@Angel Felipe thats harder If you dont know what is tgat you are suppose to do Do something By doing that you will find some truth of the right thing thing you should be doi g
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 King James Version (KJV) 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
@@robinsss Life can be vain if you choose, but it doesn't have to be. Ecclesiastes 12:13 (KJV) 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Damn, this man is absolutely fantastic. JP, you will go down in history. You will remain. The world will know, how much of a beacon of light you are, you were. My absolute hero.
This doesn't specifically deal with moral relativism. People can be "in the zone" and fulfilled by many things which are, to most people, morally reprehensible.
@@aaronbennett4444 no intelligence is actually better than pseudo-intelligence contrary to popular belief 😂 I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing - Socrates keep listening to pseudo-intelligence sheep 🐑🐑🐑
From what I read by Aristotle, every being is meant to become its entelechy. For the ancient Greeks every man was to fulfill his destiny. Today I say that, to honor your nature, to pursue your own fate, that is an eternal way of existence.
Of all the greeks, i find myself being more intrigued by Heraclitus and Parmenides than Socrates or Plato. But Aristotle, i've always wanted to dive into. Your comment sound also somewhat Kierkegaardian might i say. Very existentialist.
thanks for this video... kinda helps me understand why i can feel miserable even though everything in life is going great... if its not meaningful but you still suffer for your efforts, then you really start to question your whole direction
In short, moral relativism heavily implies that there is no meaning in what you do, except to do what you want to, when you want. But Jordan's answer is that there _is_ meaning in what you do, because your actions and attitude directly correlate to how good or bad you might have it, in life.
@@borekstvorek Lol presumably you think it a waste of time to buy a car ?? I mean what's the point its going to eventually end up a rusting heap in some a scrap yard somewhere. ?? 🤔🤔 Me however I think cars are just great, they're extremely useful and serve a "Purpose" all the time I have one. I place great "value" on my ability to travel where and when I need to. For example my wife was ill last year and my car allowed me to get her go the hospital in time to save her life. I would say that alone justification for my buying a car and the value I place upon it, dont you. 🤔🤔🤔 You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case. My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags". I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear. I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning" But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life. A child killer however so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless if course those children also found the "evidence" 🤣🤣 for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
@@trumpbellend6717 you seem severely delusional. Presuming and assuming isn't useful in any case... thanks for proving it. I'm sure you enjoy conversations you're having with yourself very much, but it helps to check yourself sometimes...
@@essentialpost because that expression is redundant and overused to the point that it lost its significance. There are many ways to paint a vivid picture in someone's mind with words in order to convey an idea, whether it's a good or bad idea, in an extremely effective way, such as using metaphores and allegories... (that's why many intellectual thinkers and writers are still remembered to this day) the deeper we examine something the more we absorb it. I guess this is why JP always goes round and round before presenting his ultimate point.
I'd like to see a debate between JDP and Peter Joseph. Both are very intelligent and respect clear debate yet stand on different vantages. Would make for a very enlightening debate.
It's amazing how fundamental and simple many of his ideas are. It's more amazing how many if not most of us already know the truths he's espousing. It's far far far more amazing that one man articulating these ideas for us can create such a chain, net positive reaction in those who would lend their ears and heart. This is why "Man" is not to be compared with a "cancer" or a "plague" like is so often done in radical environmentalism. The synchronicity in this question being answered for me is astounding. God Bless.
Just don't try asking Joe about child slaves from Mexico and their "parents" or statutory rape comitted by female predators, and don't ask JP about how caving to outrage narratives just makes things worse for yourself and everyone else.
I agree. Except for Jordan Peterson being a snake oil salesman. Most of his arguments are shallow. He literally contradicted himself with equality of outcome and sexuality on this very podcast.
'''''we trust each other'''''…………….…….that's rather presumptive ………………………………..I don't trust anyone,...…………………………..why should I trust you?..………………………………………..I don't know you from a whole in the wall
Doing things that fulfill me, fulfill me until I notice it bugs other people or makes them upset. Nothing bad... I guess I am just a dormant leader or I am just a person who can see where people and things fit... Or maybe I just think I do and I am horrible at it. More than likely I just like placing things and people in places I think they will benefit the most and I am actually just horrible at it.
I wonder if Peterson has read one of the great analysis of the distinction between moral principle and moral relativism: "The Common Sense of Politics" by philosopher Mortimer J. Adler. What Adler provides is a clear way to objectively evaluate whether the rules of the game are fair or cause unjust outcomes.
Difficult to apply this antidote to moral relativism. I thought it would be more substantial and modular I guess. An answer to "Yeah... but what about..."
I'm impressed with the level of your modesty knowing that you made the world more worth living , you probably have a random self congratulation , I personally I'm much better human Base on your teaching
I'm currently going through what Jordan talks about an the end. I've always placed high importance on honestly, but I'm starting to learn that lying isn't inherantly bad. Like any tool, it depends on how you use it.
So this basically applies to people with similar moral upringing. What about people who feel they're doing something right intrinsically, intensely, yet what they are doing can be evil in our eyes? This big rant doesn't escape the idea of moral relativism. It just tries to divert attention away from the problem of people who are driven by different internal mechanisms to those who would see their actions as bad or evil. This is why Peterson shouldn't be speaking as if he understands these concepts. He doesn't. He's not a philosopher, he's a psychologist. Yet his fans gulp everything up and many refuse to accept criticism of JBP's massive mistakes and uninformed statements.
Yes. the more fundamental aspect is not in morality, but it's in the worldview of them. When there's the view that good actions reap rewards and worth doing, then they'll do it. And where to acquire the right view? It's through the voice of other and proper attention. Or else one will just stuck inside his own justifications.
