Has anyone read this? Thoughts?
>>7437478
>spirituality without religion
Most spooky thing ive seen all day
If you do not believe in god you cannot believe in morality
>>7437718
>If you do not believe in god you cannot believe in morality
>believe in morality
What? This is the silliest thing I've read in days. Do explain.
>>7437755
There is no basis for morality outside the metaphorical or social contract.
Source: the whole history of law.
![Max_stirner[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VgnJAkR.jpg "Max_stirner[1].jpg")
>>7437755
Your morality is nothing but a subjective opinion
>>7437765
Are you coming at it with the point of view that we've gotten our morality from law (divine or otherwise), rather than our law from our morality?
I assume you believe in a god, otherwise there'd be no argument. So, how do you approach the contradictory nature of the moral teachings of the bible?
>>7437781
True, although there's a point to be made for a collective morality, differing from society to society.
>>7437765
Law is not morality.
t. law student
>>7437809
Well, law needs some form of basis in morality, doesn't it? I mean, if society as a whole had historically thought mass murder to be a morally sound activity, surely laws surrounding it would be different. Take certain muslim-majority countries where religion has had a lot to say about law as an example. In parts of Africa and the middle-east adultery is seen as morally reprehensible, to the degree that killing people for it is morally (and legally) acceptable.
>>7437765
Pretty sure that's the idea man.
Kant called in the categorical imperative, but it all boils down to the same thing.
Even then though social contract theory is kinda faulty:
>All sodomites and fags should be stoned to death
>I'm not a fag
>Therefore i have no disincentive to stoning fags
Its all subjective.
>>7437805
We may have gotten our law from morality initially. But now it seems like our morality is more or less dictated by our laws. It's still prone to change (e.g. drug laws) meaning even on the whole, as a society, our morality is subjective.
>>7437809
constitutions are pure morality...
=>laws are morality turned into a fetish to better sanctify the doctrine creating the morality
>>7437863
>boils down to the same thing
>>7437718
It's anti-spooky. Saying you can have spirituality without religion is just admitting that the sensations we associate with religious experiences can be triggered by other things, and maybe we'd like those other things better for at least being less dogmatic than religions.
"You need God to have morality," and saying that as if it proves that God must exist, now that's spooky.
>>7437911
>as if it proves that God must exist
>"g-gods not real, but you still have to behave this specific way b-because its just the right thing to do"
Honestly atheists are more spooked than many Christians
You've got ghosts in your head man!
>>7437921
yeah man we should just kill steal and fuck whatever we want fuck god fuck people it aint real I bend the spoon with my mind
spooks are a spook
>>7437921
I never even said you have to have any particular morality, but you can certainly convince most people to follow a morality similar to the Judeo-Christian one without also convincing them of the existence of a deity.
Sam Harris is the retard saying everybody needs a prescriptive morality or the world will go up in flames, not me.
>>7437923
>spooks are a spook
Spooks being a spook is just a spook, though. Stirner covers all this.
>>7437921
>people wanting to be good to each other despite not believing that a celestial body has decided that we should and will judge them for their behavior after death
Isn't that a good thing?
>>7437930
>Sam Harris is the retard saying everybody needs a prescriptive morality
I never heard him say that.
>>7437958
Sure it is beneficial to society as a whole, but that does not necessarily make it necessary for anybody to believe in.
>>7437959
Harris's whole thing is that science will turn out a perfect moral code that will be better than any religious morality. This does imply that morality is necessary and that it needs to be grounded in something concrete to do what people generally want it to do.
People act on a way that's beneficial for them >>7437923 hence why you don't go around raping ande killing. Even without law, if you kill someone, someone else might want to kill you out of revenge.
>>7437975
As I understand it, he's simply talking about a scientific basis for morality and how it evolves.
>>7438764
>2015
>not thinking science has the potential to solve every single possible problem
The answers are already out there. All we need to do is derive the mathematical equations and perform scientific experiments to bring it into our consciousness and society.
