“Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. Hence in order to act morally, you don’t need to believe in any myth or story. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

Open to discussion.

Mindfulness:
“Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. Hence in order to act morally, you don’t need to believe in any myth or story. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

Open to discussion.

Explain the bolded

ABCthings:
Explain the bolded

I am not sure I can. This is the part that got me confused.

appreciation noun

1 ​[uncountable] pleasure that you have when you recognize and enjoy the good qualities of somebody/something
She shows little appreciation of good music.
The crowd murmured in appreciation.

2 ​[uncountable, singular] appreciation of something a full or sympathetic understanding of something, such as a situation or a problem, and of what it involves
I had no appreciation of the problems they faced.

I guess the author uses the word in the context of the second definition as provided by the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. I have never used this word in this context. Another lesson learned.

In other words: you need to develop a full or sympathetic understanding of suffering.

op do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and have accepted him as your Lord and saviour?


It doesnt matter how many times you've heard this, has it made sense to you yet?

nlPoster:
op do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and have accepted him as your Lord and saviour?


It doesnt matter how many times you've heard this, has it made sense to you yet?

I love Jesus. Enough?

Mindfulness:


I love Jesus. Enough?

Good, but you should explain more.

Loving Jesus is not the same thing as accepting him as your personal Lord and saviour and understanding salvation.

nlPoster:


Not really.

Loving Jesus is not the same thing as accepting him as your personal Lord and saviour and understanding salvation.

Ok.

The general misconception is that morality is somehow antithetical to religious doctrine, or in your parlance, "following divine commands".

It only becomes clearer to the willing non-skeptical mind when he/she begins to understand that most all of the 'unlegislated' laws we live by today, are derivatives of the biblical moral laws which in itself is also a subset of the mosaic law from so-called myths & stories.

Morality, or in your parlance, "the deep appreciation for suffering", did not just invent itself out of thin air when you consider that the heathen nations (without moral laws) surrounding the people of Israel (who were asked to abide by the mosaic & moral laws), were all indulged in the vilest forms of vices - from rape, to incest, to sacrificing children to their gods, to mention but a few.

These nations had no "appreciation for suffering" because surely they did not believe in or follow divine commands.
Even the Babylonians and Assyrians, some of the most advanced civilizations of the earth at a point, had no morality.

There is no separating morality from holy doctrine.
Everything we consider wrong and evil today because they are unlawful all have their roots in the "divine commands".

Mindfulness:
“Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. Hence in order to act morally, you don’t need to believe in any myth or story. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

Open to discussion.

What gave the author of the quote the right to speak as the moral arbiter of the universe, defining what is moral and what is not?

missjo:
The general misconception is that morality is somehow antithetical to religious doctrine, or in your parlance, "following divine commands".

I beg to disagree. The opposite is true. The general misconception is that people who are not religious and/or don't believe in God lack in morality. Morality has been always associated with religion, it is its purpose and end allegedly. Even in more secular countries with a lower rate of church members and attendance, people began to express their concern about moral decadence when people began to question religious dogmas.

It only becomes clearer to the willing non-skeptical mind when he/she begins to understand that most allof the 'unlegislated' laws we live by today, are derivatives of the biblical moral laws which in itself is also a subset of the mosaic law from so-called myths & stories.

Even many legislated laws are the result of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Morality, or in your parlance, "the deep appreciation for suffering", did not just invent itself out of thin air when you consider that the heathen nations (without moral laws) surrounding the people of Israel (who were asked to abide by the mosaic & moral laws), were all indulged in the vilest forms of vices - from rape, to incest, to sacrificing children to their gods, to mention but a few.

It is not my parlance, it is a quote. The author's name is in my initial post.
The nations surrounding the people of Israel were but a fraction among all populations that ever walked this earth. Some Native American tribes had moral guidelines they lived by. It is a eurocentric (don't know where you are form but that is what it is regardless) worldview to claim that other cultures were primitive and "godless" and needed to be christianized and because they needed salvation and needed moral guidelines. It is this ideology that led to genocide.

