I recently went from sitting on the idea of “God doesn’t exist so why would I have to to think about Christianity or try to understand His will” to “Even if he doesn’t exist, His effect on his followers has been profound and changed the world possibly for all of the rest of human existence.” It was actually reading Anna Karenina and Leo Tolstoy’s interpretation of Christ’s message that led me to reconsider everything about religion and it’s place in history and today’s world. Listening to Dr. Peterson’s thoughts on these topics always leaves me with so much to consider and I’m truly grateful for all he contributes. I was particularly interested in his message to the atheists about being Judeo-Christian and it so true. Just by nature of living in western countries God’s will at least begins to shape all of us.
religion shapes a culture and a standard of morality and a basis of ethics. the middle east is shaped by islamism. the west is shaped by christianity. these cultures could not be more different. God or no God, I think that the 10 commandments , standards of right and wrong is what is valuable in the christian religion and the personal dignity to uphold these teachings. These common moral values are what makes a society function and work in harmony.
When trying to define a (the?) problem, root cause analysis is the preferred approach. And what is the root cause for every problem you encounter? It's either everyone else's fault (blame God?) or it's yours. Regardless of the 'Truth' of the matter, the best approach is to accept whatever responsibility you can and meeting the other challenges with grace. AKA, follow the Serenity prayer. ✌️
@@anastasia10017 have you actually read the commandments? Can you please explain to the naïve atheists how the first 4 contribute towards making society function?
Thank you Dr Jordan B Peterson, for saying what NEEDS! to be said in this ridiculous and messed up age! You my friend are an Ambassador to Man-kind... society needs to appreciate and listen for the sake of future functionality! Cheers from Australia!🌏
I agree with John Anderson. I can't condemn someone for wanting life to be painless, but the reality is that life is pain. I am disappointed to see these two using the left's Newspeak definition of "equality". Equality is all people being equal before the law. The left has conflated equality with egalitarianism, the idea that equal outcomes can be enforced. And as my wise wife says, "The only way to have equal outcomes is for everyone to do nothing."
Life is Pain? What a dim view. I mean,.Petersen certainly thinks so, Its why i dont get him or many of the "classical" philosophers. Life is what you make it. Its what part of reality you focus on. Jeez. Lighten up. lol
@@mbellizia75 to deny that you will experience pain and suffering in life, or that you can brush off all trials of life like a fairy is arrogant and naive.
Great conversation. Using terms like Right Wing and Left Wing sparingly reduces the average viewers confirmation bias enough to hopefully look at things in a practical and solution oriented viewpoint regardless of the 'team' that they ascribe to be on.
Don't you wish we had access to all the information Jordan makes available when we were kids? Most of it you figure out as you grow older but it would have been nice to have it when I was starting out.
I've heard of the idea of the "Divine Spark" before. And while I think it's true, one has to remember that it is a spark that needs to be fed properly, (taught morals and life experience), or it can get snuffed out before it has a chance to flame up.
The Divine Spark in the Judaeo-Christian formulation is the Image of God, something objective and external to ourselves - how God sees us. As such it cannot be snuffed out, only defaced.
Equality is one of the most misunderstood goals of any society that claims to want to achieve it. It could mean that the group or individuals on the lower end of the distribution gets lifted up. But it could also mean that the group on the upper end just gets dragged down to something closer to the lower end. I certainly can't speak for other countries, but I do know that in the US, attempting such a thing would result in creation of untold numbers of new government agencies to "manage" the redistribution which would further result in 90% of everything taken never making it back to the hands of those who were on the lower end to begin with.
The term equity is verbal slight of hand. People think this synonymous with equality. It's only when you begin to explain the difference that people question why this would be problematic. Then I explain there there is already a system for achieving equity. It's called Communism. Then I usually see a blank look wash over them...
Equality generally means to level the playing field....as for needing a vast array of government programs, not necessarily so. Yang's idea of a thousand per adult per month would go a long way towards equality with only one new program--the distribution of resources I would make it two thousand per household and then shut down multiple government programs. No more food stamps. AFDC, fuel assistance, etc.
@@mylesg7278 well if you want to be fair, you try to ensure an equal start for everyone and let everyone make their own decisions about their lives. If you want equality of outcome, you have to force some people to work harder, and limit the production of others, which by definition, isn't fair. It's pretty clear that the two are exclusive.
My kids were taught this in their private catholic school but not everyone chooses or has the opportunity or the religious conviction to send their children to a school that thinks this is important enough to teach as a matter of course!
A: "Look at that drooling schizophrenic with that happy, healthy, successful man walking past." B: "That's terrible." A: "I agree, the inequality is awful." B: "Inequality? I was talking about the mental illness, the waste, the misery." A: "Yeah, all of that is caused by the inequality." B: "I'm not-- hey, what's that on the ground?" A: "Umm... it appears to be a single-use magic wand, with two settings, 'EQUALITY' and 'HEALTH'." B: "Now, let's think carefully about this..."
If morality is relative, if we can push it in any direction we see fit, then we are not subject to our values and standards. Instead, they are subjected to us. It defeats the point of having morals. They become meaningless, and so does one's life.
Your conclusion does not follow. What "we see fit" is the same as what we value and the standards we have. You cannot seperate yourself from your values and standards, they are what define you, they are why we act out anything at all. So given that the way we see the world, including morality, is based on our values and standards, it's of course relative.
If morality is objective you believe you can get objective answers to your subjective experiences from a supreme being. The problem is that you can't demonstrate to anyone that your morals come from a supreme being and they appear to just be what you personally like.
@@independentfool Did you also notice by the way that the 10 commandments don't have anything like "thou shall not own slaves" because the bible was okay with slavery? What objective morality! Disgusting.
Just think this interview was back when he was in the throes of addiction and his illness, how blessed sharp he still is. Thank you God for JBP and keeping him with us. And thank you God for you(u know who u are)
You'd need some binding purpose or irresistibly and universally compelling direction. The J-C God supplies that, and I'd say significantly better than other worldviews.
Inequality also has a dark edge when you apply it to yourself. It's one thing to be a middle-class person walking down the street see a homeless person and wish that that person was better off or maybe we should tax everyone to provide some type of safety net. Fine. That is compassion. However, it's another to see someone on in a yacht, look at your student loans and then demand that they pay your student loans. That isn't compassion, it's resentment, jealousy, and envy. It's terrible since you essentially become a mob of thieves, and worse... blame others for your lot in life and refuse to better yourself as it is easier just to guilt/force/lobby others for more things which benefit you. You see this so much in Communist countries where they go savage on the wealthy as if that will solve their personal issues.
Well, you should pay your student loans. Yes, much of post secondary is over priced and doesn't give the return you're led to expect, but you still took them out and are responsible for them. I am of the opinion that at some point the interest should be waived if someone has already payed some % of the principle in just interest, provided that they have been paying it off responsibly and in good faith, ie not just paying the minimum dues and making a good faith effort to pay it off within their means.
@@Achonas And why is post secondary (in the US) overpriced? Because government covers most of those student loans if they aren't paid. Students don't shop around, skip post secondary, take degrees which actually pay, etc. because they know they won't have to pay them. Governments will introduce bills giving them 5 or 10 years before they have to pay, they'll get married and the husband will pay, they won't have to pay interest, some movement will come along and demand the government cover all student loans, or they can declare bankruptcy (some places). If the government got out of the student loan business imagine how different it would be. Loan officer. "I'm afraid you don't qualify for $200k. Based on your degree, income, parents cosigning, etc. here is $60k, here is a list of colleges which that only charge $15k a year and you'll need to get a job for your living expenses." Within weeks all the big colleges would be scrambling to lower prices since no one would be able to attend their schools.
That is theft. And it doesn't work. A free society cannot and should not try to guarantee that no matter how a person conducts his affairs he will not fail.
Student loans wouldn't even be a thing if the USA wasn't so capitalistic and PROFOUNDLY, systematically inequal. Many have yachts just because they took advantage of those ""free"" market inequalities. Look at golden boys for example. That's not jealousy, it's common sense, mixed with knowing some history. The game is rigged and this is frustrating because it rings the big loud bell of inequality, even if most of us live priviledged and untroubled lives.
The leftist term is "equity". The distinction between equality (which for me is about rights - not outcome) and equity (equal = outcome) needs to be taught.
However equity is a term initially derived from capitalism and finance, as i understand it. It has been incorporated into the idea of equality and fairness, with negative results imo.. Possibly as a consequence of the ruling that corporations have the status of legal entities - which won't end well for human beings..
Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favour, and setting new inequalities that will be in their favour, this latter being their chief concern. Vilfredo Pareto
I read a book once tilted "...a love story", it was written as a conversation between a 6 year old girl and an old philosopher in a forest. I remember clearly there was a quote: "In our material world, good is absolute, evil is relative. In the perfect world, good is everywhere while evil doesn't exist." It may not be a correct quote, because I wish to find this book once more.
Well, if you make such sweeping statements without offering ANY proof of him being wrong, the logical conclusion would be that you never read ANY of his books.
@@enasto1 Its worse than that, Ernie, I've read two of them. I just don't have the need to write a book of my own on what makes him so convoluted and illogical. But hey..he's glib and he's great on TV, right? Thats' what people want. The only thing i would say in this charlatan's defense is that twitter did him dirty. But he was going for a big reaction, and he certainly got it.
The exact same feelings I get nowadays when I listen to him. When I was younger I gobbled up his words, but nowadays it is more like: "Well yes, but actually no".
Don't put down dime stores They offer products that are accessible to those who aren't able to afford more elitist values at bargain prices. The proof is in the pudding, and Jordan has given solace and hope to millions via philosophical and scientific understanding. Maybe that book you don't have a need to write has a similar potential, rather than effusing salacious comments that do nothing for anyone but your own pride. Since I've never heard of you, and I'm guessing no one else has either, who's the real dime store philosopher?
Reality and truth belong together. Morals and fairness belong together. Morals are judgments about fairness. We can't move forward with so many people confusing their moral feelings for some kind of objectively true facts about the world.
Inequality is so natural to the human condition that any attempt to change it is so unnatural to human nature and human activity that to even try to make it work you need compulsion. Compulsion brings resistance .Resistance brings retribution by the governing elite . Retribution brings resentment and fear. Fear feeds the powerful and having seen it working and finding that their ambition is still rejected by the masses resort to greater and greater retribution and fear inducing terror. You have a dystopian society; they then go further in the quest for ‘equality ‘ by trying to change human nature to fit the ideology . This leads to the gulag and the corpse mountains.
This was why Paul told us: *"DO NOT CONFORM to the patterns of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."* Human nature is greed. If we have truly evolved has a species, then we should be able to fight greed.
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit I think human nature is basically unchanging left to its own devices. Human beings do respond to the conditions and circumstances they find themselves in. Greed is one aspect of it but there is also the desire to appear to be superior,to make others envious and the Love of power. Only God through Christ can change this in us.
@@forthfarean "The love of money is the root of all evil." It's greed. Don't wanna get philosophical on this one, but the picture might be clearest in the legal world. It's on corporate vs human rights law. Why Jesus was *crystal clear* when he said *You cannot serve two masters. Either you love the one or DESPISE the other. You CANNOT serve both God and money.* Yet, here Republicans are, worshipping capitalism.
Very inaccurate. Congratulations. Read Thomas Paine or Adam Smith again, noting how much they valued equality and liberty in tandem. Maybe also consider that slavery is quintessentially inequality.
@@ExistentialWill You're right in a way. I should have said "equality of outcome". Equal rights under the law is of paramount importance. But as long as people are free their outcomes will always be unequal. Does that make more sense?
@@thanksfernuthin I would limit your statement a bit further. If people are free, you cannot guarantee equality of outcome. And if that is true, the contrapositive (If you can guarantee equality of outcome, people are not free) is also true.
