However; it is very unlikely that you believe yourself to have no worth, intrinsic or otherwise, in other words; you value yourself, and *the key lies in convincing others,* who value themselves just as you value yourself, to recognize your value, and if they do not, to recognize a very real danger in denying your value, this is the basis of what is called The Social Contract, and even in very hierarchical social groups, such as Chimpanzees, the top males recognize the value of having as many allies as possible and having as fewer enemies as possible, they too have a Social Contract Now, take a very primitive social group (with a social contract) and add the ever complexity that comes with evolution, and you will eventually get a society with a very complex set of morals, there you have morality achieved without a god.
@@claudiusatlas8083but it has to be rooted in something. I can very well cultivate an intrinsic worth of a unicorn, but it’s clearly not rooted in anything concrete, so it’s meaningless.
Treat others the way you would like to be treated. Society prospers most when everyone adheres to this concept. It’s in our best interest to treat others well. That’s the simple truth.
Yeah but how you can say this is our best interest? Like maybe if we follow the word of god that will be in our best interest because we will go to heaven, and think about maybe some people wanna be treated in the way the divine legislation mentioned
We can argue here which word of God is genuine or none at all (after exhausting all claim of word of God), but we must agree on what basis to evaluate it objectively first
Hmm I do not think religion is founded on empathy or morality. Religion was founded as a tool to control the masses. But on a tribal scale. It was useful for making unwilling people work or fight or die for the so called leaders or chiefs or "wise" men. Religions often claimed they were the only conduits to morality or empathy. These are sales and marketing tricks used to cajole people into joining. Morality existed before religion though. Albeit in a much simpler and minimalistic form than we see today. Because morality has nothing to do with Gods or Creators or dogma. Morality has its roots in tribalism and social groupings. Before humans started to form medium size groups it was pretty much every one for themselves. But people found if they worked together they could be more successful and dominate less organised humans so tended to have better lives. If you then add empathy on top of this tribalism it is a straight forward step to creating a system where not doing things that harm others is a good idea. So morality was born.
You don't need God to punish you if you don't behave well. Misbehaving often has consequences. People trust you less, don't want anything to do with you or punish you. If you are friendly to other people you have a greater chance that people will be friendly in return and accept you. In general, treating someone the way you want to be treated is useful for yourself and others. Some people have less respect for animals because they cannot have a social contract with them. Because they would not be intelligent enough to understand the social contract. But what if someone gets sick or has an accident that results in brain damage? Do you no longer have to treat such a person with respect? The answer to that is quite simple. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Because if you suffer brain damage, you also hope that people will still treat you with respect. Even if you don't feel empathy for animals, it is still useful to treat animals with respect. Because it is often a signal that a person who treats animals poorly has serious psychological problems. And that person may be unreliable or dangerous. And that is not to anyone's advantage. This alone proves that sane people do not need a god for their morality. Because they understand the consequences of their actions. The idea of a god has so many things that defy logic. The problem of the omnipotent omniscient God. Who creates imperfect people and then punishes them for their imperfection. While he is omniscient, and therefore knew exactly what they would do. A god who willingly allows terrible things to happen is not a loving God. A God who cannot prevent evil from existing is not an omnipotent God. If he does it to test people, he is not an omniscient God. Because you don't have to test anything if you are omniscient. Another problem that religion has is that they believe in one creator. Because according to them there has to be a beginning somewhere. Because according to them, something cannot just come from nothing. The big problem then is, how could a God arise from nothing? And why does that perfect god create all kinds of imperfect things? Nothing can come from perfect nothing. So wouldn't that God automatically be imperfect, if he arose from imperfection? Doesn't it make more sense that perfect nothing never existed? So that perfection can never exist. In such a reality you don't need a real beginning or end. Because nothing is perfect and therefore not permanent. This is how things arise from themselves.
Very eloquently stated. It is a shame that so many people do not seem to understand the points you are making and let themselves be deluded by religious scammers. So much pain and suffering has been caused by those who seek to enslave others within their cults. Israel right now is a perfect example of two groups of dogmatic extremist religions at each others throats all because of idiotic fantasies about how they want the universe to be.
