An Authoritarian Model Of Government Is Superior To A Liberal Model.

2.A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. This is the definition of morals. It is what the individual thinks is right. Not the individual ruler, the individual. "Who am I to call the shots" I will start by answering this question with a question. "Who is our ruler to call the shots" What makes our ruler so much better than us that they can make the decision for everyone? Please answer this. Another question, "Why shouldn't I be able to call the shots" Your first reason proves to be able to be taken many ways. Furthermore, you have stated that the Grand Canal contributed to the civilizations golden age. I will not dispute this. However, I would like to point out what caused the fall of virtually every Chinese dynasty. The answer is the one big ruler making poor decisions. The sui dynasty fell because the leader raised taxes to extremely high amounts to cover the costs of the expansion of the empire. This, aside from other poor decisions and occurrences, led to rebellions and the overall collapse of the empire. Let us also continue to show how China's system is not as good as you state. For one, look at all of the dynasties. All of these dynasties were controlled by one person. However, one of China's most successful, used civil service exams to select citizens for government work. Thus, this dynasty was less of an autocratic rule and was more successful. Also take notice to another detail, the more technologically advanced China became, the shorter amount of time the empires lasted. Some of the first empire lasted over eight hundred years. Some of the last lasted less than one to two hundred. Now look at America, it, for the purpose of argument, has had only one dynasty or ruling group. It has not fallen. And, it has more technology than China ever had. Also, look at the increase success of Britain after the adoption of parliament. My point is, the fall of empires often came because one person was in charge. 2. What the heck kind of choice is that. It is a choice, I grant you. But obey or die. Terrible choices. I would also like to point out the that you used the grand canal as an example. That lasted and provided a long term affect. The height of my grass does not make any economic or societal difference. Lets imagine a modern day Robespierre. He changed the number of days in a week, abolished religion, and basically did crazy things for the heck of it. He messed France up. He was authoritarian. These things that he did did not help France at all nor did it even have any good intentions. Now to answer your question. I defined at the beginning the term moral. It is based on the individual's opinion of right and wrong. I agree, it is good to have an elite determining right and wrong as long as the elite believes what you believe. Obama believes that abortion is right, yet I do not and the bible condemns murder. Thus, his right is actually wrong because it does not correspond to my views of right and wrong. Also, he did not use the Bible in the formation because he condones abortion. Thus, he is wrong. If he were to turn around and be dictator, then he would not use biblical text. Now, I would like you to answer the following: What makes the ruler so much better than me that he or she has the power to tell me what to do? Why can I not call the shots? What if the rulers right is what I, the individual(and morals are created by the individual), find to be wrong? Would I change my morals to fit with what the ruler believes. According to the definition of morals, is a ruler developing morals really actually moral because the morals would not be developed by the individual.