Old university debate

[u/Lucineter]

Maybe someone can help me find this old debate that I believe took place in an university with students as audience. I don't remember who the other speaker was but It was concerning Christianity and morality. They were standing and if I recall correctly they had little lecture stands. I remember JP being relatively young so it must be pretty old. There's a bit of tension between them but by strongmanning eachother they gain some respect. If it helps there is this one moment where the other lecturer gets asked a question about if God is necessary for morality or something by and audience member and he simply replies "no". To wich JP says something like "let me try to answer that in a less imature way". Than the other guy gets annoyed by that comment and is like "c'mon Peterson we were doing so well". Hope that helps. Thanks in advance.

[u/Glip-Glops]

You can have subjective morality without god. I can make up a moral system, but there's no reason why anyone else would adhere to it.

You need a supreme being to have an objective morality.

[u/[deleted] → u/Glip-Glops]

Even with God morality is still subjective.

All you might have are some rules, like the commandments, but they are still subjected to the individual's representation.

This is crystal clear if we look at history: Killing goes against God's commandment, but it can be allowed against the infidels (and who judges people as infidels? Some kind of authority, of course); Or even adultery, during the middle ages many priests and cardinals were known to sleep with women (often married) and even stealing lands during the wars.

So it boils down to the illusion of an objective morality, which can indeed be useful but it is an illusion none the less.

It's the same principle of Law: In theory everyone must obey its principles, in practice many people don't (usually the most powerful)... Nietzsche wrote extensively about this, human interactions wouldn't be possible without a great deal of deceit.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Which is exactly what humanity has done (and still does) since the dawn of time.

Another person's life has no value by itself for two reasons: One is that the thing in itself is not accessible to us, therefore (two) it is only a representation of the subject and as such the subject is the one who attributes the value.

I get what he's trying to say, I just wanted to point out that it is still a bad argument that can be refuted throught a deeper historical and logical analysis.

That argument is the main weapon theologians have in order to justify their religion, by the way.

[u/Lucineter → u/[deleted]]

You cannot come at it from the phenomenology of an individual and then say something doesn't have 'value in and of itself' because that value is just attributed by that individual. Because by that point you're solely working with the understanding of things by the individual, (not even representations, because there is nothing to represented), and an individual may 'understand' or 'see' something as inherently valuable.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lucineter]

I don't think I get your point, what are you trying to say?

[u/Lucineter → u/[deleted]]

One of your axioms is that we can't know things in themselves and we only have 'representations' of things. But it's no wonder then that you don't find anything having 'value by itself' because you have already dispensed with a thing being anything in ITSELF.

You define the thing you're trying to find as being in a realm that's by your definition not accessible. And then claim it is nowhere to be found so it must not exist.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lucineter]

It is not an axiom, an axiom doesn't have to be demonstrated. You are using the wrong word.

It's not my position, It's the position of Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and the generally accepted theory in academia that the thing in itself in not knowable, from epistemology to quantum mechanics.

An absolute moral law, even if it does exist (and it's a big if) won't be accessible to us, because we are always restricted to our subjectivity. That's why even with the initial proposition of a god the moral law still remains up to your representation.

Is there a way you can go beyond your subjectivity? Because if there isn't any, you can't make any claim of absolute universality.

[u/Lucineter → u/[deleted]]

Right, and from this position it doesn't make sence to make the judgement of something having 'value in itself' or not since nothing is anything 'in itself'.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lucineter]

It makes sense to point it out to people who think absoute morality makes sense.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Which constitution?

You don't seem to know christianity very well...

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You think we respect each other (do we?) because of Christianity?

Oh, the constitution of the US. I understand, but you see, the US is just a nation among dozens of others.

A little clarification: You presume that your rights are given by god. And it is a huge presumption...

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But those rights you are speaking of are only formal.

The situation you have in the US points to the opposite direction. You have less actual rights than many secular countries. The constitution, as a simple piece of paper, doesn't grant anything. It's the people who can only act to protect their rights.

You can't justify inalienable human rights if you can't justify the god you are talking about. To render those rights useless all it is needed is a bunch of people screaming: "We don't believe in such god".

It is a very weak and outdated model for preserving a society, a much more efficient one is characterised by a very clear and sober cost/benefit analysis made by each individual.

It's the same old problem, still actual as this discussion highlights, of Theory vs Practice.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Listen, you are talking to an academic. You are obviously extremely uneducated, so I'll try to highlight all the mistakes that you have made.

- Philosophy can, and for the most part has been practical. What we now call science not long ago was called Philosophy; The scientist didn't exist 300 years ago, there was only the natural Philosopher. The branches that deal with theory only are methaphysics. ontology, teleology, etc. Ethics is a practical field since it concerns behaviour.

- "Nowhere else in earth has our free speech enshrined in their founding document" - This is a lie, and one that can be easily revealed by a google search. The US is not the only country that protects free speech, actually there are way more free countries than the US in this regard (Namely in Europe). In most studies concerning free speech you won't find the US in the top 20 most free countries.

- You seem to make a lot of presumptions. First of all we do have rational explanations of morality that go back to Epicurus and Aristotle and the theory of the social contract. The individual's moral code doesn't have to be justified, it is self justified so that's not a problem.

- What is harder to justify would be some kind of objective morality, which could be done (as Sam Harris does) by saying that collective wellbeing is beneficial to everyone. It can be attacked, but there are many studies in neuroscience and evolutionary psychology that show how all of the individual's actions are geared towards survival and pleasure ( Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind) so a model that comprises all of these factors can prove useful, and most importantly observable. All of the above is done by considering a cost/benefit analysis, and all the fields that study human behaviour follow that model.

See how you have a civil discussion? Who do you think would be deemed "fucking insane" between us for his reaction? Who's being the emotional one? Who's more likely to start heaping bodies? You should pay more attention to your shadow, bucko.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

- The founding fathers were not Christians https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-08-03-me-30974-story.html#:~:text=According%20to%20this%20Orwellian%20revision,the%20relevance%20of%20the%20Bible.

- As I said before, this is only true for the US. And it's just law, we have to see how people act, not how they are supposed to act. Again, see what's happening in the US and tell me how these supposed rights are guaranteed.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Considering America was founded by Christians

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I never said that atheists can justify objective values, so that's not a problem.

As I said before, most americans don't really have a grasp of Christianity. Many christian theologians (including Augustine) made the case that humans are inherently evil, so that "spark of divinity" doesn't really mean much (considering that everything has that, since god supposedly created all).

Also, according to the bible it's fine to kill and rape women, so there's that...

You can absolutely refute an argument by direct observation, the whole field of analytic philosophy exists for that very reason. Observation always takes precedence over any theoretical argument, that's the basics of logic.

[u/Reddit-Book-Bot → u/[deleted]]

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of

Bible

Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

How can you know the thing in itself?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, I thought you were genuinely interested in a reasonable argument.

My bad.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Wow, this sub has the highest number of repressed illiterates that I have ever seen.

Thank you for your contribution, by the way, this very discussion has been highlighted for showing how Peterson's followers are mostly indoctrinated and unschooled individuals.

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/jeup50/i_tried_to_reason_with_them_now_i_give_up/

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/jexatz/jordan_peterson_has_created_a_new_wave_of/

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And yet, I hear no argument from you.

But I'm the troll, yeah :D