EX: Being a good parent is hard...being a bad parent is easy. It takes so much thought and actual work...I thought it was going to be a challenge but NOT the volumes of effort, understanding, and sacrifice. Funny thing is...I still feel I 've failed my kids despite all my work, love and compassion. Could I have done more??? Who really can be the judge of that?
Just be the best example you can be, be present in there lives, show them more than you tell them. when your children face challenges in life. They will use ur example as a reference. If it goes well they will repeat and refine. When you love your kids they become more than you can imagine
Morality is unavoidably and appropriately relative to the circumstances. It is moral subjectivity which must be avoided: the idea that things are good or bad based on an individual's personal preferences. A clear distinction between the two dichotomies of relative/absolute and subjective/objective is necessary to understand this. Also indispensable in a meaningful discussion about morality is a clear definition of what good itself means, which is usually missing from such efforts.
I believe theres a time and a place for individual moral relativism. Holding a higher power/idea to guide you on your journey as an exemplar for your own subjective reality pushes you towards being a “better person”
The principle of morality states that morality is objective and is not dependent on our own beliefs or values. Morality is not subject to the laws of man, morality or that which is Moral comes under the umbrella of natural or universal Law.
@@chrisbailey5731 Facts are objective, truth is what's useful at the time, and changes with time as more info' becomes known...see physics. in 1900 the truth was the Milky way was the universe, men can't fly etc...
@@Burbituate that is incorrect, though I get your point, what you mean to say is man's perception of truth changes with time. Truth itself however is a constant and is entirely immutable, truth does not change, truth is permanence. The milky way as we know was never the entire universe, that belief while being a perceived truth was always a false belief.
The comparisons to animals... he never gets tired of that. Animals do lots of things that are not desirable, their hierarchical distribution is one of them. It's natural but more primitive than we can achieve, it doesn't contemplate the concept of justice, which has been a key factor in our development as a civilization.
Hierarchies in animals are absolutely desirable if not necessary. Hierarchies are just another way of saying survival of the fittest. The fittest get to eat first, mate first, and also pass on the most desirable genes to the next generations, ultimately making the whole group stronger in the long term. Survival of the fittest, and thereby, hierarchies are an immutable law of nature. We just think we're smarter than nature.
Not only is the heirarchical distribution undesirable, most of his examples are made up, or apocryphal stories he accepted because they suit his narrative. It's not even the naturalistic fallacy. It's a failed attempt at it.
Morality changes from era to era. What is considered right in one era is considered wrong in another. Essentially it's subject to change based on environmental conditions. This is why Christians now consider it wrong to have slaves, to torture those who don't believe the same things as you etc etc. All things considered morally right in earlier times. So morality is clearly treated as relative by Christianity at least. Most of Jesus' teachings are now ignored by modern Christians to the point where Christianity has no meaning really.
I don't think you can interpret the morality of the individual through time based on the historical record. There's an awful lot of moral people CURRENTLY in an immoral society. You can't wash the acts of kings, politicians, religious leaders, etc. onto everyone at the time. These things failed and came to pass BECAUSE of the morality of the masses at those times bringing it down.
The frustration of equality failures is fatal… both literally and economically. Rewarding and promoting competence are the key incentives to progress and prosperity for all societies… something which the Marxist ideologues fail to grasp and instil… until, however, crises threatened collapse, and that is when communists, first in China and then in Russia, had to accept and embrace a new approach, for them, controlled capitalism.
The 100 million on the other side of the millions in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in Maoist China instantly stung my eyes with tears. All of those powerless people at the mercy of shockingly cruel paranoid despots. It makes you feel very very uneasy. I totally get Dr Peterson when informs others in this way. Masses of human beings shouldn't have suffered mercilessly and died without leaving a strong historical warning for future generations.
"No rich capitalist walks down the street, walks by a homeless person, who's mentally ill..and not feel compassion. No one likes poverty.." (non-verbatim) Man, is Jordan Peterson an idealist. He should take a field day on Wall Street. Or talk to corporate lawyers.
Yes, he evidently has never heard of psychopathy. While some wealthy people, to their credit, do give generously to charity, there are others who have no compassion whatsoever for people who are suffering through no fault of their own.
@@brettschmidt5929 I even know of a corporate lawyer, a *Christian* at that, who killed a human rights lawyer over land disputes. Got away with it. The world of corporate law really is different.
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit Your label of idealist is fair if taking his statement in isolation. By your example I would also add it appears you were also implying he is a naive idealist. I would propose he was making a generalization of most people or the people he knows. For generalizations its normal to exclude the 5% of the population that the generalization does not apply to (psycho and socio paths aka lawyers - j/k). Much of the content he publishes is a review and exploration of how many of the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century have become murderous hellscapes and the ways in which normal people participated in those evils. He states much of his work is motivated by a desire to steer the west away from repeating those same murderous mistakes which it seems determined to repeat. A common paraphrased quote he uses (without context): "Life is defined by immeasurable and unbearable suffering" Sorry for such a long response. I had alot more to add but it would be excessive.
The problem is the use of the word "divinity" as in "a spark of divinity". The brings to mind the notion that everyone has an element of God within them. And that is a notion the requires evidence.
"God" is just another way of saying Objective Moral Source. The Objective Moral Source that is an unembodied mind that sets forth the moral codes/duties/values by the nature of its existence. The evidence for this comes from three places. The Moral Argument from experiences, the Theory of Intentionality, and from the Emergent Universe. The Moral argument is a common Modus Ponens logical argument and goes like this... P1: If the Objective Moral Source does not exist, objective moral codes/duties/values do not exist. P2: Objective moral codes/duties/values do exist. C1: Therefore, the Objective Moral Source does exist. P1 is a tautology and is always true. P2 is true because every person that has ever lived has discovered at least some Objective moral codes/duties/values. And C1 is true because it logically follows from the premises. The Theory of Intentionality (aka the "fundamental property of consciousness") is far too complex to list here and is one of the most difficult logical concepts that mankind has ever created. Only a handful of people are able to under. stand it fuIIy. However, it can be summarized in layperson's terms by saying that a physical object in this Universe cannot be "about" somethlng else. This includes the human braln. The human braln is a physical object and due to this theory, it cannot be "about" something. This means that what is called the mind (aka our consciousness) is not the same "thlng" as our braln. Because of this, this also means that our thoughts, ideas, and morals are not products of our brains, but are products of our minds. So this Objective Moral Source must also be an unembodied mind since it is the Objective Moral Source. Keep in mind that if you believe in science, you also should believe that unembodied minds already exist. In the Multiverse Theorum, it is said that there could be 10^500 power Universes. The vast majority of these Universes are small (about the size of our solar system) and are occupied by one Boltzmann Braln (aka Observer). And finally in the Emergent Universe theory, the science suggests that an "Observer" is required to coIIaps3 the wave function in order to give rise to a particle. It is also suggested that the human braln is a quantum computer. Meaning that the neurons in your braln exist in a superposition state. When your mind makes a decision (aka observation), the wave functions coIIapse and form an electron in the braln, and the necessary synapsis are flr3d and the braln reacts like a computer to the decision your mind has made. This gives rise to the theory that the mind and the braln are not the same "thlng". As science, logic, and mathematics continue to get better and better, the more it appears this Universe was designed. Even atheists like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, David Deutsch, Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, and many more are beginning to realize that this Universe is so unlikely to exist, that is must have been designed. It cannot exist by random chance. We are talking 1 chance out of 10^10^123 power that this Universe exists by random chance. If you know anythlng about mathematics, 10^10^123 is a number so large that you cannot even begin to imagine how big it is. It would be that you would have a better chance of randomly throwing a dart in any direction and hitting a hydrogen atom on the other side of the Universe on the first try. Instead of accepting that there exists an unembodied mind which is the Objective Moral Source, Musk and others have invented a new explanation, that is far more absurd. Instead they believe that this Universe and everyone in it is not even real. The believe that instead we are actually a simulation that is running on a computer on some 12 year oId gIrI's desk somewhere. They have zero evidence for such a thlng to be true. They just made that up so they don't have to deal with an unembodied mind that is the Objective Moral Source.
@@jacksfavorite4808 It actually is evidence. It's just not very strong evidence, unless it can be proven that it was written/spoken by the designer of the Universe. Also, in order to form a valid argument, you cannot simply deny somethlng. You have to provide a valid argument for why it's not true. Otherwise anyone can just deny what you say without explanation.
Without bringing God into it, you can listen to other of Dr. Peterson's videos to see what he means when he says 'divinity'. Naturally, I think that he is literally correct, and I also believe that asking for (presumably scientific) evidence of a Being that is fully transcendental is quite silly. But even without that, the point he makes is that acting as if it was literally correct leads to better outcomes than acting as it was not literally correct. So, even without any evidence of God, his argument is a valid ethical argument from any consequentialist ethical system.
We're conditioned to have a favorable conditioned response to words such as 'Equality' much like Pavlov's dogs when a bell rang. In order for Equality to to work as people are naturally unequal, those at the upper portion of the hierarchy need be lowered to match closer to those at the bottom. The cost of which is the relinquishment of individual incentive and purpose for those on the high end. As society is concerned, it enters into a period of social and technological stagnation as one of many consequential factors that contribute to Equality. A society that places Equality before freedom (notice TH-cam doesn't capitalize freedom but it does Equality) will have far less of both freedom and Equality.
@@CrashSable let's take a small microcosm as an example. A single family. There is inequality among individual members of that family. Some are better at certain things than others, there are distinctions in intelligence, income, potential, etc. Even an individual is not equal to themselves one day to another.
I also think his naivete into thinking powerful people don't necessarily enjoy inequality. The one percent don't really do much to lessen inequality. Simply raising wages would go a long way. Few do it.
It might have been Tom Holland, but I read that rich Romans used to invite the poor to their feasts to watch, while giving them rock hard bread crusts to attempt to eat.
I have found those that struggle in life almost always: Smoke, drink, use drugs, lazy. Of course this does not count those with limitations due to illness, accidents etc.
@@robertholland7558 Without God there is nothing! God is not greed he is love. God created free will and we can choose to be greedy but that is our choice. Not preaching btw I’m not perfect myself but you are wrong in your stance if you go by the holy bible
@@Sarcasmtomasksadness blah blah blah. There is no such thing as a God other then in the minds of the delusional who can not accept reality! You keep believing in your ridiculous fairytales, I stick with reality, the fact we simple can not understand and comprehend! There can not possibly be nothing.
Reality is complex. An ideal is not necessarily good and doesn't necessarily work. What works is not necessarily good nor ideal. In a world that is both good and corrupt, only a transcendent view that takes both aspects into account is sufficient.
there is a nice example from China. i don't remember the place but Mao made a speech in a town and almost the whole town was there to listen. at the end of his speech, Mao said "those of you who think there is something wrong with the plan and want to ask questions or offer suggestions stay and i will listen, the rest of you can go home now". he gave the people about 20 minutes to leave while listening to those who had some disagreement and then with a gesture he signaled the army to move in and slaughter all who stayed as dissidents. tens of thousands massacred because they simply didn't "listen and obey" but had the gall to think for themselves.
Yeah authoritarian regimes religious or non religious will and still do commit atrocities, ........ I fail to see the relevance to the discourse at hand ? 🤔
Doing some work with the homeless and working in healthcare has taught me that most homelessness in the western world is a result of mental illness, drug use, or both. But the left blames everything on structural inequality, including mental illness and drug use. Despite good programs and health care providers' best efforts, those who don't want help won't let you give it to them. They'll accept help on their terms. Then it ends up being hit and miss, inconsistent, resulting in little to no sustained improvement in their quality of life. This is a generalization. There are a great number who do receive help and live better. But it's a mistake to blame homelessness, and It's associated problems, purely on failure of the system.
@@wstavis3135 Yes. I don't think it matters how prosperous society is, how great the social safety nets are, or how much equality is achieved, there will always be those who can't or won't participate in society.
