/lit/ - Literature

Wasn't that pretty much what Nietzsche was getting at?

>>6053132
Morality absolutely has a place in secular society. Go out and murder someone right now you pussy.

>>6053132
*tips crucifix*

>>6053140
it is proven that secular countries have higher murder and suicide rates.

a secular society might not need morality but it needs rules that would basically function as a moral code or else the infrastructure would crumble. if i wanted to kill you to fuck your wife, kill your kids and start a new family with her there has to be a sense that this would devastate a while group of people related to you and therefore be 'wrong'.

personally i d prefer anarchy sonce i ve always been a lone wolf type but eh... what can one do?

>>6053140
Secular society only places a stigma on murder because it originated from a religious society.

Prior to the introduction of religion "might" is all one needed to justify their action. if that included murder so be it.

>>6053132
sources of morality are wealth and education, once you acquire these, then you can afford a morality

>>6053168
Rules come from the laws, and those laws that come from the government aren't necessarily good and ethical.

>>6053164
Crime correlates with levels of human development and level of ability of a government to enforce laws. You have to be joking if you are comparing Europe to the Middle East and saying that the Middle East has less crime.

Good. Morality is wholly in the realm of transcendent imperative law and "un"-natural order that conceives of individuals as defined by limits on the expressive degree of their ability to think and act. Man is forced to become reactive and led by fear and hope.

The entire judicial field is built upon moral indignation. You'll have to think a bit harder about this, OP.

>only valuable source of morality is religion

>>6053186
dumb /pol/tard
the vatican has less crime than the U.S.

now go hang yourself

>>6053164
countries like Norway and Sweden are secular-minded and they have a much higher standard of living than any other country

>>6053221
oh its homemade charts time

>>6053232
>Spew nonsense
>Receive statistics
>Euphoric!

>>>/z/

>>6053221
Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe

>>6053232
better than making idiotic statements without using facts or statistics to back them up.

>>6053244
I wonder if that has something to do with their feminists having complete control over the country.

>>6053221
Sweden
Yes

>>6053132
>Morality has no real implementation in secular society.
TFW this sentence goes unnoticed on /lit/. Absolutely disgusting.

>>6053257
nice chart, but you forgot to tip your fedora.

The problem with religion nowadays is that it is already secularized by itself. By becoming just another small segment of society dedicated to nothing but profit and economic struggle, it has lost its true meaning, which is to be an universal metaphysical representation of nature and world. That world simply rejected metaphysics and started to give his own meaning to nature, not one, but thousands and thousands of them, all different and confusing.

Religion itself was originally meant to have a much bigger impact on society than it has now. Human civilization started in temples. First pieces of literature were hymns and poems dedicated to gods, and so forth.

Laws from the governments very pretty much always secularized, but they always included a certain sacral degree. Humanity simply abolished that degree over time and moved on its own.

The problem is that no adequate replacement for that degree was found.

>>6053221
denmark isnt secular

>>6053256
That and the influx of sand niggers

>Largest atheist population in China
>Average Chinese person uses the street as a toilet and has no regard for their fellow humans

Checkmate atheists.

>>6053312
The problem is that in order to believe in a benevolent, loving God, you also must believe that he created the Chinese.

>>6053185
how are the laws of a land not its functioning morality? in America being 21 and having sex with a 15 year old is seen as wrong by the majority, that is the morality of the country which is influenced completely by its laws. there's nowhere in any religious text that says it's improper. the law is a country's morality or will become it given enough time.

>>6053318
Yajuj and Majuj are still behind a barrier somewhere on this Earth, continuously trying to break down the barrier or wall, in order to be free. But Allah does not allow them to break it, until the time when He is ready for them to do so. The first sign of the breaking of the barrier will be the fire which will rise in Sham [Syria].

Their population will be vast in numbers...

>>6053132
except that's fake value...

>>6053327
Fake by which standards?

>>6053132
>People really think religion is a source of morality

>>6053333

>>6053333
by logic

>>6053338
>implying hitler was religious

>>6053338
>hitler was wrong

>>6053347
he was a vegetarian painter.
beware of the alternative artsy types

>>6053326
Islam is fan-fiction written by a pedophile.

Societies need specific laws so that everyone knows where to restrain themselves from doing anything they want.

Very broad statements of morality like the Golden Rule are valuable, but don't give much guidance about specific lawmaking.

Religious texts are great at setting down very specific laws. The problem is that concepts of what is moral and what is immoral change over time.

For example, one of the Ten Commandments is "Honor thy father and thy mother". What even does that mean? Always obey them? The very idea in our society now is risible. On the other hand Old Testament kings kept slaves without batting an eye, and we now consider that an extremely cruel and immoral practice.

Societies need laws. As societies grew more complex, religious bodies stepped into the breach to set down the laws and give them some apparent authority as coming from God. Nowadays we don't need divine authority to decide what is moral and what should be illegal.

>>6053354
careful with those jokes mon frere :^)

>>6053382
Blue board.

>>6053382

>>6053414
There's nothing really wrong with that image, though.

>>6053414
coffee when?

>>6053244
It doesn't, they just define rape as everything.

If God existed, why would his moral system be objective? It's basically might makes right which is no different from how a secular universe operates.