Your supposition implies a belief that we are all separate. In my experience, there is a thread that connects us all and is consistent throughout. When people act on impulses that go against that, they are disconnected from it, not feeling it, acting on a different kind of impulse. The "realness" that JP is talking about is very different from the inconsistency that you're pointing to. There is something real. It's very very consistent. It underlies every living thing. You can feel it if you're quiet. "Pay attention." "Be Present." To what's REAL
@@gracelewis6071 You just made a bunch of assumptions that something in our core drives us yet there is so much disagreement and conflict in the moral field of discussion. How the hell can you even believe that when we're arguing about moral relativism right now? I can guarantee you there are several fundamental moral disagreements we would have if we went into detailed debate. I GUARANTEE! Sure, a lot of morality is instinctual, and it's tied to our NATURE. But using such vague terms as you did does nothing to help.
@@LagOknenonok I'm speaking from experience. I'm not speaking from a place of "discussion." That implies debate. There is no debate when it comes to reality. To Truth. It's right here for anyone and everyone to experience, right now. The intellectualism is a distraction. It's what every religion has pointed to in the history of mankind, and it's very, very Real.
I'm not sure if this is a sound refutation of moral relativism or nihilism. You cannot derive an *ought from an is* The laws of physics really don't care about your life goals, aspirations, failures or successes. But that doesn't mean that because *meaning* is not grounded in any empirical domain that it's not worth pursuing or creating. We can make objective statements about subjective experiences, and it is clear that humans ruminate and think deeply about the value in life and it's contents. This does not preclude humans from creating meaning by doing something you *feel* is satisfactory. I would add that it is reasonable for humans to do this so as to structure and orientate their lives.
But does the sense of meaning created by the death and rebirth of ideas really prove that morality is objective? I think it merely supports individual relativism. For example, some might be engaged and find meaning learning that the earth is flat, whereas another will sense meaning learning that it is round. Both experience the same level of meaning, but that does not mean that they are pursuing the fundamental truth. As one individual is obtaining a sense of meaning despite how he is learning something that is not true. I’m not really sure if I voiced this question correctly, I’m confused, and I want to believe in objective morality
Ok I think I see where I maybe went wrong. After many “clicks” from engaging in meaningful conversations and discoveries, the man who believes the earth is flat could be brought closer to the truth that it is actually round. But maybe he will discover reddit and fall down a rabbit hole and learn nothing
I agree with most of Dr. Peterson says here (not something that happens often), but I fail to see how it relates to moral relativity. You can strive to discover meaning in life and still believe that morality is subjective. Most moral relativists simply act based on what is good for themselves, and the good of other people, rather than arbitrary rules about what is moral.
Good for yourself is a value judgement. The value itself isn't objective. If a group says it's moral to act for the good of other people. That is also an assertion of value. The value itself isn't objective. You could ground values in the metaphysical like we traditionally did. Such as saying that the good is grounded in God. That makes the values more objective. Most traditional societies had such a metaphysical ground that acted as an organizing principle for their society. That could be God, the gods, Dharma, Buddha Nature, the Tao. But personal preferences aren't objective values.
Like some other people have said this doesn't seem to have much to do with moral relativism and certainly isn't a coherent argument against that concept...
I used to think that way, I stopped when I got my life together one week and had the clear notion there was a drawn path to me but you'd only be convinced if you tried at maximum.
The question of the meaning of life is but an age old classical example of an anthropocentric outlook. We "came" into life. Life never come into us. Life always was...long before us and long after. So the question is void. The right one is: How do i live a meaningful life.
Moral relativism implies that life has no meaning and good can be evil or evil can be good. I think Peterson's saying that we have inner biological meaning in our lives so we can base our morality simply off of who humans are. We hate murder because it makes our bodies feel bad, we have meaning in our lives because our bodies say so. Basically there's a proven biological base we can base our meaning off of. If you apply it to a real scenario. A depressed teen could say that since morality is relative, it doesn't matter what he does even if its self defeating in nature and leads him to have more depression. Peterson says that it does matter since biology wills it so, meaning that if you follow your biological impulses to find meaning you will have a meaning in life. I may be wrong since I don't have enough life experience or experience with philosophy.
there is a group, who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still: the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest-who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements-who shrug off professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.”-The Virtue of Selfishness.
Am I understating this correctly ? Is the solution for moral relativism following the moral rules that have been imposed into your life because it contributes to the meaning of life?
Diluting oneself into thinking the game their playing with virtuous intent is not certain to result in the elimination of suffering. Even playing the game competently won't make real outside of itself.
JFC. He doesn't get chaos and order at all. He is way overbalanced on the side of order. You have to accept and embrace the chaos of life because that's where the creativity of creation comes from.
@@juanmanikings hmm but you’re the one on a video about him, in the comment sections, in a sub thread, telling someone he’s delusional and everyone else who learns something from this man. So what does that make you? Something much worse than delusional for sure
Isn't moral relativism just the consequence of different viewpoints and wants? I mean I don't really see why would it be poison, it's just an observation.
It's the idea that since people have different morals that in reality morals don't exist. Because my morals can be different from yours, therefore there aren't any true right or wrongs therefore morals don't matter. The issue is that if you believe that the world has no right or wrongs (morals) then that can lead someone to believe that there isn't really a point to anything (Like imagine someone creating a game where there aren't any rules or regulations, then what's the point of playing it?) Which leads to nihilism, the idea that nothing really matters, which often times leads to depression and sadly su!cide. If you instead believe in morals it gives you rules to follow which helps give life a purpose and meaning. I understand your confusion though since a lot of people make it seem like moral relativity is just the idea of "people grow up differently, which leads to different morals."
I am new to this but here is what I am having trouble understanding. Peterson is trying to debunk moral relativism by saying that being in the zone of proximal development (or being in a state of flow.. I know this is different) is morally good and therefore there is no moral relativism? But wouldn’t different actions (depending on a person’s past experience and culture ) put people in that zone of proximal development? For example a serial killer could be in a state of flow when attacking a victim. A normal person would be severally traumatized by killing another person. Hence moral relativism... I don’t really know what I am talking about here. Can someone who does help me out with this?
A more superficial flow state is one thing. Deep connection to what is Real is another. I think he merges the two concepts early on, but gains some clarity in the middle when he starts talking about the Egyptians seeing being present as the highest potential, and the birds saying "pay attention!" It's hard to pick out here I think, because it's two men that appear to understand what is Real without needing to speak it. Which you can't btw. The only way to experience it is by being present and BEING it. Being Real. Go sit with a tree for a while. The flow state with this realness is very different from one without it.