I feel as if we're going back to a nomadic state, and can't help but wonder if this has happened before. I suppose the "Golden Years" of the baby boomer generation was only a pendulum swing from the depression. I meet all kinds of people who envy the "van" life as they struggle maintaining their households. And who is to say what is right. Jesus told us to give it all up, but modern Christianity teaches us this is irresponsibility, that being Godly means improving your life materially. So.........I tend to trust the words of Jesus over man's self serving interpretations.
@@jodihouts6032 I don't know how many of the homeless are doing so to follow Jesus. But I, like you, also wonder how much of the post WWII prosperity was a one-off, a result of multiple chance factors that may not have been in anyone's direct control. It's possible that it's still too early to tell. I'm convinced that free market principles lead to greater and more sustainable prosperity than any other system attempted so far. Markets lift everyone up over time, but some sooner than others and some more so than others. It's more of a rising wave pool than a one-to- one rise on all fronts. It doesn't produce the kind of equality that the left seems to be after. I would argue that such equality isn't desirable, and thus shouldn't be our goal. But the question isn't what system gets us closest to eutopia; eutopia in a our fallen world is a farce. The question is which system is better than the alternatives.
Wouldn't that truth be relative to the presupposition that people ought to get along with each other? My hang up with relativism is that I don't see how any proposed objectivity deals with the is/ought dilemma. From what I understand there has to be a bridge and I have yet to find one that isn't reducible to conscious presuppositions.
how about a combination of absolutes and relatives ? this is the reality. absolutes were used in the past , since those are easy for people to understand. it remains to be seen if modern people have the capacity to derive for themselves accurate moral conclusions in various complicated scenarios. at the moment , many seem to have trouble even with simple classical situations.
Relative/subjective morality unfortunately just means self-serving and self-convenient 'make it up as you go' morality......often to help tell and sell the more easily led something pretty while manipulating them into dehumanised nastiness.
Tell me dear can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "absolute objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed. If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 I'm clearly not your dear when your knickers are so easily (and passive-regressively) challenge-knotted while strangely distracting and diverting yourself away from the original point being made. An agreed upon (and humanity based) morality really shouldn't be that hard to understand and isn't just a concept tied to one (or many) religions but one simply tied to humanity, the usefulness of civilisation (which made us and allowed us to reach this point) and basic common sense.... eg not stealing from your neighbour (unless also OK for your neighbour to steal from you). I'm not even remotely religious myself (where many would happily just group me into an unnecessary atheism 'grouping' of their own self-convenient and self-serving nature). Conveniently selective/subjective (and 'make it up as you go' self-serving) morality (or even unquestioned morality) has sadly been an old tool of manipulation (for the more easily-led) by most of the creepy (and ideological based) authoritarian's from our past (and sometimes even the religious ones!) like the self-serving Inquisition era, the Nazi's (and nihilism) or the Soviet era and current Chinese CPC one where supposed morality was/is determined by the nasty (and negating all else) dehumanised state while umm supposedly pragmatic (but in a strangely self-serving and self-justifying manner). The current (and ironically named) post-humanist hoped-for (or manipulated-into) 'reality' is one unfortunately now dominated by narcissism and the lazy/apathetic 'tell yourself something pretty' (and less-thinking) instead method rather than using the more-considered (and more work-based) critical-thinking method from our past (which once at least helped us to aspire to be better) .....where all the current (and nihilistic-based) apathy sadly and ultimately just helps the more easily-led (and over-encouraged/manipulated) amongst us to justify (and overcompensate for) all the other nasty dehumanisation, which just becomes a big black and dehumanised/nihilistic hole with no moral basis .....as the manipulators intended while now unfortunately (and umm 'pragmatically') 'FOR the planet' apparently.
@TheEarthStoodStill Lets assume that a neighbour is someone you live next to where you both have umtual respect for one another (which is the key). It's really not that hard, you just have to have an agreed upon set of standards.
@@shaundevlin3905 Shaun-Peterson is speaking in terms of Christian spiritual divinity. Look up his other videos on the subject. This man professes Christian biblical beliefs. He wishes to impose this view.
@@jerryodonovan8624 He states that acting as though each person has a spark of divinity seems to be the most effective way of operating successfully in the world. It's the idea that, as he puts it, "everyone matters". It's also the idea that was the moral underpinning for the abolition of slavery. Not sure why you're so against the proposition of everyone's life having equal intrinsic value. It's immature and petty to argue against something plainly positive just because you have a problem with the person saying it or the religion that propagated the idea.
It's not factual statement about reality that can be proven or disproven. It's a scrap of poetry, intended to arouse emotion. If you ask what it _means,_ you get onto a long, tedious road that leads nowhere.
Emotional intelligence is the ability to consciously translate emotions into cause and effect. As a boy Jordan learned to conflate his emotional interpretations with his father's unconscious likes vs dislikes. Hence Jordan's mind severely split into an identity and shadow. Jordan's identity misperceives emotional intelligence as agreeing with his father.
I've never heard anybody advocate for Moral Relativity. The exact opposite is Absolutism. Absolutism is very appealing as it helps make sense of the world, but leads to the error of oversimplification.
Disagree. We can argue about whether moral absolutes exist, whether they can be known, without asserting that we do know them perfectly and exhaustively.
No he doesn't does he? What I found to be odd about this interaction was his definition of Truth towards the beginning where he described a process of "looking at society" and seeing "morals working" in a positive way, and that being the evidence of their Truth. This is a very Pragmatic approach to Truth and one I don't think that Jordan really intended to take. It doesn't help his case for Objective Morality. Perhaps it was just a misstep. It's very easy to do, especially since I haven't come across a better theory of Truth myself outside of the likes of James and Dewey.
If we define moral nihilism and moral absolutism as follows, where would moral relativism fall? Moral Absolutism = at least one moral principle cannot be destroyed by man. Moral Nihilism = every moral principle can be destroyed by man.
That mechanism that allows us to know the best for our selves, and aim towards that is the same one that gets hijacked and distorted by ideologies, and makes people believe that bad things will be good for them. I think that mechanism is referred to in religion as "faith" belief that there is a greater good other than your own motives and that you can aim towards them. Religion also talks about devil's and possession, what ideology is doing to people's faith sounds a lot like a possession of the devilish kind... People need to take this stuff more seriously, you don't though because you just read three paragraphs in a TH-cam comment section. You're probably good
I highly recommend to read Harry V Jaffa to understand equality - this discussion is high off the mark of understanding that principle in the Declaration of Independence
The ideal of equality becomes murderous on the stage of reality, because *the ideal - meritorious or not - is a source of conflict (**5:05**).* The reality is that there is inequality - that's a fact. Equality, on the other hand, is not reality - it's an ideal. In other words, inequality exists, equality does not exist. *By introducing the concept of equality, friction and confusion is created between idea and reality.* It is this friction that we have been trying to smooth down for ages without any success. *So, what's the solution for the conflict we created?* The solution lies in facing reality and non-reality without prejudice. When opposing parts are faced at the same time, division between them ends and conflict or violence becomes manageable.
Ok I need to see this more because as a biologist I have always seen the animal organizations as hierarchical yes, but inequality? Maybe. But never competitive like in our capitalism. But they actually work because of collaboration! Even if that collaboration brings some inequality. Well…I hope my English is clear enough to get what I mean…
6:32 No one is for poverty but many people are for greed - the cause of said poverty. Remember nowhere in the bible does it say that poverty is a sin, but it says very clearly that greed is a deadly sin.
Totalitarian egalitarian ideologies give people license to bring out the worst in themselves since the end goal - the utopia - seems so worthwhile. And people are always jockeying for a higher place in the status hierarchy, in a capitalist market-based society this can be used to create new companies, innovations and investments that create real value. In the totalitarian society people gain power and status by trying to move higher up in the one party system or in the security apparatus, it doesn’t create anything of value, only misery. I say this with sadness, I wish it wasn’t so.
The Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, one of many in the Australian government that tempers individual liberty while espousing divinity and condemning tyranny..........
You can be against slavery and not be specifically Christian. Feeling comes from within us all. It doesn't matter which church you go or don't go to. It doesn't speak to a specific religious organization.
They are not prepared to listen. They are not prepared to surrender their victimhood which is demonstrably their meal ticket. There is no rational or reasonable argument that will sway them.
@@briggsquantum I mean, find me an ethnic minority that was subjected to attempted genocide in their own living memory who *are* willing to listen to an out-of-touch old white pseudo-intellectual tell them that it's their own fault it happened.
But the idea of "judaeo-christian values" were created as a response to the rise of antisemitism in the 1930s, as a set of values to find common ground and avoid the same movement in the US. Claiming that because you believe in the societal values prevalent in the developed world today makes you a judaeo-christian to the core is dishonest because these values have nothing to do with religious belief in the first place. Being an atheist (or agnostic, for that matter) doesn't mean one wants to remove these societal values that hold our society together, it simply means that one doesn't believe in a divine being that ultimately dictates everything, and don't want to live one's life according to a book based on stories from a tribal society several thousand years ago (which most people living in the modern world already don't do).
as Peterson says often... ''well...good luck on convincing someone to change his personal views and morality....because...'' Ethos (morality) is a set of rules we respect in our lives. Is subjective and relative because we are not living in a hive mind social structure
Morality is social. If we are going to talk Judaeo-Christian, the first tablet of the 10 Commandments is about morality wrt God, and the second is about morality towards other humans.
@@yidiandianpang Morality doesn't come from god. There is no absolute morality. Just ask every other religion that believes that their teaching is the "right one".
An incredible conversation between two learned men. In my opinion the answer you are looking for is Jesus. I know it sounds simplistic or eye-roll inducing but do your research and be honest with yourself! Self-deception (whether you are aware of it or not) is the enemy and a component of evil. And yes, I'm aware of the irony that you could suggest I'm deceiving myself. For me morality is provided by God which explains why it is external. Why don't you try applying that to social scientific theory. You might just find the answers you are looking for.
2nd. Commandment, Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.” Old Testament punishment- Deuteronomy 27: 1 5 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.” That’s right kids don’t EVER draw, sculpt or paint or else god will curse you. Wanna be an artist, a photographer, take a picture of yourself or family? TOO BAD, God says no! You better drop out of art class before he smites you with boils. 3rd. Commandment, Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death”, New Testament punishment - Matthew 12:32 “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come”. Mark 3:29 - “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgivness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”. this is moral? total obedience, no thinking by yourself?
My friend, the second commandment is about not making an image of a false god and worshipping it in place of Biblical God. Yes you can still go to art class - just don't start worshipping the stuff you make. The third commandment is don't blaspheme, which is essentially to use the name of God as a swear / cuss word. I'm sure you wouldn't be too pleased if people did that to you? God gave us free will thankfully, and has been honest and upfront with you. You cannot plead ignorance on the day of judgement.
I think Mr. Peterson forgets that charity and compassion for inequity if genuine, begins with a Christian faith and private acts and is not easily fooled by or manipulated by the appeasement of statists
are you saying that compassion and caring, only exist in christians? And never existed before christianity? And does not exist among non christians, even today?
The only, well more then one but the most irritating thing, I dislike about Jordan is that he trully believes he has mankind figured out, the way he labels Sam Harris is a perfect example, you don't, just don't.
It speaks of a hatred of accountability. We want to be our OWN Gods & if you can accumulate enough power, you get to be THE God & dictate to everyone else.
Tell me dear can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed. If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 Who said anything about a specific god, 'Dear'? Is it not objectively true that if you drink Motor Oil like Milk, you're likely to die? That if you drive your car into into a lake, it's going to sink? Let's do one even better though- At the end of the slaughter of the American Indians, they performed a ritual called, 'The Ghost Dance', where they asked the spirits of their ancestors to make their wooden armor impervious to the white man's bullets. These people believed in the power of their ancestors in a way that is almost impossible for secular western culture to understand. It did not help them. Personal feelings do not truth make. Believe what you want, but the consequences will be yours and yours alone. 'Dear.'