Man has appointed mortal sorrow but the Blessed God shall come down teaching that his death shall bring the despairing rest. Christ was punished on the cross so that we might be pardoned
@@JesusIsMyRock.RedeemerAide You write that as if we know it will happen. We do not even have a tiny scrap of evidence any God exists. Let alone the God of the Bible. So all you can say is the Bible says this or says that. Do not act as if it is a likely thing.
These people who think if you didn’t read your morality in in the Bible or learn it from you parents, you must not have one…It i it’s not as if anyone knows what the objective is or if there is one or not. You have to either posit an external moral. authority based on no reliable evidence (i even if we assume a creator, how can we really know what if anything it expects us to do), you borrow someone else’s, you go without (if that is even really possible given our socialization and need for one, or you decide for yourself what moral code gives you a sense of integrity and fits the general morality you would like there to be, based on yes a consideration of consequences consistency and a sort of aesthetic sensibility. So those people are choosing a pre-packaged morality from Ming many possible ore-packaged ones, often the one that their family or the majority in society uses, rather that designing one themselves, and that is the only difference.
If you build your own morality system you may give your last words on how nothing matters so you killed 30 people for the fun of it. This is why we want well founded morality.
@A2 First you would have to prove god exists. Morality comes from humans. You don't need a god to know throwing a child from a cliff is bad. Unless it is to sacrifice it to some god of course. Or if they are the children of your enemy
So if we all agree as society that eating babies is good, then eating babies is good. Please defend yourself. Don't cop out like he other guy here who "doesn't need someone to explain" or more often i hear "a book to explain" I quite agree and that actually makes our point, that morals are given to you intrinsically by God. You're argument is that you can somehow know what is "good" or "bad" by using electrical signals in three pounds of evolved matter between your ears, and your observations using your senses. Please explain that because if you are consistent with your logic there can be no absolute truth. Is that what you believe?
@@lalonguecarabine4952 No, eating babies will never be good. That understanding is what we develloped over hundreds of thousands of years. People used to sacrifice children to their 'gods' but we learned that doesn't benefit the survival of the group. We don't 'just know'. We learned and evolved. You think morality comes from something you can't prove exists? That seems more farfetched than morality coming from learning and experience
@@troygrindley3793 They were not “moral”, which is a word that means nothing if not “in line with Christ’s ethics”. Since the very beginning, the catholic Church has been teaching how to read the Bible, but for some reason, today people have completely forgotten, or they think they know better.
@@tomlabooks3263 they were moral because God commanded them to do it. He even punished King Saul for not killing the sheep and cattle (even though he killed every man woman and child). All you have are so called moral outlooks that are not different than what Socrates, Confucius and Tao said. Not saying Christ doesn’t say good things, but he’s not the only one.
You can thank Oprah Winfrey for popularizing the idea that truth is relative, and must be defined by each individual for himself. She even had a phrase for this nonsense: "Your truth for you."
Yes, Oprah is right. There is no such thing as one size fits all. We each have unique experiences that shape us and influence how we see the world. To expect everyone to be the same, think the same and do the same, is the height of idiocy.
@@the8thchurch461 lol did you miss his point or are you avoiding it on purpose. You know you and she are arguing that there is no such thing as right and wrong objectively.
@@stevepest4143 Who said there is no such thing as right or wrong? There is still the thing called GREY area. Even law makers know that. That is why there is such a thing as MITIGATING circumstance. Most people complain about "lenient" sentences being passed in law courts. It's not because judges are morally bankrupt when they pass sentences not popular with the public at large. We live in a broken world that always leaves people dysfunctional. This is why working with just black and white, defining things as right and wrong, is not practical or e Even you should know. I bet you do not apply those brutal rules within your family when dealing with the ones you love.
@@the8thchurch461 lol that's not right and wrong, that's law.. And I didn't say there's no such thing as right and wrong, I said that was his position based on his ideology or world view.