I want to preface this by saying I respect Jordan Peterson and I'm a huge fan of his work, but I've never seen him "debunk" moral relativism in any way that holds water. He says that "confronting problems and solving them" is "real" because it "ameliorates suffering and limits malevolence" (0:39), but that doesn't track logically. Reducing suffering and malevolence isn't an objective goal it's a choice, like wanting to make money, or wanting to learn how to kickflip a skateboard. To truly disprove moral relativism, you'd need to prove that objectivity can exist in and of itself. The same logic follows for trying to objectively prove that 1+1=2. If I try to do something like: 5 x 10 = 50 so, 2 x 5 = 10 so, 1 x 5 + 1 x 5 = 10 so, 5 + 5 = 10 so, 1 + 1 = 2 , I haven't OBJECTIVELY proven 1 + 1 = 2, because the logic I used was based on the presuppositions: 1. that numbers represent a count of individual objects 2. addition represents the TOTAL COUNT of two separate sets, each containing its own count of objects 3. equating means having the same total count of objects. Similarly, Mr Peterson's argument against moral relativism rides on the presuppositions: 1. Malevolence is bad 2. suffering is bad (and probably a bunch more) Since any logic that involves PRE-DEFINED ideas IS influenced by personal feelings and opinions, it cannot, by definition, be objective. Fun side note. My entire argument is based on Google's English dictionary, which is provided by Oxford Languages. It defines objectivity as: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. The fun irony in this is that definitions are ALSO entirely subjective, and that makes my ENTIRE POINT subjective. There is no way to objectively prove that everything is subjective, and I think, subjectively, that that's beautiful. Edit: I misuse "objective" and "subjective" a lot here, but my point still stands. Just sub out "objective" with "absolute", and "subjective" with "relative".
There's "real" and then there's REAL. Talking about "real" isn't the actual thing. The actual lived experience of Real can't be put into words. Except maybe the velveteen rabbit managed to :) He got to be Real ❤ in the most true sense
@@gracelewis6071 There's "real", and then there's a writer's redefinition of "real" to serve a story. The Velveteen Rabbit was "real" in the same way Harry Potter was a "griffindor". "What do you read my lord?" "Words, words, words." -Hamlet
I see what he's saying, that this deeply biological indicator of "The Zone" or "Meaning" is a sort of "Objective Morality" bred into us. However, could you not say that someone could be in "The Zone" while doing reprehensible and Immoral things? What if your life's work was to exterminate a people group, and you derived Meaning from that by working hard, innovating, etc. In that case, "Meaning" is separate from true Morality.
There's a right path that's found and built through meaning in actions and communication. That meaning found in constructive interchange would be impossible if everything was relative, there is a common truth for those who seek it. There are many ways of interpreting life but so few of them are optimal and lead you to survival.
The only sad thing about this man is that he can't teach others fast enough. He's so far ahead of most of the rest of us, he must feel like he's talking to children most of the time.
Love the passion and a lot of JPs way of thinking, and how he dares to say controversial things, seldom told by main stream media. Though, I would argue that JP often tends to relativism himself in his speeches, ie. "Death's and rebirth's" how we need to go out of our way from our fast held truths and right morals, to learn new ways and perspectives of life. I might find a little conflicting. But also, There seems to be no denying the positive impact he has on people and their empowerment :) Good job!
In all space there is only one wisdom. When TWO have become ONE and ONE has become the ALL, know that the barrier has lifted and ye are made free from the road. 36 000 BC
I read a similar line in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, but in reference to three becoming one and one becoming three, which is v interesting in light of neoplatonic and proto-christian philosophy. As far as what you said, sure why not. Source?
This is a bit simplistic though. Suppose one nation sacrifices the losing or winning team [such as what the Aztec did], and the other doesn't [such as what Europeans do]. It isn't enough to simply recognize differerence, but understanding that one is regressive or progressive to a healthy society.
My values are in so deep threaded through..I never new mind could spilt like that ................I now understand..I am strong omg 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣☄️ it was bad I was bad just sitting in the vessel..yess mine was catertrophic it's dangerous I was of chops on DMT of my mind crystal out my nose bro....
@@aseelanza because morality is intrinsically connected to one's couse of action, not merely to "what is wrong to do to others". What you do to yourself is also a moral issue. If you are lazy and flee from responsibility, you are acting immoraly because... (you can watch peterson for this one). Moral objectivism implies that there is something that is objectively true, and although we may not grasp it, we can walk tirelessly towards it and in doing so get further away from error. This does not mean that there is only one course of action (e.g.: you have to be lawyers otherwise you will fail miserably), but that there is a meta-pattern of how to act: a series of do's and don'ts that alleviate suffering and help one get closer to where they want/should be. Moral relativism is the denial of the fact thate there is something right to be done. Everything's arbitrary and, as such, there is no pathway to do what is right, because "right" is entirely relative. There's no center, no fulcrum, no road. I could continue this drivel on and on, but I don't want to be more boring than I already am being.
@@irreadings again you dont understand that these are categories of moral philosophies. Moral realism is the category for moral philosophies that accept the existence of moral facts, while moral anti realism is the opposite (moral relativism, error theory, noncognitivism). Moral relativism is not saying there is no right or wrong, its rather saying that right and wrong are relative.
I believe morality is a silly concept but I am also interested by the precondition reflection idea. I think maybe, I get in the zone when the precondition for that is my curiosity
@@awful999 if you define the moral thing as just doing what feels right, I think it's sort of natural as opposed to an objective concept. I wouldn't consider cave people programmed with mutualism "moral". I won't disagree with the fact that society wouldn't function if people didn't cooperate, because that's literally what it is to have a society. In terms of actual moral decency, society is total shit. We're tyrannical enough to shit on other species like pigs and cows by artificially raping, caging, gassing, killing their young, and basically torturing them for sandwiches. As a society we start war with one another for oil, and like imbeciles we threaten our own kind with nuclear warfare and climate disaster. We allow the production of tobacco, and think it's perfectly fine for fast food to sell junk that will probably end up kill you unless you only eat it every other week or so. All this because liberty matters more than human life or well-being. Homelessness everywhere, and starvation and death in other countries takes the backseat, because industry is apparently far more important. How much do you think the average American donates to any of those causes? Cancer food, cancer air, pain, death, these are the merits of morality. But no you should go to prison for life for robbing a government backed bank, if you have a lot of money and are responsible for the death of a million it's no big deal though. What we call disgusting and horrible is no big deal, and what we don't bother with is horror incarnate.
