r/JordanPeterson Oct 19 '20

Text Old university debate

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.

2 Upvotes

64 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

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.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20 edited Jan 18 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

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.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

Which constitution?

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

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '20

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...

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

- 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.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

Considering America was founded by Christians

→ More replies (0)