A Quote by Bertrand Russell

What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy. — © Bertrand Russell
What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy.
[The church] 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.
Morals consist of political morals, commercial morals, ecclesiastical morals, and morals.
[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.
Do you know what morals are? Morals are an obedience to rules that people laid down to help you live among them.
If you have to make laws to hurt a group of people just to prove your morals and faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove.
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage.
A man may not transgress the bounds of major morals, but may make errors in minor morals.
In such a performance you may lay the foundation of national happiness only in religion, not by leaving it doubtful "whether morals can exist without it," but by asserting that without religion morals are the effects of causes as purely physical as pleasant breezes and fruitful seasons.
If one starts with an impersonal beginning, the answer to morals eventually turns out to be the assertion that there are no morals.
Many a man renounces morals, but with great difficulty the conception, 'morality.' Morality is the 'idea' of morals, their intellectual power, their power over the conscience; on the other hand, morals are too material to rule the mind, and do not fetter an 'intellectual' man, a so-called independent, a 'freethinker.'
Morals aren't just for when it's easy, Anita. They aren't morals if you throw them aside every time it's convenient.
Corruption of politics has nothing to do with the morals, or the laxity of morals, of various political personalities. Its cause is altogether a material one.
The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda...are destructive of all morals because they undermind one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and respect for truth.
The balance of private good and general welfare is at the bottom of civilized morals but the morals of the Heroic Age are founded on individuality, and on nothing else.
Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!