@@itzyourmom2646 without the concept of morality, how did you extend these observations as good or bad? If you are going by mere instincts then each individual can choose any behaviour based on his own instincts like animals do.
@@9535310131 Morality, especially religious morality are silly to me because it seems a lot like a pissing contest with definition play. To answer your question I pretty much am a consequentialist utilitarian but from what I gather, when free will is applied to virtue ethics it makes no sense intrinsically, although virtue has psychological and practical applications. In other words I think this makes me an error theorist who simply believes trying to cause the most happiness is more likely to cause happiness than not, and I'm choosing to do this because I want the most happiness for the most sentient beings. This is partially because I have empathy and recognize I would want someone else to do it for me.
@@itzyourmom2646 Consequentialist utilitarianism requires prior knowledge of consequences of your actions. That by definition burdens an individual with cognitive loads way beyond his own capabilities. And moral decisions are mostly taken when you are most vulnerable, like choosing to kill or spare someone when threatened, trusting someone when you are sick. But i am sure this world view works in a world where you can call 911 when your worldview screw up. But traditional societies builds religious stories from human instincts. Then people believing in those stories and those Gods in stories, take their moral decisions based on them. Its is very simplistic in that sense, that a begger, farmer, police officer, politician, teacher, can take similar moral decisions.
![Why Moral Relativism Is Dangerous [And Disproves Itself!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vnxGWlciHI4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why Moral Relativism Is Dangerous [And Disproves Itself!]](/img/tr.png)
"The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure that you seek."-- Joseph Campbell.
Is it the guy from dishonored ?
Or a hungry lion waiting for his food.
Good philosophy for sex....
Dumb quote. Lmao
@@notlikely4468 😳
"That which you most need will be found where you least want to look where."-- Carl Jung. I really like that quote.
That's funny cause that would also apply to him
@@_VISION. Carl Jung looked, I believe. Look him up
@@ralph6521 I'm aware that he did. I was talking about Jordan Peterson.
Do stuff so you don't feel empty.
Nice
@Stoney Bologna then don't do that
Lmao no shit
stuff that's good for u, but surely, yeah
@Angel Felipe thats harder
If you dont know what is tgat you are suppose to do
Do something
By doing that you will find some truth of the right thing thing you should be doi g
These thumbnails are fantastic.
Black Bellamy more gesticulating, pls
Lmao
Dr Peterson be looking like an evil mastermind on it
2:07
you find what you need where you least wanna look
This struck a cord with me
The Bible
What is the Meaning of Life?
No No No
What is the Life of Meaning?
Yes!
*inserts drake meme*
Apt
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
life means whatever you choose it to mean
@@robinsss
Life can be vain if you choose, but it doesn't have to be.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Jordan "The Zone of Proximal Development" Peterson
Jordan "Clean Your Room" Peterson
It was real weird calling JBP to bat in Little League.
@@fawkesandhound Clearly his little league team was called the Lobsters
The irony is that that theory was developed by a Soviet marxist psychologist named Lev Vygovsky.
It's crazy I did the math on how much they have talked together on the podcast alone nearly a full day I love it
Damn, this man is absolutely fantastic.
JP, you will go down in history. You will remain. The world will know, how much of a beacon of light you are, you were.
My absolute hero.
Jesus this guy above me sounds cognitively faulty...
The lobster man????
This doesn't specifically deal with moral relativism. People can be "in the zone" and fulfilled by many things which are, to most people, morally reprehensible.
Exactly what I thought after watching. Peterson has talked about the issue in depth before just, not in this video.
"you find what you need when you least wanna look..." i felt that! ✨
word salad
I wish Peterson was one of my professors...his rhetoric is hypnotizing.
unfortunately hypnotizing doesn't equal intelligence :/ This video is exhibit A
@@mega4171 where’s your intellectual rhetoric at? Oh that’s right, you have none.
@@aaronbennett4444 no intelligence is actually better than pseudo-intelligence contrary to popular belief 😂
I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing - Socrates
keep listening to pseudo-intelligence sheep
🐑🐑🐑
@@mega4171 Not intelligent yet more intelligent than you. Sorry to hear that.
@@Hatrimn Agreed. As Socrates said I know that I know nothing :) unfortunately JP is the antipode to this domain of thought
I could listen to this master of a man all day long. He‘s a gift.
From what I read by Aristotle, every being is meant to become its entelechy. For the ancient Greeks every man was to fulfill his destiny. Today I say that, to honor your nature, to pursue your own fate, that is an eternal way of existence.
Of all the greeks, i find myself being more intrigued by Heraclitus and Parmenides than Socrates or Plato.
But Aristotle, i've always wanted to dive into. Your comment sound also somewhat Kierkegaardian might i say. Very existentialist.
Interesting points.
thanks for this video... kinda helps me understand why i can feel miserable even though everything in life is going great... if its not meaningful but you still suffer for your efforts, then you really start to question your whole direction
In short, moral relativism heavily implies that there is no meaning in what you do, except to do what you want to, when you want. But Jordan's answer is that there _is_ meaning in what you do, because your actions and attitude directly correlate to how good or bad you might have it, in life.
Its more trying to prove that there’s no God.
But, this isn't an antidote to moral relativism? Rather an antidote to moral nihilism. And a fantastic one at that.