>>7437718
How? If morality in religion comes from gods commandments then it's just an order. That would mean law and a mom telling her son to pick up his toys is also morality. If morality in religion comes from the fact that god is all-knowing and because of that has passed down what the morals are to us, then it means it can exist independent of him.
>>7438941
If you believe and define morality as that which God allows and forbids, then it cannot exist independent of Him. If you don't believe and define morality as such, then it does exist independent of Him.
>>7438966
But even if there if we assume God exists then what's the justification for considering the rule he imposes as morality? They're just rules, orders, threats. We don't consider any law morality just because someone with more power imposes it on us.
>>7438975
Because you define that which He deems permissible and righteous as moral and you define that which He deems forbidden and sinful as immoral.
>>7438975
They are not simply rules, they are guidelines to what we should be because it fulfills our nature.
>>7438780
This.
>>7438977
Well, what's the justification for such a definition. You may as well say that you define morality as what the state imposes on people therefore law is morality. Or I can define morality as the act of giving me money, therefore giving away money to me is moral. What you did is just word play.
>>7438983
Guidelines =/= morality. Besides that contradicts the previous point. If they are just guudelens that help us fulfil our nature then they can exist independent of god.
>>7439001
>morality
>principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
God defines what's right and wrong and what's good and bad if you believe in God.
>>7439001
Nothing at all can exist apart from God. God sustains reality.
>>7439044
Proof?
>>7439044
>>7439049
>>7439006
On what basis? It's still someone/something just telling others what to do. Plus, then the whole argument becomes non-sensical.
>If god exists then morality doesn't exist
>morality is a set of rules god has defined for us.
Well no shit. If you define morality that way, then obviously it can't exist without him. But someone may as well define it in a way that doesn't and what then? Without some justification it's still just preferences.
>>7439044
That's a contradiction. If nothing exists apart from God then there's nothing for him to sustain.
>>7439060
And that's what I was saying in the beginning. If God is THE judge of what is good and bad if you believe in Him, then He is the source of morality. If you don't, then your culture/philosophy/ideology backdrop and personal beliefs are.
>>7439070
>panentheism
>pantheism
>wahdat al-wujud
:|
"I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon—believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me—but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you. I’d rather you not look like the dog who caught the car." - Sam Harris
>>7439049
It's a standard theological concept that you too can assume for sake of this discussion.
If you wish to know where it comes from look it up on Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
>>7439070
Sorry. Phrased myself wrongly, not native speaker.
Nothing exists without the will of God. If God stopped willing the world it would be no longer.
>>7437765
>There is no basis for morality outside the metaphorical or social contract.
nigga those are legit bases
>>7439044
define god so I can tell whether I agree or disagree with you
>>7439102
There arises a problem with legal practice when there is no higher power to build the system on.
But you may see social contract as valid, many do. I don't due to personal experience with legal practice.
>>7439108
I am who I am.
>>7439112
>when there is no higher power to build the system on.
the ideal of civilization as opposed to barbarism?
higher power is so 15th century
>>7437953
Sometimes I wonder if reading Stirner is worth or I can just pretend I did and use Spook inappropiately as much as people use Kafkaesq
>>7439149
Higher power is everything until mid 19th century, but law had other problems back than.
>>7439152
Compared to other reasons God has really not been the main reason for conflict and it doesn't have to be God as a personal thing in terms of legal system, it can be the Natural law. It can be much more Aristotelian. It's just important to have a basis for justice that doesn't change on a whim of the powerful.
>>7439152
>The problem is when you name which god you're talking about. Then your morality becomes dogma, and we have 6000 years of lethal conflict over which one.
no if your god says "it's all cool man"
those exist you know
>>7439185
They are called women's rights and sexual revolution.
>>7439076
That's just giving the word "everything" another name.