>>6053244
that's because they define rape differently(broader) and their enforcement and reporting is higher and differednt.

WTF are you talking about? The rule of pretty much every law is based on utilitarianism these days

>>6053211

Yeah, but the age of consent in Vatican City is 11.

Religious laws were very useful because back then it was very hard to enforce laws.
Religion was able to convince the majority that there is a policeman in the sky looking at them and knowing exactly what they are doing at any given moment.
This means that if you believe in hell and heaven it is rational for you to do good and not do evil even if no person will ever know about it.

These days we have police, investigations, blood, DNA, finger prints and so on..
Modern rules are based on historical conclusions. They are based on what works, what wokred and on certain ideals that to most seem like good ideals.
Most modern laws are complicated, about complicated issues with many technicalities about which religions have nothing to say.
Laws and what societies think about conduct is influenced by the general level of education, by technology, by the economy and so on.
It is all intertwined and to talk about morality you have to talk about history, technology economy, philosophy, population centers etc..
Our morality is rooted in our basic needs as people, our instincts, likes and dislikes and the way interactions work within society between individuals.

In theory there are many ways to come to moral understandings about what would ensure everyone's desires are met to the greatest degree.
Here is one:
lets image we are sitting around a table discussing what laws and morals we want in our future society.
None of us knows what role we will play in that society or who we will be.
White or black, slave or slave master, murderer or victim.
So behind this veil of anonymity we immediately realize that things like "do not kill" make perfect sense for us to agree on.
If i dont know Who I will be than killing, stealing, racism, rape are all things I dont want to be a part of society. I do not want to potentially suffer from those.
From rational decisions and a sort of objective self interest we can come up with rules that make sense.
You dont need god or some rubbish about transcendence, you just need rationality.

>Prove me wrong

The Crusades, Jihads, genocide of the Canaanites, the sectarian wars that pretty much every religion ever has been involved in, a good part of the colonial ambitions of pretty much every empire, which had the approval of the official religion of the empire

>>6053221
>Those pictures of The Netherlands
If only that was all of it.
>tfw no ice
>tfw only one morning of snow so far

>>6053278
underrated post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNESB3yBCAs

>>6053221
Gotta love how they represent each country as some perfect heaven

>>6053512
That and the absurd ammount of immigrants pumping the statistics of violent crimes.

I could post a image and a source to back up what I'm saying, but you or somebody else here would post a variation of the fedora meme or ">>/pol/" as a reply, and we're all kind of tired of these lazy non-sequiturs, right?

>>6053132
Okay. Religions are false and made up yet they're able to create moral doctrines. A secular society could make up its own moral code, only they'd actually know it was made up, so it could be constantly refined and improved. Since most people aren't religious fundamentalists, religions already work this way. The only difference is that they still hold on to a few false beliefs for old time's sake.

>>6053560
Every single ethical system has one or more axioms that arise from some sort of judgement of value, therefore some degree of transcendence is necessary.

Morality doesn't govern society.

Laws do.

>>6053132

Morality isn't the kind of thing that has a "source".

>>6053132
Sorry, can't prove you wrong, you're absolutely correct although I do believe we haven't seen a truly secular society. I would define secular as freedom from ideological precept and constraint. There is no such freedom in any culture, religion is only ever supplanted by an alternative ideological framework. The pattern of cultural development shows that Ideology is always inflexible, so as a culture progresses and the discontinuity between the dominant ideology and reality fails to be reconciled it will take on the mantle of a religion along with the concomitant concepts like: heresy, fidelity etcetera. Only the names change is this game, heretic becomes denier, fidelity becomes conscientious. Another constant, is that religion is for the masses, the elite remain aloof from such trivial concerns, while paying ample lip service, of course.

Prove me wrong.

> it doesn't work that way... and not proving you that you are wrong doesn't mean you are right...

for example, there's a teapot revolving around the earth, prove me wrong...

any evidence you present that might prove me wrong does not negate that fact that i'm wrong... therefore, i'm right...

so if you claim that morality is the only valuable source of morality...

then prove it...
the burden of proof is yours due to that wild claim... lel :I

and

>>6054140
'Prove me wrong' is an exercise, it's not meant to be a model for deductive/inductive reasoning.

If you distinguish Ethics from Morality, you are right.

But then I could conceive both, as a linguistic variable for the axioms that fund law, unspoken law, and societal behavior, making both of your asserts irrelevant in the move, whilst rehabilitating both secular, and religious people.

>>6053560
Get off of /lit/, Rawls. Nobody wants you here.

>>6053132
Evolutionary pressure selects against murder (in the sense of murder meaning killing one of your own species, your own species in the sense of being genetically compatible for procreation). Prove me wrong you little christfaggot.

>Morality has no real implementation in secular society.
Proving you wrong: Of course it has, since there are many, diverse philosophical systems of morality.

>The only valuable source of morality is religion.
You forgot to justify your claim. I can prove you wrong by simply claiming that a non-religious system of morality is the only valuable source of morality; the same as you did.

Is this what /lit/ has come to?

>>6053132
You are right, people need to believe in lies in order to not turn crazy. Even atheist to some dregree belives in them

>>6053132
>distinguish Ethics from Morality
Apart from their syntax, they are indistinguishable.

>>6055737
Meant to link to >>6054233