It sort of helps to alleviate both.
nihilism often stems and is "worse version" of relativism, therefore developing strong sense of realism instead to combat both :-)
@@borekstvorek Lol presumably you think it a waste of time to buy a car ?? I mean what's the point its going to eventually end up a rusting heap in some a scrap yard somewhere. ?? 🤔🤔
Me however I think cars are just great, they're extremely useful and serve a "Purpose" all the time I have one. I place great "value" on my ability to travel where and when I need to. For example my wife was ill last year and my car allowed me to get her go the hospital in time to save her life. I would say that alone justification for my buying a car and the value I place upon it, dont you. 🤔🤔🤔
You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case.
My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags".
I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear.
I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning"
But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life.
A child killer however so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless if course those children also found the "evidence" 🤣🤣 for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
@@trumpbellend6717 you seem severely delusional. Presuming and assuming isn't useful in any case... thanks for proving it. I'm sure you enjoy conversations you're having with yourself very much, but it helps to check yourself sometimes...
@@borekstvorek Care to elaborate dear, or do baseless assertions constitute some form of rational argument in Martins world? 🤔
The last 1 minute is ME! This video is just... mindblown.
wow !! just wow !!! Thank you J.P
Wow! I’ve never seen JP so passionate. Wow
While using metaphors as a teaching tool is certainly useful, speaking plain and simple truth is best.
He's not using metaphors, he's using abstract language. When talking about an abstract concept you have to use abstract language.
That is true for the majority of people, but some people actually respond/relate better to it.
@@attalan8732 exactly. Morality is a philosophical issue, and most of philosophy deals in abstractions.
Why couldn’t he just say doing what you love is the antidote to suffering?
@@essentialpost because that expression is redundant and overused to the point that it lost its significance. There are many ways to paint a vivid picture in someone's mind with words in order to convey an idea, whether it's a good or bad idea, in an extremely effective way, such as using metaphores and allegories... (that's why many intellectual thinkers and writers are still remembered to this day) the deeper we examine something the more we absorb it. I guess this is why JP always goes round and round before presenting his ultimate point.
5:21 Joe goes to his mysterious voice.🤣
always be aware of your own consciousness and your life will improve imo
I'd like to see a debate between JDP and Peter Joseph. Both are very intelligent and respect clear debate yet stand on different vantages. Would make for a very enlightening debate.
Paying attention to your experience - at least for me, that's the core of meditation for me.
Yes!
Good!!
The hardest thing Anyone can do is look at One's self with a truthful eye. This is the meaning of the old saying, " To Thy Self Be True".
Truth is true whether you want it to be or not. We do not control physics, it controls us, same with morality.
Nice podcast! He should have Joe back on sometime soon
You literally invite someone to a podcast to hear them speak 😂
1:00 Zone of Proximal Development
I'm definitely gonna be returning to this once a week from now on
man i love listening to peterson speak
THANK YOU JORDAN
Peterson is off the hook. We aren't worthy. He's the Ron Paul of physiology
JP is a master of communication.
5:20 I might be pulling this out of nowhere but I thought those are values and meaning was "extracted" out of those via choice and consequence?
Jordan "It's like" Peterson
We need to make the distinction clear between the morality of existence itself and societal morality.
Amen I had to look backwards
God I miss old Jordan Peterson im going to dig up more old clips
It's amazing how fundamental and simple many of his ideas are. It's more amazing how many if not most of us already know the truths he's espousing. It's far far far more amazing that one man articulating these ideas for us can create such a chain, net positive reaction in those who would lend their ears and heart.
This is why "Man" is not to be compared with a "cancer" or a "plague" like is so often done in radical environmentalism. The synchronicity in this question being answered for me is astounding. God Bless.
Always assume the person you're talking too knows something you don't.
have you seen "Fighting in the Age of Loneliness"?
I like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson both because they articulate common sense so well in a time where it seems to be lacking
I was once deluded like you
Just don't try asking Joe about child slaves from Mexico and their "parents" or statutory rape comitted by female predators, and don't ask JP about how caving to outrage narratives just makes things worse for yourself and everyone else.
Nick Taylor common sense had always been lacking. Everyday of any age just as much as the other.
I agree. Except for Jordan Peterson being a snake oil salesman. Most of his arguments are shallow. He literally contradicted himself with equality of outcome and sexuality on this very podcast.
'''''we trust each other'''''…………….…….that's rather presumptive ………………………………..I don't trust anyone,...…………………………..why should I trust you?..………………………………………..I don't know you from a whole in the wall
Doing things that fulfill me, fulfill me until I notice it bugs other people or makes them upset. Nothing bad... I guess I am just a dormant leader or I am just a person who can see where people and things fit... Or maybe I just think I do and I am horrible at it. More than likely I just like placing things and people in places I think they will benefit the most and I am actually just horrible at it.
So the mechanism to achieve fulfilment is what's concrete, not it's contents
Rogan Peterson 2024
I wonder if Peterson has read one of the great analysis of the distinction between moral principle and moral relativism: "The Common Sense of Politics" by philosopher Mortimer J. Adler. What Adler provides is a clear way to objectively evaluate whether the rules of the game are fair or cause unjust outcomes.
“The Poison of Subjectivism” by C.S. Lewis is another good read you might like.
Difficult to apply this antidote to moral relativism. I thought it would be more substantial and modular I guess. An answer to "Yeah... but what about..."
meaning is real. one can feel when they have it. And it's the antindote for suffering.
Lol you just copied what jbp said
@@SocraticShorts i know thank u
6:49 las cosas existen no es algo que tú creas es algo que tú descubres
I'm impressed with the level of your modesty knowing that you made the world more worth living , you probably have a random self congratulation , I personally I'm much better human Base on your teaching
I hope my hair is like this when I'm 58
And I ain't talking about Rogan
Benjamin-well he definitely had a hair transplant so yeah. If you want that, get a hairtransplant and/or (preferably and) get on finasteride.
I'm currently going through what Jordan talks about an the end. I've always placed high importance on honestly, but I'm starting to learn that lying isn't inherantly bad. Like any tool, it depends on how you use it.
The logos. destroyed then built back up.... Mind Blown!!!!