>>7439095
>Nothing exists without the will of God. If God stopped willing the world it would be no longer.
Any argument behind that statement?
>>7439072
So you're basically saying morality is a preference and is relative. Hell, even if God exists there is nothing that says his commandments are moral, it's just that some people would consider them to be so. Hell, I may as well propose a definition of morality in which anything proposed by god is immoral or that a belief in him is. There is as much justification (none) for that as for any kind of religious morality based on what you've wrote.
>>7439228
*sigh
Gautama Buddha
Sam Harris is a hack. Really awful human being, and an even worse thinker.
>>7439230
>That's just giving the word "everything" another name.
If you don't know the theological basis of those concepts, don't reply saying such stupid things.
>So you're basically saying morality is a preference and is relative. Hell, even if God exists there is nothing that says his commandments are moral, it's just that some people would consider them to be so. Hell, I may as well propose a definition of morality in which anything proposed by god is immoral or that a belief in him is. There is as much justification (none) for that as for any kind of religious morality based on what you've wrote.
No, I'm not saying morality is relative. I'm saying you can craft a set of moral principles without the need for a divine authority. It doesn't make them seen as truly moral by anyone else. Read some Plato pls family.
>>7437828
The Holocaust was legal.
>>7439251
>awful human being
Why do you say this? Because he doesn't like Islam?
>>7439291
And justified within social contract in Germany of the time.
>>7439292
Not him, but
>doesn't like Islam
You mean he doesn't understand Islam or any theology and uses meme arguments against them. :s
If you don't believe in a god, fine but using strawmen to knock down a religion and ignoring foreign intervention and political climate as the reason for the meme arguments is dishonest. :|
>>7439298
Hitler did nothing wrong
>>7439303
Depends on your views on justice being outside of humans.
>>7439300
>everything bad is because of something white westerners did
Oh, so you're one of those.
>>7439298
The German people didn't know about the Holocaust AFAIK, only some. Question: do you think laws are made by their maker's morals, or what would best benefit/most efficiently put them in control?
>>7439309
Come on family. You know that I didn't say that and you know what I meant in the post. :|
>>7439300
You only have to read a little of the Koran to realize the religion is idiotic, just like most others. I don't get this new meme of defending religions based on feels - most ARE fucking stupid at the core.
>>7439315
You implied that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with religion, and instead has everything to do with "intervention", presumably by white westerners.
>>7439314
They were aware of Jews being stripped of civil rights.
Laws are always ruled by the interest of the lawmakers. The question is what is their interest and do they believe there is a higher force they need to align themselves with such and platonic justice, God or natural law.
>>7439307
Justice is a social construct that we use as a standard to arrange our societal living to be decently tolerable
Most people would agree that it failed in Germany during WW2
>>7439326
Okay, they knew somewhat, but it's not like you were open to speak your mind in Nazi Germany. I guess the shortest way to put it is, laws are set wherever they are and morals are subjective, so they cannot be the same.
>>7439333
as an unrelated note these are 3rd trips I've gotten in the last 1.5 hours. I assume this is a proof that god loves me
>>7439340
What makes you believe that every other factor is causing Islamic extremism besides Islam itself? Why do you dodge the simplest explanation?
Do you honestly believe that no one can commit atrocities purely in the name of religion? It has happened many times before.
>>7439333
It didn't fail in Germany because it arranged their society and made it very tolerable for almost all.
According to your concept of it anyway.
>>7439337
Their whole philosophy of law failed as well as the whole system after it. They were after all very much into Kelsen and his line of thought.
Laws and morality are not the same true, never claimed otherwise.
>>7439266
>If you don't know the theological basis of those concepts, don't reply saying such stupid things.
I know them, doesn't mean that they aren't redundant.
>No, I'm not saying morality is relative. I'm saying you can craft a set of moral principles without the need for a divine authority. It doesn't make them seen as truly moral by anyone else. Read some Plato pls family.
