Has anyone ever been able to rebut Betrand Russell's "Marriage and Morals"? Even Einstein said the work was brilliant

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.

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/venezuela-not-greece-latin-america-oil-poverty
salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/
jstor.org/discover/10.2307/353375?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104483526871
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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."

kukolding is truly the thinking man's fetish.

really makes you think....

if you want repressive moralism- Jesus was the very man. This is the man who equated lustful thoughts with adultery.

Is he talking about the Christian God or Gods in general?

a "god" has so many meanings. I do not even like the ideat that atheism=no god, because there are forms of divinity that do not even require gods.

Interesting that the morality of Christ was so insufficient that the church had to import morals initially from Plato and the Neo-Platonists and later from Aristotle.

Christian God
>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.

russell himself admits that he is not able to get Stoicism, buddhism,

Has russell ever been able to engage any one who disagreed with him?

>Everybody knows that this is untrue.
>Even Einstein said the work was brilliant.
>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.

Not an argument.

>it is hard to say where a legitimate interest in food ceases and guilt begins to be incurred.

It's not about the amount or quality of the food eaten.

I doubt he really understands what sin is. It's not an action, it's a state of being.

Brazil is a gigantic rebuttal to the notion that sexual permisiveness is something good.

North European countries are usually quite sexually open. Not as graphic as Brazil. But still very open about sex.

You are about to get meme'd on by /pol/ christians posting SWEDEN YES comics.

Nobility fosters a pick and choose attitude. Also being a bit irked by fascism at the time seems fair

I regrettably decline this discussion, me and a russell fag would never have compatible views

They've only became sexually open in the last few decades, and their societies declined accordingly.

> declined accordingly
Nice wishful thinking here.

...

...

>>>/leftypol/

>abuse for 16 years

>criminals aged 21

>they were 6 years old when this began

It's unarguable that Europe is in a massive crisis in economic, social, and political institutions. They are less significant now than even after the Second World War on the global stage.

> Europe is in a massive crisis
How you come with that idea? I don't see any kind of civil war or starving people, for example.

Yet, but one day other people's money will run out and socialism will have the same end in Europe it had everywhere else. Just look at Venezuela to see the future of Europe, both economically, socially, culturally, politically and demographically.

>Le europe is socialist meme

Let me guess you're american?

Pessimistic prognoses isn't the same as being in the state of the crisis.

Sounds like an apologia for cuckoldery

Europe does lean more towards socialism these days. Estonia is one notable exception. Switzerland is another

>Pessimistic prognoses

That's what people said about Venezueala too, that it was only alarmism from neoliberal hacks and partisans.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/venezuela-not-greece-latin-america-oil-poverty

salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/

>salon
>Venezuela not in economic turmoil right now

oh you're cute. I'd prove otherwise but that would derail the thread to which would be disingenuous to the topic of the thread.

He would talk about extra-marital affairs because he himself was the son of a cuck.

No, we're not. We are accepting of sexuality but not open about it.

This is an American meme

I absolutely disagree, society needs firm and strict moral rules and laws to work, otherwise people turn into animals

That's not a rebuttal.

there's no reason for socciety to "work"

Everything he says would be absolutely fine, if government sanction marriage was abolished, as was alimony, child support or any other violent redistribution of wealth from father to mother, or vice versa.

People can fuck as much as they want, and cuck themselves as much as they want as far as I'm concerned, as long as I don't have to take part in it, or have to be taxed to pay for their bastard children.

This is the autist who thought monism literally means that one thing, and one thing only exists

Russell's a joke

Those morals exist for a reason.

They make people who follow them (and consequently society) better and happier. Promiscuous people are unhappy and end up harming their loved ones.

This guy himself had huge problems with depression.

Also, monogamy exists so that every man gets a woman and a family he can support. Men without families are dangerous to economy if there is too many of them.

Tell me, what reason does a single childless man have to do anything but the bare minimum to support himself?

Romantic relationships aren't good fodder for philosophical or scientific musings. Theories of how relationships might work rarely match the actual facts of how relationships work.

Two people choose to be together and pair off. They can complicate their lives by bringing new people into the relationship, or they can keep it simple and be faithful to each other. If one partner is faithful and the other is not, that's a betrayal.

Europe is not socialist. Denmark is more capitalist than the US. Denmark ( which Bernie loves ) has no minimum wage, a privatised fire and ambulance service, lax product regulations, free trade, a lower corporate tax rate and a less progressive tax system ( but more taxes on the middle class ). Sweden has no inheritance tax, a school voucher system, privately ran hospitals under universal healthcare, they performed deregulation of many things including finance in the 1990s (there was a crisis but they fixed that and now it works fine ), the same lax regulations etc.