Agree about that father aggression
So this basically applies to people with similar moral upringing. What about people who feel they're doing something right intrinsically, intensely, yet what they are doing can be evil in our eyes? This big rant doesn't escape the idea of moral relativism. It just tries to divert attention away from the problem of people who are driven by different internal mechanisms to those who would see their actions as bad or evil.
This is why Peterson shouldn't be speaking as if he understands these concepts. He doesn't. He's not a philosopher, he's a psychologist. Yet his fans gulp everything up and many refuse to accept criticism of JBP's massive mistakes and uninformed statements.
Yes. the more fundamental aspect is not in morality, but it's in the worldview of them. When there's the view that good actions reap rewards and worth doing, then they'll do it. And where to acquire the right view? It's through the voice of other and proper attention. Or else one will just stuck inside his own justifications.
Your supposition implies a belief that we are all separate. In my experience, there is a thread that connects us all and is consistent throughout. When people act on impulses that go against that, they are disconnected from it, not feeling it, acting on a different kind of impulse. The "realness" that JP is talking about is very different from the inconsistency that you're pointing to.
There is something real. It's very very consistent. It underlies every living thing. You can feel it if you're quiet.
"Pay attention."
"Be Present."
To what's REAL
@@cariyaputta this is the trap of intellectualism that apparently the Egyptians were aware of
@@gracelewis6071 You just made a bunch of assumptions that something in our core drives us yet there is so much disagreement and conflict in the moral field of discussion.
How the hell can you even believe that when we're arguing about moral relativism right now? I can guarantee you there are several fundamental moral disagreements we would have if we went into detailed debate. I GUARANTEE!
Sure, a lot of morality is instinctual, and it's tied to our NATURE. But using such vague terms as you did does nothing to help.
@@LagOknenonok I'm speaking from experience.
I'm not speaking from a place of "discussion."
That implies debate.
There is no debate when it comes to reality.
To Truth.
It's right here for anyone and everyone to experience, right now.
The intellectualism is a distraction.
It's what every religion has pointed to in the history of mankind, and it's very, very Real.
I was aware for 7 years
I'm not sure if this is a sound refutation of moral relativism or nihilism. You cannot derive an *ought from an is*
The laws of physics really don't care about your life goals, aspirations, failures or successes.
But that doesn't mean that because *meaning* is not grounded in any empirical domain that it's not worth pursuing or creating. We can make objective statements about subjective experiences, and it is clear that humans ruminate and think deeply about the value in life and it's contents. This does not preclude humans from creating meaning by doing something you *feel* is satisfactory. I would add that it is reasonable for humans to do this so as to structure and orientate their lives.
But does the sense of meaning created by the death and rebirth of ideas really prove that morality is objective? I think it merely supports individual relativism. For example, some might be engaged and find meaning learning that the earth is flat, whereas another will sense meaning learning that it is round. Both experience the same level of meaning, but that does not mean that they are pursuing the fundamental truth. As one individual is obtaining a sense of meaning despite how he is learning something that is not true. I’m not really sure if I voiced this question correctly, I’m confused, and I want to believe in objective morality
Ok I think I see where I maybe went wrong. After many “clicks” from engaging in meaningful conversations and discoveries, the man who believes the earth is flat could be brought closer to the truth that it is actually round. But maybe he will discover reddit and fall down a rabbit hole and learn nothing
I agree with most of Dr. Peterson says here (not something that happens often), but I fail to see how it relates to moral relativity. You can strive to discover meaning in life and still believe that morality is subjective. Most moral relativists simply act based on what is good for themselves, and the good of other people, rather than arbitrary rules about what is moral.
Vikrant Pulipati So they all agree that it’s moral to act for the good of other people, no? That part sounds more objective than personal
If you believe it's good for your self you just made objective moral claim. Thats why moral relativism falls on its face, it's makes no logical sense.
Good for yourself is a value judgement. The value itself isn't objective.
If a group says it's moral to act for the good of other people. That is also an assertion of value. The value itself isn't objective.
You could ground values in the metaphysical like we traditionally did. Such as saying that the good is grounded in God. That makes the values more objective. Most traditional societies had such a metaphysical ground that acted as an organizing principle for their society. That could be God, the gods, Dharma, Buddha Nature, the Tao.
But personal preferences aren't objective values.
Like some other people have said this doesn't seem to have much to do with moral relativism and certainly isn't a coherent argument against that concept...
@6:21
The meaning of life
Their is no built in meaning of life, you get to choose it for yourself. At least that's my thinking
I used to think that way, I stopped when I got my life together one week and had the clear notion there was a drawn path to me but you'd only be convinced if you tried at maximum.
The question of the meaning of life is but an age old classical example of an anthropocentric outlook.
We "came" into life. Life never come into us.
Life always was...long before us and long after.
So the question is void. The right one is:
How do i live a meaningful life.
I don't see how this has to do with moral relativism, but I found what I didn't think I needed. 💜
It relates insofar as moral relativism leads to nihilism
He didn’t provide a solution but he’s basically saying everyone has a calling and purpose
Moral relativism implies that life has no meaning and good can be evil or evil can be good. I think Peterson's saying that we have inner biological meaning in our lives so we can base our morality simply off of who humans are. We hate murder because it makes our bodies feel bad, we have meaning in our lives because our bodies say so. Basically there's a proven biological base we can base our meaning off of. If you apply it to a real scenario. A depressed teen could say that since morality is relative, it doesn't matter what he does even if its self defeating in nature and leads him to have more depression. Peterson says that it does matter since biology wills it so, meaning that if you follow your biological impulses to find meaning you will have a meaning in life. I may be wrong since I don't have enough life experience or experience with philosophy.
@@morganseaman4557 interestingly, this is exactly what we Muslims call fitrah.
@@ve_rb No, moral relativism leads to pluralism.
In sequllinias is, in inventur.... I think :p
Logical Rules. Fundamental foundation of Universal values to form Strong structure full of INTEGRITY (pun intended)
there is a group, who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still: the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest-who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements-who shrug off professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.”-The Virtue of Selfishness.
Am I understating this correctly ? Is the solution for moral relativism following the moral rules that have been imposed into your life because it contributes to the meaning of life?
In filth it will be found.
