Can Divine Right be justified with a divine ruler?

This is actually something spawned from a My Little Pony discussion over in YF, but hear me out, there are philosophical implications.

In the latest incarnation of the franchise, there's a rudimentry governmental structure that is discernable from viewing only a few episodes of the show.

There is a goddess who rules with absolute authority, and she has numerous agents spread across the land. Some democracy exists, as mayors seem to be elected. She is in every sense of the word divine, responsible for raising and setting both the sun and moon.

My question is, if there did exist a litteral god, would they be justified in ruling based solely on the basis of their godhead? Would their subjects, provided they have the power, be justified in overthrowing them if they were injust or a poor ruler?

If a god, or what appeared to be one, showed up in your country today, and demanded to be worshipped or considered absolute ruler, would you accept their divine fiat?

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

No.

Granted, if a god did show up, it is highly possible that he/she/it would be quite competent and suitable for rulership. Being a god is not enough to be a sole qualifier, but it certainly provides benefit.

Yes, because this one is coward. A good and courageous person (this one is neither) would have resisted them.

edited 20th Jun '11 9:07:11 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Define "god."

Well, for the sake of the argument something short of Yahweh, but at the same time able to display powers that defy science completely.

Something supernatural, although a Sufficiently Advanced Alien or time traveling imposter is a possibility.

edited 20th Jun '11 9:15:29 AM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Yes, in theory. But they would have to prove that they are a god and the creator of humankind, and not just a Sufficiently Advanced Alien. And I cannot think of a simple test for that.

On the other hand...

From my point of view, if they were unjust then this alone would prove that they are not what they claim they are, regardless of all other evidence. Therefore, their "subjects" would be justified in overthrowing them, and would in fact be honor-bound to do that or die trying.

I really, really hope I wouldn't. Not unless I would be given sufficient evidence that they are what they say they are, but, as I said, I cannot at the moment find something that I would be willing to accept as sufficient evidence. But if this entity is what it claims it is are, then it will certainly be able to present me something adequately convincing.

If this is not the case, then I would be bound by my own beliefs to oppose such an entity to the fullest extent of my means. I cannot tell with certainty whether I would be brave enough to do that, but I sure hope so.

EDIT: However, this is quite different from the situation that sparked the discussion. If a quasi-divine, or in any case powerful, entity had ruled my country for a long time, had consistently proved itself to be benevolent, and did not demand worship, I would not be inclined to rebel against it. Perhaps, if the circumstances allowed for it, I might ask it to permit a certain degree of self-governance; but the exact degree would depend on my own opinion about the character of my countrypeople and about that of this entity.

edited 20th Jun '11 9:51:50 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

True. Being a god does not mean that one should automatically be allowed to rule, but it does not necessary disqualifies one either.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

well if they had the power to instantly blink us out of existence we wouldn't have much choice but obey them, if not however...then no, screw em.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Well, they couldn't be President of the US, unless they're a Thunderbird or something Native.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Nah, it's all about Mandate of Heaven. Anybody ruling has to prove they are worthy of ruling by ruling well.

There is always a choice. In that case, it would be a choice between obeying them and blinking out of existence, of course, but that's still a choice.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

True

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Elect a god a leader, and then immediately prosecute them for criminal negligence.

All of them are guilty of it.

Princess Celestia (the fictional goddess who was in the original example) apparently isn't — her subjects seem reasonably well cared for, Catastrophe of the Week aside. There is also the matter that they still seem to grow old and die, but I am going to assume that either

• She does not have the power to fix that, or
• In the fictional universe she is in, death is necessary to fulfill some sort of purpose.

edited 20th Jun '11 11:01:38 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I can't believe I'm discussing the philosophical implications of My Little Pony, but it's a good question. I think a god could probably philosophically justify ruling if they could show that they are so much more powerful/advanced than us and so much morally better that they would inevitably run the world better. It would be a bit like parents having authority over young kids because (other things being equal) they have the superior wisdom to know what's best for the child.

Incidentally, that was the analogy used to justify The Divine Right of Kings by those that justified it, like Sir Robert Filmer - the king as "Father of the Nation" and so on.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

"If a god, or what appeared to be one, showed up in your country today, and demanded to be worshipped or considered absolute ruler, would you accept their divine fiat?"

While I have my doubts about whether God incarnate would have to demand anything of the sort, I think I'd trust God's judgment over that of humans.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Due to a god presumably being very powerful, we probably wouldn't have much choice in the matter. However, from a purely moral perspective I do not think it would be justified.

Although, it would depend on how you define devine. If this god can see into the future, has twice the intelligence of other people, and is pure and just, the god in question's opinion would have a slightly higher importance.

^So, would Paul Atredies count?

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

I can think of three obvious justifications:

1. The deity is very powerful, in which case insurrection would be futile.
2. They have some important and unique I Dye Grass-type responsibility, in which case insurrection would be suicidal.
3. There's some sort of favors they're capable of granting (I.E.: They're very wise, they can protect you from something else, they can be very destructive when apathetic, they're simply nice to be around…), so it's in your best interest to expend a lot of effort staying in their good graces.

Merely “they created the universe/earth/life/humanity” is enough to earn respect (and possibly quite a bit of worship, people have worshiped for less,) but doesn't really strike me as a surefire justification for deference on practically anything at all.

Eric,

OP:

Would the god in question be justified in claiming divine right to rule?

Yes and no. If they did poorly, they'd prove themselves not to have said right.

Would you pledge fealty to said god?

That depends on the nature of the god in question. If, say, the Aztec god Tlaloc decided to rear his child-sacrificing head, no. However, if it was Nuada, King of the Tuatha De Danann and patron of just rulers everywhere, yes.

If they were a poor ruler, would the people have right to overthrow them?

Yes.

(Note: Questions paraphrased)

edited 20th Jun '11 12:43:49 PM by Diamonnes

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

No. Such a government, even if competent, would still lack legitimacy.

The point of democracy, what we have now, is NOT good governance - that's just a very nice side effect. The point is that if the government wants to tell me what to do, I better damn well get in it. If the ruler simply orders me around, without any input by me, why should I accept it? No matter how competent that ruler is.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Eh, as far as I am concerned the point of democracy is that if a group is powerful enough to lead an insurrection, it is also powerful enough to have an influence on the government through less destructive means. This reduces the likelihood of civil wars, which have proved again and again to be far more destructive for a country than a period of bad governance could ever be.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Stability is overrated. If an insurrection is needed to break a tyrannic regime, then there is nothing wrong with an insurrection. The advantage of democracy is that, thankfully, it doesn't take an insurrection.

Really, my point is - as long as the people ruled over have no say in that rule, it's illegitimate, divine ruler or not.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Advantages of a divine ruler:

• He has a special claim to rulership. Even if it's somewhat arbitrary, people are more likely to submit to it than if it was just "by birth" as it was for the kings of old.

• An immortal being is much more likely to take care of the long-term consequences of his decisions

• No change is government means more peace and stability (contrast with how things fucked up when the Roman emperor died childless, or when a the next in line to the throne is incompetent (frequent enough in China)).

The people would be "justified" in overthrowing a divine ruler only if they have a an alternative that works better in the long term.

edited 20th Jun '11 1:13:26 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

The thing is a divine ruler can get away with a lot more and claim that its because "I know whats coming" and can subsequently alter records to make it appear like It did.

"Well, they couldn't be President of the US, unless they're a Thunderbird or something Native. "

If Capital G is present everywhere, it can be argued he was a resident at the time of signing the Constitution.