How about the part where "you might rebel" being an important reason not to abuse others. If I have power and I use that power to effect the best outcome for everyone, who would rebel..? If I have power and all I do is take from others and suppress their innate rights of selfhood- Who won't rebel? Maybe that's just ethics...
Frankly if you are a benevolent monarch then nobody would rebel, but if you aren't someone is going to want you gone, if that someone finds enough like minded people you'll lose your head.
I think you are missing the moral and ethical point. If I have the power to enslave you it's only wrong if you have no intrinsic worth. You might rebel or might not, but either way you have no intrinsic worth in this world view.
The concept of good and bad is relative and can only be understood in comparison to one another. Therefore, there couldn't have been a notion of something being bad until there was a standard of good to compare it to. Before this standard, everything was simply a part of life, neither good nor bad. It was only after humans started to create and recognize what was good that things began to be judged as bad in comparison. Thus, it can be argued that bad didn't exist until the standard of good was created.
There is no foundation for morality without God . Empirically you cannot observe morality or immorality. You only have your feeling's that the stimuli evokes and that can vary from person to person. You can only describe actions happening in it.
My problem with this argument is that you can't prove god exists at all so how can this bring any morality. I find it much more convincing that as people evolved and societies rose rules were created to keep order and most of them seem to be formed around the don't treat others how you would not want to be treated. I also find it hard to believe that people before the bible couldn't be moral to eachother as it seems unlikely humanity would survive long. Nobody seems to have an actual answer it's just unimportant why we have mortality but more important it's used properly
@@gaminginhdmax3854 I actually agree with everything you said here. I'm just pointing out that the new atheists pick and choose where they apply the empirical data and they are still Christian in their behavior. They are inconsistent. What we consider moral cannot be detached from historical developments on the rails of religious convictions. Our belief in universal rights and our strong aversion to suffering was not shared with those that lived in the Roman empire. They disbelieve in God but still believe in Man, another platonic ideal of sorts.
@@jeremytine it makes me feel better to discover there are people as intelligent as you in the world. no one responded to you because your comment was over their heads.
Nothing has intrinsic worth. All value is subjective. If you don't matter to anyone (including yourself), you don't matter. Period. That's reality. Humans create value and meaning and apply it to themselves. If you claim that's invalid as a foundation, I can say the same about your hypothesis. What non-circular reason do you have to value the image of a deity, such that harming something in it's likeness would be "wrong?" Eventually you have to end in a brute fact. My brute fact doesn't require me to come up with excuses for slavery, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, and all the other atrocities committed, commanded, and condoned by God in the Bible.
Well it's not subjective, there just is no value, then humans can feel about some things a certain way, largely due to our evolution and genetic makeup. Moral thinking has literally been bred into us but logically it doesn't really matter and killing babies is just what it is, killing babies, it's not good or wrong, it just is.
You understand that your idea of morality is circular as well right? You create your own morality, but someone else can also and they dont have to add up. So in that sense morality is relative therefore chaotic with no foundation.
@@dartskihutch4033 Correct. Every person decides for themselves what is and isn't moral, based on their goals and inclinations driven by genetics and cultural norms. If two people disagree, one must convince the other to conform to their standard, or else conflict is inevitable. What about the entire history of mankind makes you think this isn't how morality works? The "foundation" of morality is utility. Some moral positions are more useful than others. If a moral position results in its adherents dying, then that position fails, and is replaced by a superior one. This is why moral values shift over time as the environment and cultural landscape change. Behaviors that were once necessary for survival become maladaptive, as their costs no longer outweigh their risks.
@@chameleonx9253 desire does not equate to morals. You can desire power and money yet know certain avenues to attain it is immoral. Stealing someone money to become rich is moral then if you deem it so correct? To donate money to a random struggling family does not benefit you or further a career or put you ahead yet people do it, and it's moral. Objectively, would you agree that is an act of kindness or good? How can anything be true if you're the only one to deem it so? There is good/evil, true/false. So how can anything be true if you're the only one who can say so subjectively? How can anything be evil if you're the only one who can say so subjectively?