These nations had no "appreciation for suffering" because surely they did not believe in or follow divine commands.
Even the Babylonians and Assyrians, some of the most advanced civilizations of the earth at a point, had no morality.

According to this argument Europe in the Middle Ages should have been a less brutal environment when in fact public hangings and a disregard for human rights (which did not even exist as such then) were the order of the day. And according to this logic there should be no crimes on humanity in highly religious places where Christianity dominates but the same Pilgrims who came to the US killed Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans and hanged them on trees. Hitler killed millions of Jews and I don't have to remind you of Rwanda.

There is no separating morality from holy doctrine.
Everything we consider wrong and evil today because they are unlawful all have their roots in the "divine commands".

As above. Some peoples were led by moral values long before they heard of Christ or read the Bible.

DoctorAlien:


What gave the author of the quote the right to speak as the moral arbiter of the universe, defining what is moral and what is not?

Freedom of speech.

Mindfulness:


Freedom of speech.

Great! But freedom of speech does not confer on him the right to define what is moral and what is not, any more than it confers such right on everyone else.

DoctorAlien:


Great! But freedom of speech does not confer on him the right to define what is moral and what is not, any more than it confers such right on everyone else.

He wrote a book in which he expressed his idea. You can agree or disagree with him. He hasn't held a gun to anyone's head forcing them to accept his notion of what morality is.

Mindfulness:


He wrote a book in which he expressed his idea. You can agree or disagree with him. He hasn't held a gun to anyone's head forcing them to accept his notion of what morality is.

Good to know that he has not made a statement with which everyone is obliged to agree. I only wonder whether he recognizes his statement as such.

DoctorAlien:


Good to know that he has not made a statement with which everyone is obliged to agree. I only wonder whether he recognizes his statement as such.

Send him an email.

Mindfulness:


Send him an email.

Okay.

Mindfulness:
“Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. Hence in order to act morally, you don’t need to believe in any myth or story. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

Open to discussion.

Hello there.

This is not my typical discussion on Nairaland these days, but your subsequent posts on the thread lead me to think that it may yield some value.

To begin, what Yuval has done is make something called a "truth claim." The question then is what makes it true. When he claims that morality does not mean "following divine commands," he does not go on to tell us why we should believe him.

This sort of thing is common with atheists (not that I'm claiming that he is one - I don't know him or what he claims his philosophy to be - but that argument itself is an atheistic one). They make a claim and expect it to be accepted as true merely because they made it. That is not the right way to present an argument. Doing that sort of thing is essentially acting like God.

Now, since you have gone on to refuse to take responsibility for the statement, I must ask what you would like to discuss about it, since the statement is not the type that a reasonable person would take seriously with its absence of a defining argument. What do you want to discuss in it?

Ihedinobi3:

Hello there.

This is not my typical discussion on Nairaland these days, but your subsequent posts on the thread lead me to think that it may yield some value.

To begin, what Yuval has done is make something called a "truth claim." The question then is what makes it true. When he claims that morality does not mean "following divine commands," he does not go on to tell us why we should believe him.

This sort of thing is common with atheists (not that I'm claiming that he is one - I don't know him or what he claims his philosophy to be - but that argument itself is an atheistic one). They make a claim and expect it to be accepted as true merely because they made it. That is not the right way to present an argument. Doing that sort of thing is essentially acting like God.

Now, since you have gone on to refuse to take responsibility for the statement, I must ask what you would like to discuss about it, since the statement is not the type that a reasonable person would take seriously with its absence of a defining argument. What do you want to discuss in it?

I must take responsibility for someone else's ideas when I quote them?

Mindfulness:


I must take responsibility for someone else's ideas when I quote them?

I certainly don't mean that. I was asking what you want us to discuss. Clearly, the quote cannot be taken seriously. So, if there is something in it that you want to discuss, it would be best if you said what it is and what angle you want it pursued from. That's all I meant.

In short, if you have an argument to make based on the quote, what is it? If it is a question rather that you have, then what is it?

Ihedinobi3:

I certainly don't mean that. I was asking what you want us to discuss. Clearly, the quote cannot be taken seriously. So, if there is something in it that you want to discuss, it would be best if you said what it is and what angle you want it pursued from. That's all I meant.