It is relative. You can constuct a set of moral princeples but nothing in what you've said so far makes it's basis anything beyond preference. Plato is interesting, but he was pretty damn disillusioned about the reality surrounding him.
>>7439340
>Foreign intervention (Western and within the region), economics, and political climate
Translation: everyone is responsible except the Muslim retards who are actually blowing themselves up, stoning women, and murdering apostates.
>>7439350
Once again you're believing I've said things when I haven't said them. :s
If you want to learn about violence in Islam, I recommend Robert Gleave's Violence in Islamic Thought from the Qur'an to the Mongols
If Islamic law in general, his Islamic Law: Theory and Practice and Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss are good. :)
If you don't care, then don't read them I guess. :s
>>7438780
>science will come up with a perfect moral code
We already have a nearly perfect moral code, western law. At least it's the perfect format, more rules will probably be added in the future. What science needs to solve is a perfect way to enforce the law, since right now the only thing stopping our law from becoming worthless is spooks of "morality".
>>7437478
Would say 7.5/10.
I've read quite a lot of books in this scene and this is one of the better ones. It's very approachable and you don't need a lot of pre-knowledge. It's not "Wow, why didn't I read this earlier?" but it's good.
Pretty short too, read it in a single day.
>>7439355
I never said this. :|
>>7439354
I doubt you know about wahdat al-wujud that well considering it's a very difficult concept.
>morality is relative
If you say so. Won't stop people who see it otherwise from saying that it isn't.
>anything beyond preference
Maybe you should read Nietzsche too and Kant.
>>7439353
>because it arranged their society and made it very tolerable for almost all.
m8 firstly it resulted in ethnic cleansing, secondly it got the nation doubleteamed by west and russia because it was so fucking incompatible with the rest of the world
so yes it failed since it eventually made pretty much every german's life miserable
>>7439359
>nearly perfect moral code, western law
fucking rofl
>>7439358
You clearly said that Harris is wrong, that Islamic extremists are a "straw man", and that these problems are caused by "intervention". I haven't misquoted or misrepresented you at all, you're just being obtuse.
>>7439365
I never said I consider morality to be relative. I'm saying that's what your statements conclude to.
>>7439372
I haven't said any of that. I said Harris is being dishonest with ignoring other factors in his meme arguments against religion and that he doesn't have a good hold on the theological concepts or legal traditions of the religions he criticizes (or that he praises either, for that matter). :s
I'd also recommend you do some reading on the history of the Middle East as well if you care for it.
>>7439375
...?
What I'm saying is that different moral systems can be manufactured within the scope of a divine authority, with varying definitions, and outside the scope of divine intervention. That doesn't make me a relativist, just a realist because people have manufacture different moral principles throughout history. I can personally say some are objectively wrong and be an absolutist in whatever precepts I take or I can believe that there is a moral truth and that I don't know what that truth is.
I'm not speaking from a personal level, but rather more generally. :s
Once again, those philosophers will help you with morality being crafted and with relativism. They're great Western thinkers
>>7439379
What's the point? Getting into every single religion because just one of them might be consistent somehow is futile. Hell, maybe the only ones that got it are some aliens from another planet.
>>7439390
I'm not saying you should convert to any religion, I'm just saying that it would be better if you were educated on things you like to discuss rather than dismiss it immediately. If you don't care, then don't but if you do, there's a whole lot of reading out there, thankfully. :)
>>7439395
And I'm not saying religious reading in particular, I mean generally but the current conversation is centered on ME history and Islamic theology because that's what was brought up.
>this thread
> almost a hundred replies
FFS /lit/.
>>7439389
We were talking about religious morality and the only basis for it you gave is that you choose to define morality as commandments from god. Choice is a matter of preference. If that's the only basis for morality then it's relative. Unless you want to clear up what you said earlier and give some basis for considering the morality you do as objective. Obviously some moralities can be objectively wrong, if they're self-contradictory.