>Europe is socialist meme
Fuck off and enjoy your military keynesianism yank.

Literally the opposite is true. Southern Europe was more degenerate, but not open about sex and nudity. Northern Europe was prude, but very open with nudity.

>Neoliberal
>Bad thing

Free markets plus social insurance is a bad thing?
Protip: those weren't neoliberals.

Shut up americuck. If you guys whine about having a 8% unemployment rate, here that is literally going-well tier.

Brazil is a shithole because of corporate multinationals and a corrupt government.

The people live horrible lives in slums. The sort of sexual permisiveness they practice is altogether different from the one Russel proposes, and is borne of economic disparity.

>privately ran hospitals under universal healthcare
This is actually more socialist than Obamacare. Almost communism.
t. Hillary Clinton.

You don't need a minimum wage when the entire workforce is unionized, and the high US corporate tax rate doesn't take into account the loopholes that let companies pay essentially zero in taxes. The wealthiest companies make way more in subsidies than they pay in taxes.

>Brazil is a shithole because of corporate multinationals and a corrupt government.

Brazilian here. This is bullshit.

Brazil is a shithole because of brown people

Most of the unions are for workers who wouldn't be on the minimum wage anyway. Tax credits are a much better way to help the poor. The point about the loop holes actually supports my statement that the Danes are much better capitalists ( by which I mean using capitalism to support society) than the Americans, and corporate subsidies are a major problem in the US once again showing how the Danes are better capitalists than the Americans.

Why is Brazil a shithole then? Am I right in saying that the south is much better than the north economically?

Euro here, the amount of money we burn in order to elevate the foreigners and integrate the savages is astoundishingly high.

Many issues, but the root is that we have a pretty bad culture and shitty education. Then, we get a poor working force and populism.

>Am I right in saying that the south is much better than the north economically?

The South is richer than the North.

Hasn't the government been against many multinationals? I remember reading it tried to build a computer industry by preventing imports/tariffs but it completely failed and everyone was worse off.

I'm not going to argue that anything approaching actual capitalism exists in the US. Governmental capture, regulatory capture, etc. have killed capitalism at its most basic level, competition.

Also, advertising, the cornerstone of the American economy, creates demand for existing products, undermining the utilitarian principles of capitalism.

I wouldn't necessary call advertising always a bad thing. It depends on the format. Advertising showing that the product is better (healthier/more efficient etc) that it's competitors is good. Advertising with no substance but only style is bad. I'd also tend to suggest that they choose to buy the products so why should we stop them but I'm aware of the criticisms of that view.

Advertising quit being informative a long time ago. It's designed to be persuasive. Expending capital to persuade consumers to choose one product over another because of branding is wasteful to the whole of society, and thus counter to utilitarian principles.

Competition on the open market and consumer choices based on quality relative to price are good for society. Buying brand X because the television told you to is not.

If one accepts that all advertising is not informative then I'd agree with your conclusions. Sadly people don't seem to understand that the don't have to buy these products. More needs to be done by regulators (assuming they haven't been "captured") to promote informative advertising.

Never happen. Advertising is going to get more invasive and manipulative, not less. Facebook isn't monitoring everything we like and talk about for no reason.

The 21st century will see the manipulation and control of the masses reach levels Eddie Bernays could only dream of.

>Everybody knows that this is untrue.

Not an argument.

Russel is a giant faggot.

I remember looking up a game of thrones character on my phone while I was discussing it with a friend. I go on Facebook later that night and it comes up: pages you may like - characters name. The strangest thing was that on the people you may know bit of my friends account our Chinese teacher ( who we only had for a couple of months and had no friends in common) came up. It's pretty freaky.

>Has anyone ever been able to rebut Betrand Russell's "Marriage and Morals"? Even Einstein said the work was brilliant.

Every single advanced society was/is based around marriage and these things developed independently, so I think it's safe to say that marriage is pretty fucking important to societal cohesion. We can see the effects of single motherhood and divorces (aka part time parenting, if that) have on kids and the effect is extremely negative.

Facebook has thousands upon thousands of pages of records on the behavior of every user. Consider that 538 was able to predict the outcomes of elections with ~99% accuracy in 2012 based on mass polling data. What can those same or similar algorithms do with intimate knowledge of everything millions of people are thinking and doing every day?

>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
Retarded. The best lovers are the ones who both, together, are passionate about raising children. That always makes the best couples.

