Has anyone ever been able to rebut Betrand Russell's "Marriage and Morals"? Even Einstein said the work was brilliant.
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.
>Even in civilised mankind faint traces of a monogamic instinct can sometimes be perceived.
>I should not hold it desirable that either a man or a woman should enter upon the serious business of a marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experience.
>Science enables us to realise our purposes, and if our purposes are evil, the result is disaster.
>Gluttony is regarded by the Catholic Church as one of the seven deadly sins, and those who practise it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of hell; but it is a somewhat vague sin, since it is hard to say where a legitimate interest in food ceases and guilt begins to be incurred. Is it wicked to eat anything that is not nourishing? If so, with every salted almond we risk damnation.
Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Betrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, any rebuttal to his "Why I am not a Christian"?
> The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
>There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.
> You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell.
>Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him
>>8092164
>attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue
If you truly meet someone that you love you'll care enough about them to realize that no one else will ever make you as happy as they do, saying that you are equally attracted to two different people just means that you aren't sufficiently attracted to one partner to make the thought of entertaining a second partner not worth it
>faint traces of a monogamic instinct can sometimes be perceived
Having sex with just one partner repeatedly is best because you feel comfortable and loved, which makes the quality of it much better. Sure, if both you, your partner, and a third sexual partner are all equally comfortable with the idea of an open relationship then I'm sure that having sex with multiple people would also be pleasurable, but for some, if not most people, sex with just one partner is preferable and the most pleasurable. For some people that might not be the case, but for most it is.
>Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Betrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
He was raised in an environment where open relationships were okay, so it makes sense that he thinks they're best. Just because he thinks they're the best doesn't mean everyone else should feel that way. People are allowed to have different opinions on entirely subjective topics like this. Entertaining a serious debate on this subject is like having an argument about which color is objectively the best.
>>8092164
Wow aside from his stance on science as a set of tools, that guy sounds retarded. No wonder the west seems to be sliding into oblivion.
Has Russell ever heard of the emotion called jealousy? And even if there was a case for polygamy, you would have to radically recreate society in order to change such an institution as marriage, and then even if he had a better model, there is no guarantee mankind would choose to follow it and not devolve into chaos. Pleb-tier
>>8092166
Nietzsche would argue against him here. He seems to hate the church because it causes people to feel guilty or ashamed. Nietzsche would say that this is the only thing the religion does RIGHT. If people of the herd can't vent their frustrations on themselves, they will necessarily vent them on each other. And then you'll have trumps and BLMs and all manner of people oppressing each other, guided by the unguided will to power.
His idea regarding no historical Christ is also stupid. It really doesn't matter if there was a "historical Christ" because he already exists as an idea. Psycho-analysis is an arbitrary way to discredit someone anyway
>I can't argue with your ideas; better resort to attacking your character
Again baby's first "deep-thinker"-tier
>>8092197
Please reread that first sentence, and try to pay attention to how "attraction" is used in one part and "affection" in another. Then maybe you'll understand it, and find it most sensible to delete your post.
>>8092209
>Has Russell ever heard of the emotion called jealousy?
He slept with T.S. Eliot's wife and destroyed their marriage, so probably.
>>8092164
Russell was obsessed with the notion that the world would be perfect if we could all be autistic logic machines that happen to reproduce but it doesn't matter much how. All his ethics assume that we can reach this state through sheer stubbornness.
>>8092262
t. Continentalfag
Bertrand Russell was the original Sam Harris.
>>8092164
Love between a man and woman is for their children, you don't love your spouse as much as you love your kids. Furthermore the basic determinant of your child's courage and confidence comes from the bond between the mother and father and their children. Without a mother and father working to support the child, the child feels as though it will die. This evolutionary going back to pre-historic times. Twenty thousand years ago without a mother to care for the child the child dies, without a father to protect the mother and child the child dies. In modern times the danger is removed, but the perceived danger is still there and without a mother and father the child feels as though it will die. Marriage is for a couple's children, not the spouses.
If you don't want to get married, that's fine, but don't have kids they will hate you and eventually ruin your life unless you are monogamous with your spouse.
>>8092473
Looks like someone didn't finish the OP
>>8092209
How does he sound retarded? Sounds smart to me
>>8093394
He is, the only objection is muh feelings
>>8092164
>Science enables us to realise our purposes, and if our purposes are evil, the result is disaster.
According to?
>and Betrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
He's an idiot like everybody else that one that prize.
>>8092166
He doesn't understand theology and is projecting his empiricist/modernist ideology onto God.
>>8094545
Everything he claims and believes in is based upon feelings/