I'm not sure Peterson understands the concept of moral relativism. He seems to think it's "everyone has and acts on a different code and that's ok" when in actuality it's more along the lines of "cultures and peoples develop differing codes of ethics, there is no universal morality".
Pluralism brings it down to the individual level. It is when enough of your neighbors have different values that you begin to doubt your own, and then values become choices.
someone going around killing random people... Tell me if you know ANY society where that is seen as ok? same goes for someone going around , breaking in and stealing stuff... someone randomly beating up strangers.... We do have some basics in common. Religion has been used to make excuses for types of killing and types of abuse, but random people doing it to random strangers..is still a universal wrong.
@@Goldenhawk583 according to what? It may be universally accepted as wrong but there is a massive difference between universally wrong and universally accepted as wrong. Also you're making a massive assumption that anything is universally accepted
Cultures and their respective values are not equal. For example, it was god's will to sacrifice humans in Inca societies. In the Spanish societies of the same time it was not. The Spanish were better. Just because all values happen, it doesn't mean that all values are equally viable. The moral relativists leave out the 2nd part. Peterson argues there is an absolute value, that of our divine spark. And that value is much better because of its viability. It is what the Western cultures are built on: human rights, women's rights, even animal rights. The relativistic idea that there is no absolute truth, is a logical fallacy. If there is no absolute truth, you cannot make any statement, including "there is no truth." That would be circular reasoning. And this fallacy creates misery on an unimaginable scale.
Humanity is a transcendence seeking animal,.. but does transcendence require supernaturalism to be fully grounded? How does science account for Consciousness? Without Consciousness, how does perception happen? Pain for just one example?
Such an odd jump from saying there's a spark of divinity in everyone, to saying atheists like Sam Harris are Judaeo-Christian to the core. Peterson seems to be falling into the trap that you can't be good without god. So much of what Peterson says would make so much more sense if he framed it from an atheistic, evolutionary framework.
Re - The Great Leveler; other instincts that find expression in social justice movements are also rooted in instincts that all biological life shares. These are first discrimination of differences and the national defensiveness when they are recognized. This is why societies have to train or socialize children as they grow. This is also the source of abuse because social equality "requires" color blindness, which is unnatural. It is bound to create chaos, which si why history reads as it does. Every empire that ever existed collapsed internally because they become too diversified.
Having what could be called "Judeo-Christian values" doesn't make you not an atheist, because those values don't "belong" to religion. Religion is just a nice wrapper we put on those ideas to make them easy to digest. If you're capable at arriving at those values yourself, from first principles, rather than because someone told you that's what you should believe, I think you have a *greater* claim to those ideas than a theist, not a lesser one. Peterson is sneaking this idea that religion has a monopoly on moral thought into his speech more and more. It's pretty frustrating.
Yeah it's just about what lens you view it through. I'm an atheist and I've listened to JP long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt - whenever he says stuff like "You're judeo-christian to the core" I just take it as him using the religion he's familiar with to efficiently express a specific system of moral beliefs rather than the more face-value meaning of "if you have these values you aren't an atheist"
the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak...we need to make this statement as many times as we can and mean it...but we are also weak and sinful by nature trying to remain loyal and holy is a daily challenge and the reason that we need a savior at all....or in the first place....fighting evil and the evil within our own selves is a second by second battle...even when you believe...the key is to keep trying and to keep seeking to become holy and hopefully with Jesus love and forgiveness he will give you the grace you require to become a more holy person in this lifetime and through you belief in him as the son of God you will be given everlasting life as his gift to you for your faith in him and his mission of paying for your sins on the cross ...so you wouldnt have too...Jesus the logos knows that only his sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the eternal sins of our innate beings....he knew from the moment of the creation that he would be coming into his creation in order to redeem it back to himself in all of its holiness....why...because by creating free willed creatures..both the angels and humans...and by producing the creation ...both would be good and perfect to start with but both would be open to the possibility of inequity since the creation by definition is less than God...and open to the possibility of inequity especially in an environment where free will existed....and so ...from the moment of the creation....both in heaven and in our universe....the Word knew that he would be entering into his creation at some moment in time...in order to redeem it back to himself....Jesus did this for us...and for the entire cosmos....out of his eternal and enormous love for us all....it is an act of love ...to create free willed entities and to save them from inequity and sin and redeem them back to a state of hoiliness by his actions alone.....we remain free willed and unique as do the angels who chose to remain with him and we get to experience eternity with him because of his selfless act to forgive us for our sins....(which he knew we would commit....he made us free...this is the universe we live in...the one he chose out of an infinite level of possibilities.....this is it....and he came into it to redeem us...and keep us free....and true...why...cause thats what he willed...thats how he wanted us to be.......)
No one on earth lives up to their potential they only live up to their internal emotional narrative or tribal ideologue. Its all a ruse in relationship to values ie money arrogance aristocracy maintenance of self esteem as success over everything else. Humanity requires that we look after everyone get over it.
Peterson says we act as we do because our nervous systems have reacted to millions of years of behavioral development and then he says we act as we do because of Judeo-Christian values. He makes so much sense until his Christian indoctrination clouds his sensibility.
@@cullenkehoe5184 you apparently read the Bible through a extremely filtered lens. Everything you just brought up is advocated by the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible
"if acting like everyone matters leads to a functional society, maybe that's evidence that that proposition is true." This is like saying "if you treat books as if they belong on a bookshelf, you get a functional library; so maybe that's evidence that books belong on a bookshelf." It's not necessary to put books on a bookshelf. There's nothing wrong with stacking them whatever way you like or strewing them around the floor. It's only if we're pursuing the goal of having a functional library that we can get the "should" from this. Therefore, putting books on a bookshelf is good relative to the goal of creating a functional library, just as treating everyone like they matter is good relative to the goal of creating a functional society. This isn't a matter of truth, it's a matter of what functions and what doesn't function in the pursuit of a goal. 1:35-~1:46 - "spark of divinity" Wait, what is this now? A spark of divinity? What does that even mean? Why can't humans be inherently valuable without being divine too? I understand that you're trying to establish a sacrosanct value here - which is itself not necessary - but you don't need to do that in order to make it sacrosanct. All you have to do is make it an axiom of your ethics that humans are to be treated as if they're fundamentally sacred -not that they are fundamentally sacred and that implies divinity. So many extra layers that are not needed! So much more to justify, define, and defend - and all without any definition! Stop it immediately. "There isn't a more true way of saying that" - yes there is, and you already said it. "Acting like everyone matters leads to a functional society." We want a functional society. Therefore, we should act like everyone matters. The end!
On a basic species level, morality is relative. It’s not even an argument. Any good anthropologist can drive this point home convincingly. What is not relative is our programmed need to be social animals. We are very well equipped to work in cooperative groups for common goals and needs. That has made us wildly successful as a species. People generally are at their happiest when they find common and shared purpose in their relationships. We are not so well equipped to be isolated individual consumers in direct competition with each other, and have wildly uneven distribution of wealth and resources. That is a corrosive and even toxic force. It’s an instructive quirk of our current dysfunctional economic system that it’s the sociopaths who seem to have an adaptive advantage in today’s world. Little wonder we have so much anxiety, and depression in our most modern societies. On a societal level, we are basically schizophrenic. It’s not enough to have access to leisure, or basic comforts taken care of. JP is quite right about the benefits of valuing yourself and others, but he insists on making it a specifically moral choice ( divine spark). This dynamic has played out throughout human history and across some quite varied moral codes and traditions, and the common link has been the community / tribal identity.
Everything, literally everything, we think, feel and express is subjective. Even our understanding of objectivity is influenced by our subjective understanding of the world around us. Relativism perfectly describes the evolution of morality. And nothing better demonstrates this than cries of 'I know better'.
And child predators, serial rapists, and psychopathic murderers? All beings come from God and, thus, have divinity within. But how can one argue that *these* demonic monsters have any good in them, that they don’t deserve the harshest penalties and condemnation?
oh it's easy to reply to your question: child predators, serial rapists, and psychopathic murderers are categories invented 100 years ago. They are social constructions.
Relative morality is not a lie. It's true. The fact of the matter is morality is subjective. Most people are prosocial (at least in social situations) so it works out, but many people are not. There is no way to establish they are in some way logically wrong about their positions. It is subjective.
Equality is a Christian concept to its core . Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Romans 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God. John 13:16 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Galatians 3:26-29 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (Read More...) Mark 12:31 - And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Colossians 1:16-17 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Read More...) Leviticus 19:33-34 - And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. (Read More...)
When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
I recently went from sitting on the idea of “God doesn’t exist so why would I have to to think about Christianity or try to understand His will” to “Even if he doesn’t exist, His effect on his followers has been profound and changed the world possibly for all of the rest of human existence.” It was actually reading Anna Karenina and Leo Tolstoy’s interpretation of Christ’s message that led me to reconsider everything about religion and it’s place in history and today’s world. Listening to Dr. Peterson’s thoughts on these topics always leaves me with so much to consider and I’m truly grateful for all he contributes. I was particularly interested in his message to the atheists about being Judeo-Christian and it so true. Just by nature of living in western countries God’s will at least begins to shape all of us.
You are appreciated Liam. Keep an open mind and a bent for honest, civil discourse!
religion shapes a culture and a standard of morality and a basis of ethics. the middle east is shaped by islamism. the west is shaped by christianity. these cultures could not be more different. God or no God, I think that the 10 commandments , standards of right and wrong is what is valuable in the christian religion and the personal dignity to uphold these teachings. These common moral values are what makes a society function and work in harmony.
When trying to define a (the?) problem, root cause analysis is the preferred approach.
And what is the root cause for every problem you encounter? It's either everyone else's fault (blame God?) or it's yours. Regardless of the 'Truth' of the matter, the best approach is to accept whatever responsibility you can and meeting the other challenges with grace. AKA, follow the Serenity prayer. ✌️
baloney, in a word.
@@anastasia10017 have you actually read the commandments? Can you please explain to the naïve atheists how the first 4 contribute towards making society function?
Thank you Dr Jordan B Peterson, for saying what NEEDS! to be said in this ridiculous and messed up age! You my friend are an Ambassador to Man-kind... society needs to appreciate and listen for the sake of future functionality! Cheers from Australia!🌏
I agree with John Anderson. I can't condemn someone for wanting life to be painless, but the reality is that life is pain. I am disappointed to see these two using the left's Newspeak definition of "equality". Equality is all people being equal before the law. The left has conflated equality with egalitarianism, the idea that equal outcomes can be enforced. And as my wise wife says, "The only way to have equal outcomes is for everyone to do nothing."
"And the trees are all made equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw."
Life is Pain? What a dim view. I mean,.Petersen certainly thinks so, Its why i dont get him or many of the "classical" philosophers.
Life is what you make it. Its what part of reality you focus on. Jeez. Lighten up. lol
Watch this full interview. There such more.
@@mbellizia75 ignorance is bliss
@@mbellizia75 to deny that you will experience pain and suffering in life, or that you can brush off all trials of life like a fairy is arrogant and naive.
Great conversation. Using terms like Right Wing and Left Wing sparingly reduces the average viewers confirmation bias enough to hopefully look at things in a practical and solution oriented viewpoint regardless of the 'team' that they ascribe to be on.
Amazing. This sums up everything I have been trying to teach my son in one snappy video. Very timely.
Impossible
Good for you, dad.
Don't you wish we had access to all the information Jordan makes available when we were kids? Most of it you figure out as you grow older but it would have been nice to have it when I was starting out.
@@thanksfernuthin Absolutely. That is why I am so keen to tell my son all about JP and his wise words
Too bad for you and your son that he’s incorrect on most of it.
