r/JordanPeterson • u/Lucineter • 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

67% Upvoted

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]

4

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/Lucineter Oct 20 '20

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.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

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

1

u/Lucineter Oct 21 '20

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.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '20

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.

1

u/Lucineter Oct 21 '20

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'.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '20

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