/lit/ - Literature

>feminist, queer, Christian, etc. readings of a text.

This isn't necessarily in opposition to

>objective quality

But anyway have fun being dumb bro

>243 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>595479
next please

Isn't a complete waste of time to criticize these critical theories instead of producing an alternative for yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

>>595466
>I, being an atheist and political independent,
>am looking to make an argument against the blind, liberal respect which is extended to the various interpretations of a text
What are you talking about? Those two things have noting to do with one another.
>I am looking to criticize feminist, queer, Christian, etc. readings of a text.
Ok...what text?
>I am looking towards make an argument for an objective quality
You can't be serious.

>hurr, durr, I'm an atheist; I'm so edgy, give me attention.

Bible seems to fit

>the dangers of respecting any form of religion

elaborate

>I want to attack feminist, queer, and Christian readings of a text, but can't think of anything to attack about them.

>>595707
What he means is that, by legitimizing non-rational thought by failing to criticize religious moderates, people are sort of opening the floodgates for extremists to take it a few steps farther. It's kind a naive argument that depends on a misunderstanding of how religion really works.

>I, being an atheist and political independent

And that's where I stopped reading.

>>595726
>The way religion works
If you're suggesting that religion doesn't take any opportunity it gets to insert itself into my faithless life then you must be overlooking the liquor laws (STILL in effect in several states, mine for example) preventing the purchase of alcohol on Sundays, abortion laws, and laws against gay marriage that stem completely from Christians politicians.

Still born project.

>>595726
Either that or he is going for other intepretation "you shouldn't show any respect to any institution or belief system a priori, just as you wouldn't to any scientific belief for no reason" which is making the same sort of fallacy that everything works like a scientific theory in life. Either way they are just interpretaions of people who read Dawkins, don't like to think, but are anxious everyone else thinks they do.

>>595748
Oh right, and laws banning stem cell research.

>>595748
I'd recommend Mill's 'On Liberty' It has some good parts speaking out against State control and Religious paternalism.

If the university is extremely liberal, why is your atheism a factor at all? They should eat that shit up.

>>595748

>implying religion and morality are the same thing

>>595757

that couldn't be the case because everyone knows science has all the answers

>>595854
No he didn't.
Laws SHOULD be based on morality. Separation of church and state says that laws SHOULDN'T be based on religion.
What he did was give examples of laws that are based on religion, even though it's unconstitutional.

>>595878
>>Laws SHOULD be based on morality
Whose? Your morality, mine, the lawmakers? The culture in general? Does that make it right?
Sorry, but natural law legal theory sucks.

>>595748

>if you're implying that people aren't capable of twisting absolutely anything to the advantage of their own ends and prejudices...

>>595891
That's really beside the point for this thread. As problematic as moral relativity can be for 'common morals', it doesn't change the fact that our laws are meant to be based upon a set of common morals.

Even though moral relativity can be problematic for coming up with a set of common morals, we can still, through discussion, come up with a set of commonly agreed upon morals for laws to be based on.

This does NOT mean that through this discussion, laws can be based on religiously based morals. Separation of church and state is there specifically to prevent that. This means that any commonly agreed upon morals must be completely secular; you can't argue for a law against abortion because the bible says abortion is wrong or because life is given by God and we have no right to end that life. You CAN argue for a law banning abortion because abortion is killing, and killing is wrong because it denies the one killed a valuable future that they would have otherwise been able to enjoy.

>>595914
Oh so I'm just assuming that these are based on religion?
Alright, tell me the reasoning behind laws banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays. I'm waiting.

>>595916
There will never be "commonly agreed upon morals". Look at all the shit around abortion, gay marriage, etc.

>>it doesn't change the fact that our laws are meant to be based upon a set of common morals.
This is also untrue, laws may have originally had some moral backing, but even then many were there to protect the upper class (whether that be the sovereign, or the wealthy, or whathaveyou). Any laws that have moral backing don't need to be laws, because people will follow them anyway, because it's the moral thing to do, right? Good men don't need laws, and bad men don't follow them, so why do we need them?

While morality and law do happen to coincide at certain points, one is not reliant on the other in any way, shape, or form.

>>595922

It's very easy to point out the ills of religious influence on law, but Christendom has brought positives too--abolition of slave trade in Great Britain for one, and I'm sure many had a hand in reform in workplace conditions or education and the role of parents as role models, so on.

Also, I'm not sure who said that law SHOULD be based on morality when it blatantly isn't most of the time. It's based on economics and shit like that.

Traffic laws, property owning laws, taxes? What's the moral basis of those?

>>595922

no...I'm confused as to how you drew that from what I just said? those thing's are certain people's interpretation of religion (which I personally don't find legitimate). does that illegitimize all religion? in my opinion, no. is religion the only system that people misuse to attempt to force their agenda on others? again, not in my opinion.

>>595943
Laws are MEANT to be based on commonly agreed upon morals. Not are.
Consult this nifty chart to see where your argument lies.

There are commonly agreed upon morals. We agree that killing is generally wrong, the government is in place to protect it and because of this requires money through taxes to function, etc.
There will always be difficult issues like abortion, and that doesn't mean that there can't be a commonly agreed upon moral stance on them at some point. 80 years ago women couldn't vote; we have since then come to a moral agreement that women are equal to men.