I've heard of the idea of the "Divine Spark" before. And while I think it's true, one has to remember that it is a spark that needs to be fed properly, (taught morals and life experience), or it can get snuffed out before it has a chance to flame up.
The Divine Spark in the Judaeo-Christian formulation is the Image of God, something objective and external to ourselves - how God sees us. As such it cannot be snuffed out, only defaced.
Why does the spark have to be divine? We have a "spark". That alone is sufficient. The divine does not explain anything.
Equality is one of the most misunderstood goals of any society that claims to want to achieve it. It could mean that the group or individuals on the lower end of the distribution gets lifted up. But it could also mean that the group on the upper end just gets dragged down to something closer to the lower end. I certainly can't speak for other countries, but I do know that in the US, attempting such a thing would result in creation of untold numbers of new government agencies to "manage" the redistribution which would further result in 90% of everything taken never making it back to the hands of those who were on the lower end to begin with.
The term equity is verbal slight of hand. People think this synonymous with equality. It's only when you begin to explain the difference that people question why this would be problematic. Then I explain there there is already a system for achieving equity. It's called Communism. Then I usually see a blank look wash over them...
Equality generally means to level the playing field....as for needing a vast array of government programs, not necessarily so. Yang's idea of a thousand per adult per month would go a long way towards equality with only one new program--the distribution of resources I would make it two thousand per household and then shut down multiple government programs. No more food stamps. AFDC, fuel assistance, etc.
People always get pulled down because you cannot get equality of excellence with disparate groups.
@@forthfarean It is equality of opportunity we are talking about.
@@julianmarsh1378 That’s perfectly legitimate but don’t expect equal results.
"Equality of outcomes" and "fairness" are mutually exclusive.
How so? Did JBP say that or is this from you?
@@mylesg7278, it's self evident. People are not the same. If they are all made to be equal, it's inherently unfair.
@@mylesg7278 well if you want to be fair, you try to ensure an equal start for everyone and let everyone make their own decisions about their lives. If you want equality of outcome, you have to force some people to work harder, and limit the production of others, which by definition, isn't fair.
It's pretty clear that the two are exclusive.
My kids were taught this in their private catholic school but not everyone chooses or has the opportunity or the religious conviction to send their children to a school that thinks this is important enough to teach as a matter of course!
A: "Look at that drooling schizophrenic with that happy, healthy, successful man walking past."
B: "That's terrible."
A: "I agree, the inequality is awful."
B: "Inequality? I was talking about the mental illness, the waste, the misery."
A: "Yeah, all of that is caused by the inequality."
B: "I'm not-- hey, what's that on the ground?"
A: "Umm... it appears to be a single-use magic wand, with two settings, 'EQUALITY' and 'HEALTH'."
B: "Now, let's think carefully about this..."
...Tell me you thought of this by yourself. It's genius.
@@kaeljadondavis2779 I did. And thank you, but you exaggerate.
If morality is relative, if we can push it in any direction we see fit, then we are not subject to our values and standards. Instead, they are subjected to us. It defeats the point of having morals. They become meaningless, and so does one's life.
Your conclusion does not follow. What "we see fit" is the same as what we value and the standards we have. You cannot seperate yourself from your values and standards, they are what define you, they are why we act out anything at all. So given that the way we see the world, including morality, is based on our values and standards, it's of course relative.
@@MarkoMood "we see fit" could also be understand as "that best serves me in this moment." I agree with Julian. Morality is not relative.
If morality is objective you believe you can get objective answers to your subjective experiences from a supreme being. The problem is that you can't demonstrate to anyone that your morals come from a supreme being and they appear to just be what you personally like.
@@MrTheclevercat Or you could just read the bible, where they are in print.
@@independentfool Did you also notice by the way that the 10 commandments don't have anything like "thou shall not own slaves" because the bible was okay with slavery? What objective morality! Disgusting.
Just think this interview was back when he was in the throes of addiction and his illness, how blessed sharp he still is. Thank you God for JBP and keeping him with us. And thank you God for you(u know who u are)
God must exist for morality to be objective.
Platitudinous nonsense.
@@briggsquantum Any arguments or just platitudes?
You'd need some binding purpose or irresistibly and universally compelling direction. The J-C God supplies that, and I'd say significantly better than other worldviews.
Inequality also has a dark edge when you apply it to yourself. It's one thing to be a middle-class person walking down the street see a homeless person and wish that that person was better off or maybe we should tax everyone to provide some type of safety net. Fine. That is compassion.
However, it's another to see someone on in a yacht, look at your student loans and then demand that they pay your student loans. That isn't compassion, it's resentment, jealousy, and envy. It's terrible since you essentially become a mob of thieves, and worse... blame others for your lot in life and refuse to better yourself as it is easier just to guilt/force/lobby others for more things which benefit you. You see this so much in Communist countries where they go savage on the wealthy as if that will solve their personal issues.
Well, you should pay your student loans. Yes, much of post secondary is over priced and doesn't give the return you're led to expect, but you still took them out and are responsible for them. I am of the opinion that at some point the interest should be waived if someone has already payed some % of the principle in just interest, provided that they have been paying it off responsibly and in good faith, ie not just paying the minimum dues and making a good faith effort to pay it off within their means.
@@Achonas And why is post secondary (in the US) overpriced? Because government covers most of those student loans if they aren't paid. Students don't shop around, skip post secondary, take degrees which actually pay, etc. because they know they won't have to pay them. Governments will introduce bills giving them 5 or 10 years before they have to pay, they'll get married and the husband will pay, they won't have to pay interest, some movement will come along and demand the government cover all student loans, or they can declare bankruptcy (some places). If the government got out of the student loan business imagine how different it would be.
Loan officer. "I'm afraid you don't qualify for $200k. Based on your degree, income, parents cosigning, etc. here is $60k, here is a list of colleges which that only charge $15k a year and you'll need to get a job for your living expenses." Within weeks all the big colleges would be scrambling to lower prices since no one would be able to attend their schools.
That is theft. And it doesn't work. A free society cannot and should not try to guarantee that no matter how a person conducts his affairs he will not fail.
Student loans wouldn't even be a thing if the USA wasn't so capitalistic and PROFOUNDLY, systematically inequal. Many have yachts just because they took advantage of those ""free"" market inequalities. Look at golden boys for example. That's not jealousy, it's common sense, mixed with knowing some history. The game is rigged and this is frustrating because it rings the big loud bell of inequality, even if most of us live priviledged and untroubled lives.
@@Adiaf8oros I think you just proved my point.
The leftist term is "equity". The distinction between equality (which for me is about rights - not outcome) and equity (equal = outcome) needs to be taught.
Equal rights come with equal responsibilities.
However equity is a term initially derived from capitalism and finance, as i understand it. It has been incorporated into the idea of equality and fairness, with negative results imo.. Possibly as a consequence of the ruling that corporations have the status of legal entities - which won't end well for human beings..
Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favour, and setting new inequalities that will be in their favour, this latter being their chief concern. Vilfredo Pareto
I read a book once tilted "...a love story", it was written as a conversation between a 6 year old girl and an old philosopher in a forest. I remember clearly there was a quote: "In our material world, good is absolute, evil is relative. In the perfect world, good is everywhere while evil doesn't exist." It may not be a correct quote, because I wish to find this book once more.
Peterson is dimestore philosophy at the very very best. Someone told him he was good at some point, and bless his heart, he ran with it.
Well, if you make such sweeping statements without offering ANY proof of him being wrong, the logical conclusion would be that you never read ANY of his books.
@@enasto1 Its worse than that, Ernie, I've read two of them. I just don't have the need to write a book of my own on what makes him so convoluted and illogical. But hey..he's glib and he's great on TV, right? Thats' what people want.
The only thing i would say in this charlatan's defense is that twitter did him dirty. But he was going for a big reaction, and he certainly got it.
The exact same feelings I get nowadays when I listen to him. When I was younger I gobbled up his words, but nowadays it is more like: "Well yes, but actually no".
Don't put down dime stores They offer products that are accessible to those who aren't able to afford more elitist values at bargain prices. The proof is in the pudding, and Jordan has given solace and hope to millions via philosophical and scientific understanding. Maybe that book you don't have a need to write has a similar potential, rather than effusing salacious comments that do nothing for anyone but your own pride. Since I've never heard of you, and I'm guessing no one else has either, who's the real dime store philosopher?
Reality and truth belong together. Morals and fairness belong together. Morals are judgments about fairness. We can't move forward with so many people confusing their moral feelings for some kind of objectively true facts about the world.
Inequality is so natural to the human condition that any attempt to change it is so unnatural to human nature and human activity that to even try to make it work you need compulsion. Compulsion brings resistance .Resistance brings retribution by the governing elite . Retribution brings resentment and fear. Fear feeds the powerful and having seen it working and finding that their ambition is still rejected by the masses resort to greater and greater retribution and fear inducing terror. You have a dystopian society; they then go further in the quest for ‘equality ‘ by trying to change human nature to fit the ideology . This leads to the gulag and the corpse mountains.
No thumbs up? That was an awesome comment in the form of a quick summation of the process of genocidal tyranny. Good one.
Idk know about that. The Native people of the Americas tend to naturally make their way to equality.
This was why Paul told us:
*"DO NOT CONFORM to the patterns of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."*
Human nature is greed.
If we have truly evolved has a species, then we should be able to fight greed.
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit I think human nature is basically unchanging left to its own devices. Human beings do respond to the conditions and circumstances they find themselves in. Greed is one aspect of it but there is also the desire to appear to be superior,to make others envious and the
Love of power. Only God through Christ can change this in us.
@@forthfarean
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
It's greed.
Don't wanna get philosophical on this one, but the picture might be clearest in the legal world.
It's on corporate vs human rights law.
Why Jesus was *crystal clear* when he said
*You cannot serve two masters. Either you love the one or DESPISE the other. You CANNOT serve both God and money.*
Yet, here Republicans are, worshipping capitalism.
Inequality isn't proof of injustice. It's proof of justice. You can have freedom or equality of outcome. Pick one.
Very inaccurate. Congratulations. Read Thomas Paine or Adam Smith again, noting how much they valued equality and liberty in tandem. Maybe also consider that slavery is quintessentially inequality.
@@ExistentialWill You're right in a way. I should have said "equality of outcome". Equal rights under the law is of paramount importance. But as long as people are free their outcomes will always be unequal. Does that make more sense?
@@thanksfernuthin I would limit your statement a bit further. If people are free, you cannot guarantee equality of outcome. And if that is true, the contrapositive (If you can guarantee equality of outcome, people are not free) is also true.
EX: Being a good parent is hard...being a bad parent is easy. It takes so much thought and actual work...I thought it was going to be a challenge but NOT the volumes of effort, understanding, and sacrifice. Funny thing is...I still feel I 've failed my kids despite all my work, love and compassion. Could I have done more??? Who really can be the judge of that?
Just be the best example you can be, be present in there lives, show them more than you tell them. when your children face challenges in life. They will use ur example as a reference. If it goes well they will repeat and refine. When you love your kids they become more than you can imagine
I am not sure if you are in the position to tell if someone is a good or bad parent. I whop my kids most people think it's bad but I don't.
Morality is unavoidably and appropriately relative to the circumstances. It is moral subjectivity which must be avoided: the idea that things are good or bad based on an individual's personal preferences. A clear distinction between the two dichotomies of relative/absolute and subjective/objective is necessary to understand this. Also indispensable in a meaningful discussion about morality is a clear definition of what good itself means, which is usually missing from such efforts.
There are principles and truths that do not change with circumstances. "I, the Lord, do not change." ;)
Morality is objective.
Agreed. But good and bad do relative to circumstances.@@fatalheart7382
I believe theres a time and a place for individual moral relativism.
Holding a higher power/idea to guide you on your journey as an exemplar for your own subjective reality pushes you towards being a “better person”
The principle of morality states that morality is objective and is not dependent on our own beliefs or values.