I'm not talking to those philosophers at the moment (though you only mentioned Plato so far), I'm talking to you.
>>7439408
Eh, Sam Harris is a controversy generator haha. :p
>>7439414
I also spoke of Kant and Nietzsche.
>you choose to define morality as commandments from god
No, I sad that people do so because they believe in God and thus sees His forbidding/permissions as the basis for morality and all other moral principles as baseless and worthless.
>Obviously some moralities can be objectively wrong
Yes of course, as a non-relativist I agree.
>if they're self-contradictory
Not necessarily and finding bona fide contradiction within human application of theoretical principles is soooooooo difficult.
I haven't really been discussing my personal views at all.
>>7439424
Sorry for my typos. Please don't think I'm slacking off because I find this conversation dull or something. I'm just tired.
>>7439424
>No, I sad that people do so because they believe in God and thus sees His forbidding/permissions as the basis for morality and all other moral principles as baseless and worthless.
We've been over this. If he does exist what's the basis behind treating his commandments as morality, besides the fact that you just choose to define them as such? How is it different from defining morality as what's given to us by law, social norms, family norms, random set of rules pulled out of your head or one based on your desires (i say that giving me all your money is moral).
>>7439437
If you believe in an omniscient Supreme Being who created the universe and who is THE judge of all that is good and evil, then I think His commandments would obviously have to be the Truth. If He deems what is good and evil, then the "true" moral principles hinge on His commands.
>How is it different than X
It's different because it has no divine authority behind it. Instead you have state authority, cultural authority, etc. If you believe in a divine being who is the absolute Judge of Good and Evil then the other authorities, which are obviously fallible, don't really matter
>>7439379
So, your argument is basically "you just don't get it, go read a book".
>>7439461
Well I think people who are educated on the subject probably know the subject more than people who aren't educated on the subject. :s
And /lit/ is about reading, right? If there's something you're into and want to discuss, then book recs and discussing books is what we do, right? :p
I'm not saying you're unintelligent if you thought that and I'm sorry because that's not what I intended. Your statements just lead me to believe that you haven't done much reading on the subject.
>>7437478
How can one be spiritual without being religious?
>>7439450
We've been over this again. Is theat he knows what is moral because he is omniscient? Then obviously morality exists besides him, he just passed it down. If morality is what he has commanded, then those are just orders. No matter how important the entity is, it's just it telling other peoples what it wants others to do.
>>7439494
According to those who believe in God, a Supreme Being created everything. That Supreme Being created these concepts of Good and Evil. He then judged everything that he created on the basis of this dichotomy. He then divulged this information to people.
To this believer, that morality--those principles--are the absolute Truth because God IS God.
>>7439082
>look it up
>it's real
Kek
>>7439470
I haven't replied yo you previously, I just read your conversation, and I'm talking about you basically trying to dismiss Sam Harris' entire main argument by saying "he doesn't know what he's talking about", without backing that claim up at all. If that's not what you meant, I misunderstood you, but if it is that seems childish and lazy at best.
>>7439516
I don't have his books with me right now so I can't quote a passage and disprove what he's saying. I read them a while ago. He's made statements on ME history, on terrorism, and on various religions, good and bad, which ignore major factors or are obviously wrong. I provided some resources that one can read about the topics Sam has discussed from academics and those works, which are written by experts and are based upon primary works, say otherwise to Sam.
There's also terrorist studies work you can read. I can't think of one on the top of my head since that's not what I deal with mostly but I know U of Chicago did a good one
>>7437478
bada bumpo
>>7439291
>>7439298
Holocaust was legal indeed. However, everybody involved in the aftermath of the war understood the absurdity of this situation. The problem was resolved by creating the so called "crimes against humanity". Thus, this little curious discrepancy between law and morality was closed after about 5 years of existing. If anything, the holocaust example shows how the law ought to be based on morality.