@@dartskihutch4033that's honestly the problem of chameleon's argument. Is morality supposed to apply to each individual's advantage in society or society to survive even if it means doing something that isn't advantageous for an individual's survival (or opinion of it)?
One of the reasons people have intrisic value is because if you have a problem you are going to seek help from humans and not from animals or plants. But i believe overcrowding people together and people not behaving politely and respectfully towards each other might cause trouble.
It is still wrong even without the existence of God, because the victimizer knows full well he wouldnt want to be done to himself that which he did to the victimized. The victimizer knows it is wrong because he wouldn't want it done to him. Now whether he cares about it when he is not the one being victimized and it is someone else who is being victimized, is a different topic... But to say it is not wrong is preposterous because every sentient, conscious, mortal and vulnerable being in existence thinks and behaves the exact same way when being victimized, whatever form of victimization that maybe, doesnt matter whether you are talking about a lion, or a gorilla or a sheep or a human being. If every sentient being, capable of self preservation to any degree, thinks that way, then it is not a subjective preference, it is an objective preference, because this is a preference common to all sentient being. That is what makes it objective, that is what makes morality... Always objective. The only person to possess subjective morality would be God. Because he is unlike his creation. I am not an atheist, I am a theist.
In a scenario where an individual lacks belief in the existence of a divine entity to whom they are morally answerable, consequently eliminating the prospect of an afterlife, and when one contemplates the inexorable destiny of eternal oblivion as humanity's ultimate culmination, the query arises as to the purpose of endeavoring to regulate one's conduct within the confines of socially acceptable norms. What significance can morality possibly hold if the ultimate destiny of all entities, encompassing time, space, and matter, culminates in an abyss of perpetual nothingness, obliterating any semblance of meaning? In such a godless cosmos bereft of a divine presence or an afterlife, the very notion of morality and meaning dissipates into a mirage. Subjective morality, a mere illusion, emerges as a construct born from the emotional inclinations inherent to humanity, fostering the development of secular principles under the banner of humanism. Thus, the constructs of human values and societal norms appear devoid of purpose and devoid of meaning. The pursuit of moral conduct aimed at the welfare and cohesion of society appears futile in the absence of divine judgment, especially when considering the ultimate annihilation of said society in the distant future. Secular ethical frameworks, exemplified by utilitarianism and deontology, mirror the assertion made by atheists regarding the man-made nature of religious dogmas. People may espouse the belief that life and consciousness inherently possess value, thereby imbuing significance into the endeavor to enhance well-being while mitigating suffering. Yet, one may ponder the rationale behind such pursuits when suffering remains an inherent, inescapable facet of existence. Many individuals derive purpose from their existence by striving to forge a positive impact upon the world; however, the query lingers - why engage in such endeavors if the cataclysmic eventuality of an asteroid, capable of irrevocably extinguishing the human race, threatens to render one's selfless acts and altruistic deeds utterly devoid of meaning? Ultimately, the enigma of why anything bears significance within a godless universe remains persistently unanswered.
Empathy is like an emotion, and emotions aren't always beneficial to individuals or groups. All our emotions are biological.. If morality isn't objective like it would be with god, then it isn't something you need to follow.
The problem with this analysis is that it is the religious zealots who commit atrocities specifically because they have the power to do so, believing God is on their side. If belief in God is a requirement to live a moral life, why are so many atrocities committed by the religious?
Guessing youve never grown a garden or farmed crops. Theres weeds that you need to pluck to keep the order. Taking a bugs life can be considered an atrocity to bugs, but ppl need to do that to feel secure, and not be compromised when vulnerable like say, when theyre asleep. You cant always be vigilant so you need to keep it clean. Unless you want to co-exist with parasites, that's not a decision you should force onto others. Unless u want to be against free will ofcourse.
Simple answer everyone is a hypocrite You said that religious people commit more atrocity is the same with scientist saying "god doesn't exist" while naming planets and stuff after the names god's in roman-greek. mythology.