Morality is not subject to the laws of man, morality or that which is Moral comes under the umbrella of natural or universal Law.
then it sucks, because every body claim that they have the truth about natural law
@@afeefnawab4584truth is always objective and is not subject to personal opinion
@@chrisbailey5731 Facts are objective, truth is what's useful at the time, and changes with time as more info' becomes known...see physics. in 1900 the truth was the Milky way was the universe, men can't fly etc...
@@Burbituate that is incorrect, though I get your point, what you mean to say is man's perception of truth changes with time. Truth itself however is a constant and is entirely immutable, truth does not change, truth is permanence. The milky way as we know was never the entire universe, that belief while being a perceived truth was always a false belief.
The definition of truth:
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality
The comparisons to animals... he never gets tired of that. Animals do lots of things that are not desirable, their hierarchical distribution is one of them. It's natural but more primitive than we can achieve, it doesn't contemplate the concept of justice, which has been a key factor in our development as a civilization.
Hierarchies in animals are absolutely desirable if not necessary. Hierarchies are just another way of saying survival of the fittest. The fittest get to eat first, mate first, and also pass on the most desirable genes to the next generations, ultimately making the whole group stronger in the long term. Survival of the fittest, and thereby, hierarchies are an immutable law of nature. We just think we're smarter than nature.
@@joshchapman7384 our brains have evolved enough to know that we have no solid reason for why we should be slaves to our instincts.
@@Ho-mb2wb And yet all humans are still slaves to their instincts.
Not only is the heirarchical distribution undesirable, most of his examples are made up, or apocryphal stories he accepted because they suit his narrative.
It's not even the naturalistic fallacy. It's a failed attempt at it.
Morality changes from era to era. What is considered right in one era is considered wrong in another.
Essentially it's subject to change based on environmental conditions. This is why Christians now consider it wrong to have slaves, to torture those who don't believe the same things as you etc etc. All things considered morally right in earlier times.
So morality is clearly treated as relative by Christianity at least. Most of Jesus' teachings are now ignored by modern Christians to the point where Christianity has no meaning really.
I don't think you can interpret the morality of the individual through time based on the historical record. There's an awful lot of moral people CURRENTLY in an immoral society. You can't wash the acts of kings, politicians, religious leaders, etc. onto everyone at the time. These things failed and came to pass BECAUSE of the morality of the masses at those times bringing it down.
A very fair analysis of the left vs the right way of thinking.
Very interesting. Very good.
There is a lot I don’t know but this I do… Truth is ABSOLUTELY a RELATIVE of mine. Amen👍😉
The frustration of equality failures is fatal… both literally and economically. Rewarding and promoting competence are the key incentives to progress and prosperity for all societies… something which the Marxist ideologues fail to grasp and instil… until, however, crises threatened collapse, and that is when communists, first in China and then in Russia, had to accept and embrace a new approach, for them, controlled capitalism.
The 100 million on the other side of the millions in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in Maoist China instantly stung my eyes with tears. All of those powerless people at the mercy of shockingly cruel paranoid despots. It makes you feel very very uneasy. I totally get Dr Peterson when informs others in this way. Masses of human beings shouldn't have suffered mercilessly and died without leaving a strong historical warning for future generations.
Acting as if morality is absolute and believing that morality is absolute are two different things.
"No rich capitalist walks down the street, walks by a homeless person, who's mentally ill..and not feel compassion. No one likes poverty.." (non-verbatim)
Man, is Jordan Peterson an idealist.
He should take a field day on Wall Street.
Or talk to corporate lawyers.
Yes, he evidently has never heard of psychopathy. While some wealthy people, to their credit, do give generously to charity, there are others who have no compassion whatsoever for people who are suffering through no fault of their own.
You couldn't be more wrong about the meaning of his statement. If you caught more of his content you would understand why.
@@JP_21M Please elaborate
@@brettschmidt5929 I even know of a corporate lawyer, a *Christian* at that, who killed a human rights lawyer over land disputes.
Got away with it.
The world of corporate law really is different.
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit Your label of idealist is fair if taking his statement in isolation. By your example I would also add it appears you were also implying he is a naive idealist.
I would propose he was making a generalization of most people or the people he knows. For generalizations its normal to exclude the 5% of the population that the generalization does not apply to (psycho and socio paths aka lawyers - j/k).
Much of the content he publishes is a review and exploration of how many of the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century have become murderous hellscapes and the ways in which normal people participated in those evils. He states much of his work is motivated by a desire to steer the west away from repeating those same murderous mistakes which it seems determined to repeat.
A common paraphrased quote he uses (without context): "Life is defined by immeasurable and unbearable suffering"
Sorry for such a long response. I had alot more to add but it would be excessive.
The problem is the use of the word "divinity" as in "a spark of divinity". The brings to mind the notion that everyone has an element of God within them. And that is a notion the requires evidence.
And he made them in his own image.
-There's your evidence
@@ANonymous-mo6xp That is not evidence, of course.
"God" is just another way of saying Objective Moral Source. The Objective Moral Source that is an unembodied mind that sets forth the moral codes/duties/values by the nature of its existence. The evidence for this comes from three places. The Moral Argument from experiences, the Theory of Intentionality, and from the Emergent Universe.
The Moral argument is a common Modus Ponens logical argument and goes like this...
P1: If the Objective Moral Source does not exist, objective moral codes/duties/values do not exist.
P2: Objective moral codes/duties/values do exist.
C1: Therefore, the Objective Moral Source does exist.
P1 is a tautology and is always true. P2 is true because every person that has ever lived has discovered at least some Objective moral codes/duties/values. And C1 is true because it logically follows from the premises.
The Theory of Intentionality (aka the "fundamental property of consciousness") is far too complex to list here and is one of the most difficult logical concepts that mankind has ever created. Only a handful of people are able to under. stand it fuIIy. However, it can be summarized in layperson's terms by saying that a physical object in this Universe cannot be "about" somethlng else. This includes the human braln. The human braln is a physical object and due to this theory, it cannot be "about" something. This means that what is called the mind (aka our consciousness) is not the same "thlng" as our braln. Because of this, this also means that our thoughts, ideas, and morals are not products of our brains, but are products of our minds.
So this Objective Moral Source must also be an unembodied mind since it is the Objective Moral Source.
Keep in mind that if you believe in science, you also should believe that unembodied minds already exist. In the Multiverse Theorum, it is said that there could be 10^500 power Universes. The vast majority of these Universes are small (about the size of our solar system) and are occupied by one Boltzmann Braln (aka Observer).
And finally in the Emergent Universe theory, the science suggests that an "Observer" is required to coIIaps3 the wave function in order to give rise to a particle. It is also suggested that the human braln is a quantum computer. Meaning that the neurons in your braln exist in a superposition state. When your mind makes a decision (aka observation), the wave functions coIIapse and form an electron in the braln, and the necessary synapsis are flr3d and the braln reacts like a computer to the decision your mind has made. This gives rise to the theory that the mind and the braln are not the same "thlng".
As science, logic, and mathematics continue to get better and better, the more it appears this Universe was designed.
Even atheists like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, David Deutsch, Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, and many more are beginning to realize that this Universe is so unlikely to exist, that is must have been designed. It cannot exist by random chance. We are talking 1 chance out of 10^10^123 power that this Universe exists by random chance. If you know anythlng about mathematics, 10^10^123 is a number so large that you cannot even begin to imagine how big it is. It would be that you would have a better chance of randomly throwing a dart in any direction and hitting a hydrogen atom on the other side of the Universe on the first try.
Instead of accepting that there exists an unembodied mind which is the Objective Moral Source, Musk and others have invented a new explanation, that is far more absurd. Instead they believe that this Universe and everyone in it is not even real. The believe that instead we are actually a simulation that is running on a computer on some 12 year oId gIrI's desk somewhere. They have zero evidence for such a thlng to be true. They just made that up so they don't have to deal with an unembodied mind that is the Objective Moral Source.
@@jacksfavorite4808 It actually is evidence. It's just not very strong evidence, unless it can be proven that it was written/spoken by the designer of the Universe.
Also, in order to form a valid argument, you cannot simply deny somethlng. You have to provide a valid argument for why it's not true. Otherwise anyone can just deny what you say without explanation.
Without bringing God into it, you can listen to other of Dr. Peterson's videos to see what he means when he says 'divinity'.
Naturally, I think that he is literally correct, and I also believe that asking for (presumably scientific) evidence of a Being that is fully transcendental is quite silly. But even without that, the point he makes is that acting as if it was literally correct leads to better outcomes than acting as it was not literally correct. So, even without any evidence of God, his argument is a valid ethical argument from any consequentialist ethical system.
Equally miserable qualifies as equality. And misery is the inevitable outcome should equality be pursued enthusiastically.
We're conditioned to have a favorable conditioned response to words such as 'Equality' much like Pavlov's dogs when a bell rang. In order for Equality to to work as people are naturally unequal, those at the upper portion of the hierarchy need be lowered to match closer to those at the bottom. The cost of which is the relinquishment of individual incentive and purpose for those on the high end. As society is concerned, it enters into a period of social and technological stagnation as one of many consequential factors that contribute to Equality. A society that places Equality before freedom (notice TH-cam doesn't capitalize freedom but it does Equality) will have far less of both freedom and Equality.
People aren't naturally unequal, they are culturally unequal. It's an important distinction.
@@CrashSable let's take a small microcosm as an example. A single family. There is inequality among individual members of that family. Some are better at certain things than others, there are distinctions in intelligence, income, potential, etc. Even an individual is not equal to themselves one day to another.
Thanks for sharing
I also think his naivete into thinking powerful people don't necessarily enjoy inequality. The one percent don't really do much to lessen inequality. Simply raising wages would go a long way. Few do it.
It might have been Tom Holland, but I read that rich Romans used to invite the poor to their feasts to watch, while giving them rock hard bread crusts to attempt to eat.
I have found those that struggle in life almost always: Smoke, drink, use drugs, lazy. Of course this does not count those with limitations due to illness, accidents etc.
Fairness as in *Fair Play*
There are people who are well dressed who do not treat people well.
Evil is created by the failure to accept the unknowns, and instead come up with explanations that are pure imagination, ie evil.
The root of evil is greed.
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit greed is God and God is greed, the root of all evil!
In other words without God there is no greed or evil.
@@robertholland7558 Without God there is nothing! God is not greed he is love. God created free will and we can choose to be greedy but that is our choice. Not preaching btw I’m not perfect myself but you are wrong in your stance if you go by the holy bible
@@Sarcasmtomasksadness blah blah blah. There is no such thing as a God other then in the minds of the delusional who can not accept reality! You keep believing in your ridiculous fairytales, I stick with reality, the fact we simple can not understand and comprehend! There can not possibly be nothing.
Therefore religion is evil.
Reality is complex. An ideal is not necessarily good and doesn't necessarily work. What works is not necessarily good nor ideal. In a world that is both good and corrupt, only a transcendent view that takes both aspects into account is sufficient.
That's right! It's not possible to have a ',' in a question.
Q. How do I evaluate why the word 'Human' is missing the letter 'e' in the dictionary?
This is really good !
Thanks
there is a nice example from China. i don't remember the place but Mao made a speech in a town and almost the whole town was there to listen. at the end of his speech, Mao said "those of you who think there is something wrong with the plan and want to ask questions or offer suggestions stay and i will listen, the rest of you can go home now". he gave the people about 20 minutes to leave while listening to those who had some disagreement and then with a gesture he signaled the army to move in and slaughter all who stayed as dissidents. tens of thousands massacred because they simply didn't "listen and obey" but had the gall to think for themselves.