In short, if you have an argument to make based on the quote, what is it? If it is a question rather that you have, then what is it?

I was curious to see people's reactions to this quote though I anticipated some of the answers I got. I didn't have any questions in mind when I created this thread but I will ask you one nonetheless: what does morality mean to you?

Mindfulness:


I was curious to see people's reactions to this quote though I anticipated some of the answers I got. I didn't have any questions in mind when I created this thread but I will ask you one nonetheless: what does morality mean to you?

I'm a Christian. What else would it mean to me?

Mindfulness:


I am not sure I can. This is the part that got me confused.

appreciation noun

1 ​[uncountable] pleasure that you have when you recognize and enjoy the good qualities of somebody/something
She shows little appreciation of good music.
The crowd murmured in appreciation.

2 ​[uncountable, singular] appreciation of something a full or sympathetic understanding of something, such as a situation or a problem, and of what it involves
I had no appreciation of the problems they faced.

I guess the author uses the word in the context of the second definition as provided by the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. I have never used this word in this context. Another lesson learned.

In other words: you need to develop a full or sympathetic understanding of suffering.

There is a standard for good and bad. Which has been long existing before Christianity or Judaism. Do you agree?

ABCthings:
There is a standard for good and bad. Which has been long existing before Christianity or Judaism. Do you agree?

What do you mean by standard?

Mindfulness:


What do you mean by standard?

A law that determines what is good and what is not.

ABCthings:
A law that determines what is good and what is not.

A set of rules yes. In different parts of the world at different times.

Mindfulness:


What do you mean by standard?

A somewhat invisible law

Mindfulness:


A set of rules yes. In different parts of the world at different times.

Yes, Different societies have different morals but we know some morals are better than others.

missjo:
The general misconception is that morality is somehow antithetical to religious doctrine, or in your parlance, "following divine commands".

It only becomes clearer to the willing non-skeptical mind when he/she begins to understand that most all of the 'unlegislated' laws we live by today, are derivatives of the biblical moral laws which in itself is also a subset of the mosaic law from so-called myths & stories.

Morality, or in your parlance, "the deep appreciation for suffering", did not just invent itself out of thin air when you consider that the heathen nations (without moral laws) surrounding the people of Israel (who were asked to abide by the mosaic & moral laws), were all indulged in the vilest forms of vices - from rape, to incest, to sacrificing children to their gods, to mention but a few.

These nations had no "appreciation for suffering" because surely they did not believe in or follow divine commands.
Even the Babylonians and Assyrians, some of the most advanced civilizations of the earth at a point, had no morality.

There is no separating morality from holy doctrine.
Everything we consider wrong and evil today because they are unlawful all have their roots in the "divine commands".

False. From the dawn of complex human societies men have formulated what they considered moral both in legalistic frameworks and informal frameworks way before your mosaic laws were on the scene.

It's bonkers to say babylonians and assyrians had no morality. There is clear evidence these people had complex moral codes eg the Code of Hammurabi written at least 200years before Moses was said to exist. Ur-Nammu law code predates the Code of Hammurabi by 300years and was written by the Sumerians.

The evidence available even says societies formed way before moralistic gods started showing up. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4

LordReed:


False. From the dawn of complex human societies men have formulated what they considered moral both in legalistic frameworks and informal frameworks way before your mosaic laws were on the scene.

It's bonkers to say babylonians and assyrians had no morality. There is clear evidence these people had complex moral codes eg the Code of Hammurabi written at least 200years before Moses was said to exist. Ur-Nammu law code predates the Code of Hammurabi by 300years and was written by the Sumerians.

The evidence available even says societies formed way before moralistic gods started showing up. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4

Do you believe in the biblical version of creation?

missjo:

Do you believe in the biblical version of creation?

No

DoctorAlien:


Great! But freedom of speech does not confer on him the right to define what is moral and what is not, any more than it confers such right on everyone else.

Yet, someone bothered to ask if op had accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour as if they have the right to define anything for anyone