the illiterate/near illiterate poor? they're fucking animals

File: 1476142688753.jpg (177KB, 1089x1088px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1089x1088px

>justify

lmao good one.

>>2608994
It's part of people's fetishization of innocence. Of course anyone who's spent 5 minutes around children being "pure" just makes you a shithead

Why would anyone justify the mundane rights of kings?