>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.
Yeah, but no one wants it to be true, aside from sex-craved faggots like him. Everyone who cares more about the children, does not want to have multiple partners, because this makes raising the child harder.

Why does everyone forget how the Spartans lived? No sexual congress between men and women, was forbidden so far as it would produce healthy children. They were also used to public nudity.

Now how is it that the spartans, the most conservative people ever, have a more liberal attitude than people ITT?

Autism.

Spartans were a crazy ass society who viewed women as warrior factories.

They didn't have sex for pleasure, but for babies.

>>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.

On the contrary. The reason why pair-bonding behaviour, love, developed in humans is because human children take a long time to raise and so having both parents present and together for this process greatly raises the probability of successfully raising your children to be able to pass on your genes themselves.

The human behaviour of jealousy and attempting to prevent the outcome of mistakenly devoting your time and resources to raising another man's child developed as a result of the same incentives.


So given that both behaviours developed from the same incentive , what logical reason does he have russel have to say that one "ruined" the other?

they're both behaviours that exist for clear reasonsn.

>>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.

Here's another opinon that he offers us without reasoning or evidence.
Thankfully there exists empirical evidence showing that it is desirable for this to be the case because the greater number of previous sexual partners a woman has had, the higher the probability of her cheating and the higher the probability of her marriage ending in divorce.
Isn't this the man who complained about and poo-poo'd nietzche for providing opinions rather than a logical argument?
What a vacuous hypocrite.
Maybe he lowers his intellectual standards when it comes to defending his love of being a cuckold.

jstor.org/discover/10.2307/353375?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104483526871
> A woman with 1-3 partners was roughly four times(p

So Russell's the reason why cuckoldry is a vogue during posmodernism?
Also, Einstein was just like Russell: Marry a woman, dump it later, rinse, repeat.

>a whole country is a shithole because some private entrepeneurships
that's how latin america think and that's why they lag on everything

Didn't Bertrand Russel divorce his wife because he had an epiphany one day while riding his bike that he had not loved her for fifteen years or something?

I would not look to him and Einstein as testaments to marriage and its sociological bearings. I'd sooner look to Tesla who gave that up for the pursuit of a higher affection for learning and life experience.

Also, all of OP's greentext is anecdotal and refutable based on the position of, and resolve to follow one's ideological values. The more value you place on sex, all the more double-minded you are; because it and love are exclusive to one another. Sex is even anathema to love. And "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." - James 1:8

Basically, much of the state of today's humanity can be traced to the shaky integrity of monogamatic values. To segue this into the non-sequitor about gluttony, the Seven Deadly Sins were a font to express that based on the Bible's term "belial," which is wanton excess. We always know, when we've had enough of something. Only someone trying to justify their own lack of self-control would ever say otherwise.

It's as Edgar Cayce put it, "Ideally, man should be like the goose, which having found a mate, never seeks a new partner unless forced by man's hand." But we are, as a civilization, not that strong ideologically yet. It hasn't even been 30 years since the movie Fatal Attraction came out, the first movie to address infidelity in the mainstream spotlight.

private entrepreneurship =/= corporate multinational.

Corporate multinationals are, make no mistake, political entities, with the potential to be as corrupt as any government, beyond the control of any private citizen, and sometimes they even have more GDP than small countries.

>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.
This is completely irrelevant.

Only countries have GDPs. Companies have assets, and what's wrong with companies being more efficient and organized than whole countries?

>kukolding is truly the thinking man's fetish.
>one genius's father was a cuckold so therefore it is a fetish for smart people

>best lovers are X

I disagree with you, but I wouldn't make retarded statements of that kind.

Spartans are based.

You're confusing excessive pragmatism with conservatism

Indeed. You had to keep your words succinct and to the point in their society or they bit your thumb for being verbose.

>Even during its decline, Sparta never forgot its claim to be the "defender of Hellenism" and its Laconic wit. An anecdote has it that when Philip II sent a message to Sparta saying "If I enter Laconia, I will raze Sparta", the Spartans responded with the single, terse reply: αἴkα, "if."

Every time.

>excessive pragmatism with conservatism
If you subscribe to any kind of ism, or schism; you are already beyond pragmatic.

Guy cheats on his wife and writes an entire book justifying it. If that's not lawful evil I don't know what is.

How's it retarded? Or are you one of those wishy-washy agnostic stiffs who sit on the fence and think you're above anyone who has an opinion?

Sorry, fake.

>>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.

Christ, why do atheistic philosophers have such a shit-tier understanding of religion

No, they aren't. Look at the averages for sexual partners in a lifetime by country.