For some it’s hockey, maybe football, but others it’s murder. It’s relative man
8:24-8:33 “Lemme show you my lawn mower” - Jordan Peterson
Hahahahaha this is too good man
😂😂😂😂😂
Haha! Good material for Peter Jordanson.
Diluting oneself into thinking the game their playing with virtuous intent is not certain to result in the elimination of suffering. Even playing the game competently won't make real outside of itself.
👶🏿
Yes death and rebirth. But you have to get over thinking you know it all. It only happens to an open mind
JFC.
He doesn't get chaos and order at all. He is way overbalanced on the side of order. You have to accept and embrace the chaos of life because that's where the creativity of creation comes from.
Jordan has a video of him self in class describing the nessiary chaos and order of life. You should watch it.
What? He literally says exactly what you just said are you delusional?
@@jordanpresnell4697 The only delusionals are Peterson followers
@@juanmanikings hmm but you’re the one on a video about him, in the comment sections, in a sub thread, telling someone he’s delusional and everyone else who learns something from this man. So what does that make you? Something much worse than delusional for sure
Jordan saying mmmMMMMHHhh
*Beard 100*
This is more of a refutation to what he believes nihilism to be than moral relativism.
7:32 That is not from the New Testament, that is from the "Gospel of Thomas" saying 113.
Isn't moral relativism just the consequence of different viewpoints and wants? I mean I don't really see why would it be poison, it's just an observation.
It's the idea that since people have different morals that in reality morals don't exist. Because my morals can be different from yours, therefore there aren't any true right or wrongs therefore morals don't matter. The issue is that if you believe that the world has no right or wrongs (morals) then that can lead someone to believe that there isn't really a point to anything (Like imagine someone creating a game where there aren't any rules or regulations, then what's the point of playing it?) Which leads to nihilism, the idea that nothing really matters, which often times leads to depression and sadly su!cide. If you instead believe in morals it gives you rules to follow which helps give life a purpose and meaning. I understand your confusion though since a lot of people make it seem like moral relativity is just the idea of "people grow up differently, which leads to different morals."
I am new to this but here is what I am having trouble understanding.
Peterson is trying to debunk moral relativism by saying that being in the zone of proximal development (or being in a state of flow.. I know this is different) is morally good and therefore there is no moral relativism?
But wouldn’t different actions (depending on a person’s past experience and culture ) put people in that zone of proximal development?
For example a serial killer could be in a state of flow when attacking a victim. A normal person would be severally traumatized by killing another person. Hence moral relativism...
I don’t really know what I am talking about here. Can someone who does help me out with this?
I just asked a similar question. It’s not quite clear to me. Read my comment if interested.
A more superficial flow state is one thing. Deep connection to what is Real is another. I think he merges the two concepts early on, but gains some clarity in the middle when he starts talking about the Egyptians seeing being present as the highest potential, and the birds saying "pay attention!"
It's hard to pick out here I think, because it's two men that appear to understand what is Real without needing to speak it. Which you can't btw. The only way to experience it is by being present and BEING it. Being Real.
Go sit with a tree for a while.
The flow state with this realness is very different from one without it.
in short, JUST BE MID.
I want to preface this by saying I respect Jordan Peterson and I'm a huge fan of his work, but I've never seen him "debunk" moral relativism in any way that holds water. He says that "confronting problems and solving them" is "real" because it "ameliorates suffering and limits malevolence" (0:39), but that doesn't track logically. Reducing suffering and malevolence isn't an objective goal it's a choice, like wanting to make money, or wanting to learn how to kickflip a skateboard. To truly disprove moral relativism, you'd need to prove that objectivity can exist in and of itself. The same logic follows for trying to objectively prove that 1+1=2. If I try to do something like: 5 x 10 = 50 so, 2 x 5 = 10 so, 1 x 5 + 1 x 5 = 10 so, 5 + 5 = 10 so, 1 + 1 = 2 , I haven't OBJECTIVELY proven 1 + 1 = 2, because the logic I used was based on the presuppositions:
1. that numbers represent a count of individual objects
2. addition represents the TOTAL COUNT of two separate sets, each containing its own count of objects
3. equating means having the same total count of objects.
Similarly, Mr Peterson's argument against moral relativism rides on the presuppositions:
1. Malevolence is bad
2. suffering is bad
(and probably a bunch more)
Since any logic that involves PRE-DEFINED ideas IS influenced by personal feelings and opinions, it cannot, by definition, be objective.
Fun side note. My entire argument is based on Google's English dictionary, which is provided by Oxford Languages. It defines objectivity as:
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
The fun irony in this is that definitions are ALSO entirely subjective, and that makes my ENTIRE POINT subjective.
There is no way to objectively prove that everything is subjective, and I think, subjectively, that that's beautiful.
Edit: I misuse "objective" and "subjective" a lot here, but my point still stands. Just sub out "objective" with "absolute", and "subjective" with "relative".
I enjoyed this.
There's "real" and then there's REAL.
Talking about "real" isn't the actual thing.
The actual lived experience of Real can't be put into words.
Except maybe the velveteen rabbit managed to :)
He got to be Real ❤ in the most true sense
@@gracelewis6071 There's "real", and then there's a writer's redefinition of "real" to serve a story. The Velveteen Rabbit was "real" in the same way Harry Potter was a "griffindor".
"What do you read my lord?"
"Words, words, words." -Hamlet
I see what he's saying, that this deeply biological indicator of "The Zone" or "Meaning" is a sort of "Objective Morality" bred into us. However, could you not say that someone could be in "The Zone" while doing reprehensible and Immoral things? What if your life's work was to exterminate a people group, and you derived Meaning from that by working hard, innovating, etc. In that case, "Meaning" is separate from true Morality.
I was thinking this too.
Jordan "it's real" Peterson
How is that an argument against moral-relativism? Peterson should do a philosophy 101
There's a right path that's found and built through meaning in actions and communication. That meaning found in constructive interchange would be impossible if everything was relative, there is a common truth for those who seek it. There are many ways of interpreting life but so few of them are optimal and lead you to survival.