Yeah authoritarian regimes religious or non religious will and still do commit atrocities, ........ I fail to see the relevance to the discourse at hand ? 🤔
Doing some work with the homeless and working in healthcare has taught me that most homelessness in the western world is a result of mental illness, drug use, or both. But the left blames everything on structural inequality, including mental illness and drug use. Despite good programs and health care providers' best efforts, those who don't want help won't let you give it to them. They'll accept help on their terms. Then it ends up being hit and miss, inconsistent, resulting in little to no sustained improvement in their quality of life. This is a generalization. There are a great number who do receive help and live better. But it's a mistake to blame homelessness, and It's associated problems, purely on failure of the system.
There have always been bums and addicts, until recently, it was understood there was generally a mental problem with them.
@@wstavis3135 Yes. I don't think it matters how prosperous society is, how great the social safety nets are, or how much equality is achieved, there will always be those who can't or won't participate in society.
If we have freedom, some people will freely destroy themselves.
I feel as if we're going back to a nomadic state, and can't help but wonder if this has happened before. I suppose the "Golden Years" of the baby boomer generation was only a pendulum swing from the depression. I meet all kinds of people who envy the "van" life as they struggle maintaining their households. And who is to say what is right. Jesus told us to give it all up, but modern Christianity teaches us this is irresponsibility, that being Godly means improving your life materially. So.........I tend to trust the words of Jesus over man's self serving interpretations.
@@jodihouts6032 I don't know how many of the homeless are doing so to follow Jesus. But I, like you, also wonder how much of the post WWII prosperity was a one-off, a result of multiple chance factors that may not have been in anyone's direct control. It's possible that it's still too early to tell. I'm convinced that free market principles lead to greater and more sustainable prosperity than any other system attempted so far. Markets lift everyone up over time, but some sooner than others and some more so than others. It's more of a rising wave pool than a one-to- one rise on all fronts. It doesn't produce the kind of equality that the left seems to be after. I would argue that such equality isn't desirable, and thus shouldn't be our goal. But the question isn't what system gets us closest to eutopia; eutopia in a our fallen world is a farce. The question is which system is better than the alternatives.
Wouldn't that truth be relative to the presupposition that people ought to get along with each other? My hang up with relativism is that I don't see how any proposed objectivity deals with the is/ought dilemma. From what I understand there has to be a bridge and I have yet to find one that isn't reducible to conscious presuppositions.
Romans 13:8-10 Love is the fulfillment of the law
how about a combination of absolutes and relatives ? this is the reality. absolutes were used in the past , since those are easy for people to understand. it remains to be seen if modern people have the capacity to derive for themselves accurate moral conclusions in various complicated scenarios. at the moment , many seem to have trouble even with simple classical situations.
He's using the word equality instead of equity. "Equity is the foe of justice." -Arthur Schopenhauer.
Relative/subjective morality unfortunately just means self-serving and self-convenient 'make it up as you go' morality......often to help tell and sell the more easily led something pretty while manipulating them into dehumanised nastiness.
Tell me dear can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "absolute objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 I'm clearly not your dear when your knickers are so easily (and passive-regressively) challenge-knotted while strangely distracting and diverting yourself away from the original point being made.
An agreed upon (and humanity based) morality really shouldn't be that hard to understand and isn't just a concept tied to one (or many) religions but one simply tied to humanity, the usefulness of civilisation (which made us and allowed us to reach this point) and basic common sense.... eg not stealing from your neighbour (unless also OK for your neighbour to steal from you). I'm not even remotely religious myself (where many would happily just group me into an unnecessary atheism 'grouping' of their own self-convenient and self-serving nature).
Conveniently selective/subjective (and 'make it up as you go' self-serving) morality (or even unquestioned morality) has sadly been an old tool of manipulation (for the more easily-led) by most of the creepy (and ideological based) authoritarian's from our past (and sometimes even the religious ones!) like the self-serving Inquisition era, the Nazi's (and nihilism) or the Soviet era and current Chinese CPC one where supposed morality was/is determined by the nasty (and negating all else) dehumanised state while umm supposedly pragmatic (but in a strangely self-serving and self-justifying manner).
The current (and ironically named) post-humanist hoped-for (or manipulated-into) 'reality' is one unfortunately now dominated by narcissism and the lazy/apathetic 'tell yourself something pretty' (and less-thinking) instead method rather than using the more-considered (and more work-based) critical-thinking method from our past (which once at least helped us to aspire to be better)
.....where all the current (and nihilistic-based) apathy sadly and ultimately just helps the more easily-led (and over-encouraged/manipulated) amongst us to justify (and overcompensate for) all the other nasty dehumanisation, which just becomes a big black and dehumanised/nihilistic hole with no moral basis .....as the manipulators intended while now unfortunately (and umm 'pragmatically') 'FOR the planet' apparently.
@TheEarthStoodStill Lets assume that a neighbour is someone you live next to where you both have umtual respect for one another (which is the key). It's really not that hard, you just have to have an agreed upon set of standards.
@TheEarthStoodStill You could pose a more reasoned argument.....Are you 12?
@TheEarthStoodStill Nice bad try, I haven't deleted any comment.
We all have ‘a spark of divinity” within us. Prove it Mr. Peterson.
He's speaking in terms of personal divinity not spiritual divinity.
@@shaundevlin3905 Shaun-Peterson is speaking in terms of Christian spiritual divinity. Look up his other videos on the subject. This man professes Christian biblical beliefs. He wishes to impose this view.
@@jerryodonovan8624 He states that acting as though each person has a spark of divinity seems to be the most effective way of operating successfully in the world. It's the idea that, as he puts it, "everyone matters". It's also the idea that was the moral underpinning for the abolition of slavery. Not sure why you're so against the proposition of everyone's life having equal intrinsic value. It's immature and petty to argue against something plainly positive just because you have a problem with the person saying it or the religion that propagated the idea.
@@lucyhardman2267 because he blindly hates Dr Peterson instead of actually listening.
It's not factual statement about reality that can be proven or disproven. It's a scrap of poetry, intended to arouse emotion.
If you ask what it _means,_ you get onto a long, tedious road that leads nowhere.
Emotional intelligence is the ability to consciously translate emotions into cause and effect.
As a boy Jordan learned to conflate his emotional interpretations with his father's unconscious likes vs dislikes.
Hence Jordan's mind severely split into an identity and shadow.
Jordan's identity misperceives emotional intelligence as agreeing with his father.
I've never heard anybody advocate for Moral Relativity. The exact opposite is Absolutism. Absolutism is very appealing as it helps make sense of the world, but leads to the error of oversimplification.
Disagree. We can argue about whether moral absolutes exist, whether they can be known, without asserting that we do know them perfectly and exhaustively.
@@davidhawley1132 How can you disagree? Absolutism is one end of a classical debate. you're telling me there's no such thing as a "Yin"
@@davidhawley1132 the fact that we need to argue about moral absolutes means that there are no moral absolutes...
8:10 arguing for equality tends to severely erode freedom.
Do I want the pretence of equality or do I want actual freedom?
Freedom. With freedom I can work for equality in places it does not exist. Equity will never exist whether I choose freedom or equality.
Great content, however the title is misleading. JP doesn't really talk in depth about relative morality from a philosophical standpoint.
No he doesn't does he? What I found to be odd about this interaction was his definition of Truth towards the beginning where he described a process of "looking at society" and seeing "morals working" in a positive way, and that being the evidence of their Truth. This is a very Pragmatic approach to Truth and one I don't think that Jordan really intended to take. It doesn't help his case for Objective Morality. Perhaps it was just a misstep. It's very easy to do, especially since I haven't come across a better theory of Truth myself outside of the likes of James and Dewey.
If we define moral nihilism and moral absolutism as follows, where would moral relativism fall?
Moral Absolutism = at least one moral principle cannot be destroyed by man.
Moral Nihilism = every moral principle can be destroyed by man.
That mechanism that allows us to know the best for our selves, and aim towards that is the same one that gets hijacked and distorted by ideologies, and makes people believe that bad things will be good for them.
I think that mechanism is referred to in religion as "faith" belief that there is a greater good other than your own motives and that you can aim towards them.
Religion also talks about devil's and possession, what ideology is doing to people's faith sounds a lot like a possession of the devilish kind... People need to take this stuff more seriously, you don't though because you just read three paragraphs in a TH-cam comment section. You're probably good
I highly recommend to read Harry V Jaffa to understand equality - this discussion is high off the mark of understanding that principle in the Declaration of Independence
The ideal of equality becomes murderous on the stage of reality, because *the ideal - meritorious or not - is a source of conflict (**5:05**).* The reality is that there is inequality - that's a fact. Equality, on the other hand, is not reality - it's an ideal. In other words, inequality exists, equality does not exist. *By introducing the concept of equality, friction and confusion is created between idea and reality.* It is this friction that we have been trying to smooth down for ages without any success. *So, what's the solution for the conflict we created?* The solution lies in facing reality and non-reality without prejudice. When opposing parts are faced at the same time, division between them ends and conflict or violence becomes manageable.
Ok I need to see this more because as a biologist I have always seen the animal organizations as hierarchical yes, but inequality? Maybe. But never competitive like in our capitalism. But they actually work because of collaboration! Even if that collaboration brings some inequality. Well…I hope my English is clear enough to get what I mean…
6:32 No one is for poverty but many people are for greed - the cause of said poverty. Remember nowhere in the bible does it say that poverty is a sin, but it says very clearly that greed is a deadly sin.
Totalitarian egalitarian ideologies give people license to bring out the worst in themselves since the end goal - the utopia - seems so worthwhile.
And people are always jockeying for a higher place in the status hierarchy, in a capitalist market-based society this can be used to create new companies, innovations and investments that create real value. In the totalitarian society people gain power and status by trying to move higher up in the one party system or in the security apparatus, it doesn’t create anything of value, only misery.
I say this with sadness, I wish it wasn’t so.
Rage is the sin that addles thinking from an erroneous premise. Think about this very carefully before you fly into a rage..
The Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, one of many in the Australian government that tempers individual liberty while espousing divinity and condemning tyranny..........
You can be against slavery and not be specifically Christian. Feeling comes from within us all. It doesn't matter which church you go or don't go to. It doesn't speak to a specific religious organization.
I would like to hear Peterson speak to native tribes in Canada to talk philosophy.
They are not prepared to listen. They are not prepared to surrender their victimhood which is demonstrably their meal ticket. There is no rational or reasonable argument that will sway them.
@@briggsquantum I mean, find me an ethnic minority that was subjected to attempted genocide in their own living memory who *are* willing to listen to an out-of-touch old white pseudo-intellectual tell them that it's their own fault it happened.
But the idea of "judaeo-christian values" were created as a response to the rise of antisemitism in the 1930s, as a set of values to find common ground and avoid the same movement in the US. Claiming that because you believe in the societal values prevalent in the developed world today makes you a judaeo-christian to the core is dishonest because these values have nothing to do with religious belief in the first place. Being an atheist (or agnostic, for that matter) doesn't mean one wants to remove these societal values that hold our society together, it simply means that one doesn't believe in a divine being that ultimately dictates everything, and don't want to live one's life according to a book based on stories from a tribal society several thousand years ago (which most people living in the modern world already don't do).
as Peterson says often...
''well...good luck on convincing someone to change his personal views and morality....because...''
Ethos (morality) is a set of rules we respect in our lives. Is subjective and relative because we are not living in a hive mind social structure
Morality is social. If we are going to talk Judaeo-Christian, the first tablet of the 10 Commandments is about morality wrt God, and the second is about morality towards other humans.
There's a basis of an objective morality now.
"Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" by Mitchell Silver
I don't report to him though and he can't enforce it perfectly after death
@@yidiandianpang would you like to elaborate?
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit if morality comes from God there is good reason to follow it. If it comes from some human, why should I follow it?
@@yidiandianpang Morality doesn't come from god.
There is no absolute morality.
Just ask every other religion that believes that their teaching is the "right one".
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit I'm supposed to take your word that morality doesn't come from God? Not happening.