Oh there's no tier for 'misinterpreting the argument'
Not sure if that's a victory for me or you.

>>595946

morality is only an attempt at writing an instruction manual for how to best function as a human, so technically those things would fall under morality.

>>595963
When you say laws are "meant" to be based in morality, you claim to know the intentions of the original lawmakers, which I find highly unlikely. They could very well have been saving their own skins, and since then those laws have been adapted into our morality. Case in point: Women voting. It was immoral before for women to go out and vote, because it was unfeminine. The morality did not change first; the law did, due to pressures from feminist groups and political candidates who had feminist backing. Only when the law was passed was it considered truly "moral" for women to vote, and eventually gain equivalent status to men. And even then, for many years afterward, there were (and still are, abit a small population) people who find this to be against their sense of morality.

>>595972

Yea, that's completely bullshit and makes little sense to me. Laws aren't designed to tell people how best to live. A lot of them don't tell you anything about what's right or wrong, just what you have to do.

Drive on the right side of the road. Why? Because it's the right thing to do? No, it's the law, fuckwad.

You're going to jail for possession of 5 oz of marijuana. Why? Because it's the wrong thing to do? No, it's the law, fuckwad.

Morality is about ethical/virtuous living. Laws are about

>>595989

sorry didn't finish that...

Laws are about controlling a society and making it function in the ways that will help achieve certain political or economic goals, etc.

>>595972
I thought that was Ethics. Morality is more personal, isn't it?

>>595989
Why do we drive on the right side of the rode?
There's a law to.
Why is there a law to?
Because the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
If we didn't know which side of the rode to ride on, we would have many more car crashes, and our citizens would be injured.

Was that so hard?

>>595998

No it's not there to protect citizens, it's there to protect the government from citizens who will blame the government for not having some kind of law about it. It's about societal control--preventing accidents and keeping citizens safe and happy as a means to prevent upheaval. That's not anything to do with morality, it's to do with control, if anything.

>>595998
>>596004

And what about the drug thing? What's the logic there? Help me see this morality I am so lacking education of.

HALO REACH BETA CODES:

http://www.haloreachbeta.co.cc/243nf94387h2fn89hf289h9jd2h308fh5hf9284hf

>>595989

I didn't say all law's were legitimately best...there's nothing specifically moral about people driving only on the right side of the road, but driving on one a specific side of the road serves the purpose of keeping from running into each other...though I agree that traffic law is only morality in a very technical sense.

>>596004

because that keeping societal control is a value which they have posited as "best" for them, and now they have delineated a system by which to keep it, in keeping with their beliefs.

>>595995

yeah I think you're right.

>>commonly agreed upon morals
Ad Populum is a logical fallacy you know.

>>596025

But now it sounds your conflating morality with political ideology

>>596007
I said laws are SHOULD be based on commonly agreed upon morals. Not that they are.

>>596007

I don't know, ask whoever made the law. no one said all law was actually moral. but obviously whoever participated in making the law subjectively believed it would be best either for society or for their personal gain.

>>596032

political ideology is essentially group ethics. in my opinion. sorry I think morality is actually the wrong term there, I've think I may have been misusing that. although I suppose it depends on you're definition, I generally go with aristotle's.

>>596034

How do you create trade laws based on morals? How do you choose speed limits on morals? Where to construct institutions based on morals?

Many laws perhaps coincide with moral decision making, but I simply don't understand how you can create laws based on morality. And you say they should be, but how does that work? What process would you use?

Many people disagree on morals. Sounds like you're saying majority rule. So it's acceptable if the population is primarily pro-slavery or pro-infanticide, and because people agree that it's moral, then it should be law? Help me see how this works.

>>596045

Yes morality is a confusing term to use.

>>596048

politicians decide what they believe the "best" way for a group of people to function is. this is essentially political ethics. it often isn't objectively ethical, but eh you know.

everyone needs to read this. or at least read the cliff notes. or even a wiki summary. apparently there is quite a lot of confusion as to what exactly ethics are these days.

>>596064

Somewhere along the way this got confusing. I wasn't at the beginning of the conversation, but it seemed to be about religion, and then morality. So "political ethics" and morality, which I assume was referred to as ethical morality like religions say they teach, are quite a bit more distinct?

If you are referring to political ideologies now, do you also mean to say that ideologies are based on morals?

Thread was completely derailed by this guy's post
>>595891
And my response to it. Even said it was beside the point of the topic. Should have ignored him

>>596082

Well, I don't think most people derive their definition of what ethics or politics is from Aristotle's works. I've read half of that--he basically says politics is a high pursuit or something, or a noble pursuit for the happiness of people.. correct me if I'm wrong please. But point being, I highly doubt people 'get' that today--if you said politics aims for the greatest good, politics is ethics/morality, etc.

>However, I am unfamiliar with any authors/texts which may assist me

OP, I can respect challenging the "wide-open" approach to literature, but it sounds like you're doing it just to do it, or just to rebel.

You're better off waiting until you encounter a particular interpretation that bothers you, figuring out why it bothers you, and arguing against that.