What is that noise Jordan Peterson made at 8:25
Jordan Peterson : Human Experience
Deadpool : Movie Experience
The only sad thing about this man is that he can't teach others fast enough. He's so far ahead of most of the rest of us, he must feel like he's talking to children most of the time.
It kind of worries me when someone as brilliant as him says something I disagree with.
🤣😂
Im that guy he refers to at the end of the video.
Well you’d have to demonstrate objective morality
The opposite of relative morality is absolute morality; not objective.
Love the passion and a lot of JPs way of thinking, and how he dares to say controversial things, seldom told by main stream media. Though, I would argue that JP often tends to relativism himself in his speeches, ie. "Death's and rebirth's" how we need to go out of our way from our fast held truths and right morals, to learn new ways and perspectives of life. I might find a little conflicting.
But also, There seems to be no denying the positive impact he has on people and their empowerment :) Good job!
In all space there is only one wisdom.
When TWO have become ONE and ONE has become the ALL, know that the barrier has lifted and ye are made free from the road.
36 000 BC
I read a similar line in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, but in reference to three becoming one and one becoming three, which is v interesting in light of neoplatonic and proto-christian philosophy. As far as what you said, sure why not. Source?
If I recognize people in other nations play football by different rules doesn't mean I don't believe in any rules at all.
This is a bit simplistic though. Suppose one nation sacrifices the losing or winning team [such as what the Aztec did], and the other doesn't [such as what Europeans do].
It isn't enough to simply recognize differerence, but understanding that one is regressive or progressive to a healthy society.
My values are in so deep threaded through..I never new mind could spilt like that ................I now understand..I am strong omg 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣☄️ it was bad I was bad just sitting in the vessel..yess mine was catertrophic it's dangerous I was of chops on DMT of my mind crystal out my nose bro....
I can't tell whether he's a genius or just a madman😂
Often a sign of a great thinker
Genius and madman aren’t mutually exclusive
A word salad-spewing, grifting religious degenerate is more accurate
maybe both lol
I don't see how this has anything to do with moral relativism.
Exactly, i'm starting to speculate how little he truly knows about moral relativism
@@aseelanza because morality is intrinsically connected to one's couse of action, not merely to "what is wrong to do to others". What you do to yourself is also a moral issue. If you are lazy and flee from responsibility, you are acting immoraly because... (you can watch peterson for this one).
Moral objectivism implies that there is something that is objectively true, and although we may not grasp it, we can walk tirelessly towards it and in doing so get further away from error. This does not mean that there is only one course of action (e.g.: you have to be lawyers otherwise you will fail miserably), but that there is a meta-pattern of how to act: a series of do's and don'ts that alleviate suffering and help one get closer to where they want/should be.
Moral relativism is the denial of the fact thate there is something right to be done. Everything's arbitrary and, as such, there is no pathway to do what is right, because "right" is entirely relative. There's no center, no fulcrum, no road.
I could continue this drivel on and on, but I don't want to be more boring than I already am being.
@@irreadings again you dont understand that these are categories of moral philosophies. Moral realism is the category for moral philosophies that accept the existence of moral facts, while moral anti realism is the opposite (moral relativism, error theory, noncognitivism). Moral relativism is not saying there is no right or wrong, its rather saying that right and wrong are relative.
@@jokerxxx354 * 2:30 lying being unsustainable isnt relative at all. Are you a moral relitavist?
@@Canna_Berlin_420 no, but i dont believe in moral facts either.
He is so rediculously smart.
Wish he would come near winnipeg
I believe morality is a silly concept but I am also interested by the precondition reflection idea. I think maybe, I get in the zone when the precondition for that is my curiosity
yet that silly concept is what keeps humanity functional
@@awful999 if you define the moral thing as just doing what feels right, I think it's sort of natural as opposed to an objective concept. I wouldn't consider cave people programmed with mutualism "moral". I won't disagree with the fact that society wouldn't function if people didn't cooperate, because that's literally what it is to have a society. In terms of actual moral decency, society is total shit. We're tyrannical enough to shit on other species like pigs and cows by artificially raping, caging, gassing, killing their young, and basically torturing them for sandwiches. As a society we start war with one another for oil, and like imbeciles we threaten our own kind with nuclear warfare and climate disaster. We allow the production of tobacco, and think it's perfectly fine for fast food to sell junk that will probably end up kill you unless you only eat it every other week or so. All this because liberty matters more than human life or well-being. Homelessness everywhere, and starvation and death in other countries takes the backseat, because industry is apparently far more important. How much do you think the average American donates to any of those causes? Cancer food, cancer air, pain, death, these are the merits of morality. But no you should go to prison for life for robbing a government backed bank, if you have a lot of money and are responsible for the death of a million it's no big deal though. What we call disgusting and horrible is no big deal, and what we don't bother with is horror incarnate.
@@itzyourmom2646 without the concept of morality, how did you extend these observations as good or bad? If you are going by mere instincts then each individual can choose any behaviour based on his own instincts like animals do.
@@9535310131 Morality, especially religious morality are silly to me because it seems a lot like a pissing contest with definition play. To answer your question I pretty much am a consequentialist utilitarian but from what I gather, when free will is applied to virtue ethics it makes no sense intrinsically, although virtue has psychological and practical applications. In other words I think this makes me an error theorist who simply believes trying to cause the most happiness is more likely to cause happiness than not, and I'm choosing to do this because I want the most happiness for the most sentient beings. This is partially because I have empathy and recognize I would want someone else to do it for me.
@@itzyourmom2646 Consequentialist utilitarianism requires prior knowledge of consequences of your actions. That by definition burdens an individual with cognitive loads way beyond his own capabilities. And moral decisions are mostly taken when you are most vulnerable, like choosing to kill or spare someone when threatened, trusting someone when you are sick. But i am sure this world view works in a world where you can call 911 when your worldview screw up.
But traditional societies builds religious stories from human instincts. Then people believing in those stories and those Gods in stories, take their moral decisions based on them. Its is very simplistic in that sense, that a begger, farmer, police officer, politician, teacher, can take similar moral decisions.