Clausewitz app 1830 ; "He who doesn't know his history , is bound to repeat it "
An incredible conversation between two learned men.
In my opinion the answer you are looking for is Jesus. I know it sounds simplistic or eye-roll inducing but do your research and be honest with yourself!
Self-deception (whether you are aware of it or not) is the enemy and a component of evil. And yes, I'm aware of the irony that you could suggest I'm deceiving myself.
For me morality is provided by God which explains why it is external.
Why don't you try applying that to social scientific theory. You might just find the answers you are looking for.
2nd. Commandment, Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.” Old Testament punishment- Deuteronomy 27: 1 5 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.” That’s right kids don’t EVER draw, sculpt or paint or else god will curse you. Wanna be an artist, a photographer, take a picture of yourself or family? TOO BAD, God says no! You better drop out of art class before he smites you with boils.
3rd. Commandment, Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death”, New Testament punishment - Matthew 12:32 “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come”. Mark 3:29 - “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgivness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”.
this is moral? total obedience, no thinking by yourself?
My friend, the second commandment is about not making an image of a false god and worshipping it in place of Biblical God. Yes you can still go to art class - just don't start worshipping the stuff you make.
The third commandment is don't blaspheme, which is essentially to use the name of God as a swear / cuss word. I'm sure you wouldn't be too pleased if people did that to you?
God gave us free will thankfully, and has been honest and upfront with you. You cannot plead ignorance on the day of judgement.
@@fender97 you clearly didn't think this through before responding. 🤦🏽♂️
John 3:16
I think Mr. Peterson forgets that charity and compassion for inequity if genuine, begins with a Christian faith and private acts and is not easily fooled by or manipulated by the appeasement of statists
are you saying that compassion and caring, only exist in christians? And never existed before christianity? And does not exist among non christians, even today?
The only, well more then one but the most irritating thing, I dislike about Jordan is that he trully believes he has mankind figured out, the way he labels Sam Harris is a perfect example, you don't, just don't.
It speaks of a hatred of accountability. We want to be our OWN Gods & if you can accumulate enough power, you get to be THE God & dictate to everyone else.
Tell me dear can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 Who said anything about a specific god, 'Dear'? Is it not objectively true that if you drink Motor Oil like Milk, you're likely to die? That if you drive your car into into a lake, it's going to sink?
Let's do one even better though- At the end of the slaughter of the American Indians, they performed a ritual called, 'The Ghost Dance', where they asked the spirits of their ancestors to make their wooden armor impervious to the white man's bullets.
These people believed in the power of their ancestors in a way that is almost impossible for secular western culture to understand. It did not help them.
Personal feelings do not truth make. Believe what you want, but the consequences will be yours and yours alone. 'Dear.'
Perhaps we all suffer from a big time OCD, lol
Please let him answer your question
I'm not sure Peterson understands the concept of moral relativism. He seems to think it's "everyone has and acts on a different code and that's ok" when in actuality it's more along the lines of "cultures and peoples develop differing codes of ethics, there is no universal morality".
Pluralism brings it down to the individual level. It is when enough of your neighbors have different values that you begin to doubt your own, and then values become choices.
someone going around killing random people... Tell me if you know ANY society where that is seen as ok?
same goes for someone going around , breaking in and stealing stuff... someone randomly beating up strangers....
We do have some basics in common.
Religion has been used to make excuses for types of killing and types of abuse, but random people doing it to random strangers..is still a universal wrong.
@@Goldenhawk583 according to what? It may be universally accepted as wrong but there is a massive difference between universally wrong and universally accepted as wrong. Also you're making a massive assumption that anything is universally accepted
America and capitalist countries are killing ppl as moral. Invading countries and leaving the homeless to die. So moral relativity is real.
Cultures and their respective values are not equal. For example, it was god's will to sacrifice humans in Inca societies. In the Spanish societies of the same time it was not. The Spanish were better.
Just because all values happen, it doesn't mean that all values are equally viable.
The moral relativists leave out the 2nd part.
Peterson argues there is an absolute value, that of our divine spark. And that value is much better because of its viability. It is what the Western cultures are built on: human rights, women's rights, even animal rights.
The relativistic idea that there is no absolute truth, is a logical fallacy. If there is no absolute truth, you cannot make any statement, including "there is no truth." That would be circular reasoning.
And this fallacy creates misery on an unimaginable scale.
Humanity is a transcendence seeking animal,.. but does transcendence require supernaturalism to be fully grounded? How does science account for Consciousness? Without Consciousness, how does perception happen? Pain for just one example?
Such an odd jump from saying there's a spark of divinity in everyone, to saying atheists like Sam Harris are Judaeo-Christian to the core. Peterson seems to be falling into the trap that you can't be good without god. So much of what Peterson says would make so much more sense if he framed it from an atheistic, evolutionary framework.
Re - The Great Leveler; other instincts that find expression in social justice movements are also rooted in instincts that all biological life shares. These are first discrimination of differences and the national defensiveness when they are recognized. This is why societies have to train or socialize children as they grow. This is also the source of abuse because social equality "requires" color blindness, which is unnatural. It is bound to create chaos, which si why history reads as it does. Every empire that ever existed collapsed internally because they become too diversified.
Having what could be called "Judeo-Christian values" doesn't make you not an atheist, because those values don't "belong" to religion. Religion is just a nice wrapper we put on those ideas to make them easy to digest. If you're capable at arriving at those values yourself, from first principles, rather than because someone told you that's what you should believe, I think you have a *greater* claim to those ideas than a theist, not a lesser one.
Peterson is sneaking this idea that religion has a monopoly on moral thought into his speech more and more. It's pretty frustrating.
Yeah it's just about what lens you view it through. I'm an atheist and I've listened to JP long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt - whenever he says stuff like "You're judeo-christian to the core" I just take it as him using the religion he's familiar with to efficiently express a specific system of moral beliefs rather than the more face-value meaning of "if you have these values you aren't an atheist"
the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak...we need to make this statement as many times as we can and mean it...but we are also weak and sinful by nature trying to remain loyal and holy is a daily challenge and the reason that we need a savior at all....or in the first place....fighting evil and the evil within our own selves is a second by second battle...even when you believe...the key is to keep trying and to keep seeking to become holy and hopefully with Jesus love and forgiveness he will give you the grace you require to become a more holy person in this lifetime and through you belief in him as the son of God you will be given everlasting life as his gift to you for your faith in him and his mission of paying for your sins on the cross ...so you wouldnt have too...Jesus the logos knows that only his sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the eternal sins of our innate beings....he knew from the moment of the creation that he would be coming into his creation in order to redeem it back to himself in all of its holiness....why...because by creating free willed creatures..both the angels and humans...and by producing the creation ...both would be good and perfect to start with but both would be open to the possibility of inequity since the creation by definition is less than God...and open to the possibility of inequity especially in an environment where free will existed....and so ...from the moment of the creation....both in heaven and in our universe....the Word knew that he would be entering into his creation at some moment in time...in order to redeem it back to himself....Jesus did this for us...and for the entire cosmos....out of his eternal and enormous love for us all....it is an act of love ...to create free willed entities and to save them from inequity and sin and redeem them back to a state of hoiliness by his actions alone.....we remain free willed and unique as do the angels who chose to remain with him and we get to experience eternity with him because of his selfless act to forgive us for our sins....(which he knew we would commit....he made us free...this is the universe we live in...the one he chose out of an infinite level of possibilities.....this is it....and he came into it to redeem us...and keep us free....and true...why...cause thats what he willed...thats how he wanted us to be.......)
More brilliance from JP.
No one on earth lives up to their potential they only live up to their internal emotional narrative or tribal ideologue. Its all a ruse in relationship to values ie money arrogance aristocracy maintenance of self esteem as success over everything else. Humanity requires that we look after everyone get over it.
Peterson says we act as we do because our nervous systems have reacted to millions of years of behavioral development and then he says we act as we do because of Judeo-Christian values. He makes so much sense until his Christian indoctrination clouds his sensibility.
@@cullenkehoe5184 you apparently read the Bible through a extremely filtered lens. Everything you just brought up is advocated by the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible
@@cullenkehoe5184 You should read Liviticus again. Apparently you've forgotten that little book and what it reveals about your silly faith.
This is too vague to mean anything.
"if acting like everyone matters leads to a functional society, maybe that's evidence that that proposition is true."
This is like saying "if you treat books as if they belong on a bookshelf, you get a functional library; so maybe that's evidence that books belong on a bookshelf." It's not necessary to put books on a bookshelf. There's nothing wrong with stacking them whatever way you like or strewing them around the floor. It's only if we're pursuing the goal of having a functional library that we can get the "should" from this. Therefore, putting books on a bookshelf is good relative to the goal of creating a functional library, just as treating everyone like they matter is good relative to the goal of creating a functional society. This isn't a matter of truth, it's a matter of what functions and what doesn't function in the pursuit of a goal.
1:35-~1:46 - "spark of divinity"
Wait, what is this now? A spark of divinity? What does that even mean? Why can't humans be inherently valuable without being divine too? I understand that you're trying to establish a sacrosanct value here - which is itself not necessary - but you don't need to do that in order to make it sacrosanct. All you have to do is make it an axiom of your ethics that humans are to be treated as if they're fundamentally sacred -not that they are fundamentally sacred and that implies divinity. So many extra layers that are not needed! So much more to justify, define, and defend - and all without any definition! Stop it immediately.
"There isn't a more true way of saying that" - yes there is, and you already said it. "Acting like everyone matters leads to a functional society." We want a functional society. Therefore, we should act like everyone matters. The end!
And what is with Peterson only ever calling out one side. No one with true wisdom ever only sees one side as all right or all wrong.
This conversation is 100% nonesense 😆
Thank you!
On a basic species level, morality is relative. It’s not even an argument.
Any good anthropologist can drive this point home convincingly. What is not relative is our programmed need to be social animals. We are very well equipped to work in cooperative groups for common goals and needs. That has made us wildly successful as a species. People generally are at their happiest when they find common and shared purpose in their relationships.
We are not so well equipped to be isolated individual consumers in direct competition with each other, and have wildly uneven distribution of wealth and resources. That is a corrosive and even toxic force. It’s an instructive quirk of our current dysfunctional economic system that it’s the sociopaths who seem to have an adaptive advantage in today’s world.
Little wonder we have so much anxiety, and depression in our most modern societies. On a societal level, we are basically schizophrenic. It’s not enough to have access to leisure, or basic comforts taken care of.
JP is quite right about the benefits of valuing yourself and others, but he insists on making it a specifically moral choice ( divine spark). This dynamic has played out throughout human history and across some quite varied moral codes and traditions, and the common link has been the community / tribal identity.
Jeebus Cristo there is so much wrong with the gobbleygook spewed in this conversation...
Kinda not true . I personally agree with that but I don’t think that it is a requirement for a happy or successful life .
Everything, literally everything, we think, feel and express is subjective.
Even our understanding of objectivity is influenced by our subjective understanding of the world around us.
Relativism perfectly describes the evolution of morality. And nothing better demonstrates this than cries of 'I know better'.
And child predators, serial rapists, and psychopathic murderers? All beings come from God and, thus, have divinity within. But how can one argue that *these* demonic monsters have any good in them, that they don’t deserve the harshest penalties and condemnation?
oh it's easy to reply to your question: child predators, serial rapists, and psychopathic murderers are categories invented 100 years ago. They are social constructions.
Relative morality is not a lie. It's true. The fact of the matter is morality is subjective. Most people are prosocial (at least in social situations) so it works out, but many people are not. There is no way to establish they are in some way logically wrong about their positions. It is subjective.
Future is skewy
Equality is a Christian concept to its core .
Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.
John 13:16 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Galatians 3:26-29 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (Read More...)
Mark 12:31 - And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Colossians 1:16-17 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Read More...)
Leviticus 19:33-34 - And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. (Read More...)
When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??