@@nototoxicpeople2218 Firstly, I didn’t say that. And secondly, what has naming planets after gods have to do with actually believing whether those gods exist or not?
Religion has not made a net positive difference in human interaction. It has been mostly an unnecessary source of division. If we decide to live in human societies and groups, we enter a contract with each other about what is expected of each person as they interact with each other. We create rewards and punishments for each of those interactions. Morality is based of what we expect out of those interactions and it is constantly evolving. The covenant we make is not with the supernatural but rather with nature and each other.
JP, how do you explain the morality of Buddhists and Jains for example ? Neither of which believe in a god yet they are amongst the most loving compassionate kind and virtuous people on the planet. Where do they get their morals from ? At the root of morality lies the notion of well-being and the mutual understanding of pain and suffering. All living creatures strive to thrive and recoil from pain
it's not hard to know but very hard to admit if you are immoral:) Immoral will always try to justify their wrong doings in some way to make it either seems moral or at least not that bad
Only religious people can be se inhumane to not see that other humans have intrinsic value without a dictatorial sky guy to punish them, if they mistread them
@@CrystalMannequins Imagine that in the 40s and 50s, the whole world had become Nazi. Genocide against the Jews continues, but the whole world thinks what they're doing is right. Is what they're doing right or wrong? Are you going to say that what the Nazis did wasn't bad, because they agreed that it wasn't bad? Or is there a higher morality than the agreement of morality between humans?
you can think what you like but it is certainly not moral to shove your beliefs down any child's throat. A belief is nothing it's just a person's dream. it's nothing.
Explain why it isn't moral? How do you decide what is moral? Everyone is going to raise their children based on what they believe is best. Other people would say it isn't moral to not teach your children what you believe is true and beneficial.
@zinknot you can't just make something up and tell children it's real. I could believe any nonsense and tell my kids it's real. It's wrong to lie to anyone, let alone a child who can't decide for themselves. Indoctrination of children should be a criminal offence. We protect them from alcohol and smoking but not religious loonys.
We are in a complicated reality and thanks god we have those scriptures we need every single word out there written on the subject of morality and ethics everything is useful scriptures human mind those debates everything good
Wow JP is way off here. You cannot do what you want to others if that action harms them without being immoral. It is the very definition of morality. Morals need no religion or God or imagined punishment in an afterlife. All we need is the knowledge that if you do negative things to others it harms the groups ability to move forward and to be happy. JP seems desperate to insert God into morality.
@@reillyflaherty9234 Yes you could be right. I have not seen the full clip so could be missing context here. But it is a point that he tries to make in his first book. Don't get me wrong I think he is an incredibly insightful psychologist and a great advocate for the downtrodden man. But he does have some irrational religious views that he sometimes tries to sneak in.
@@jamesrodgers3132 Okay I will take your word for it. It does sound as if he is describing the opposite. But as I said without full context I am likely misreading his intent.
There is a whole platora of moral systems that work completely without the notion of a god. It's insane to me that more than 2500 years worth of moral philosophy is thrown out of the window with zero justification whatsoever
More nonsense from Peterson as he grifts the rubes. So no one ever thought each individual human had worth or should be treated equally before the law until Jeebus came along? Utter nonsense and it's surprising he can keep a straight face while saying that.
How is it nonsense I think he illustrates an interesting point that their exist this sort of appeal to intrinsic human value. That is if one has the power to do something how can one argue they ought not do it. You have the capability its not disadvantages to you only to the one being succumbed and thus motivated to rebel. However one has the power to do something and arguing they shouldn't do it or that it's not right because it say affects another appeals to some sort of value or sacredness as he puts it
Empathy. There, solved it. Wasn't hard, it only took one word. Now you demonstrate that your God exists and is moral. You can't do either. Which means your position is indefensible and false.
Morality is what a group of people accept as right and wrong so they can live together more peacefully. Religion has worked to set a basic framework that for a long time most people accepted. Athiests morality us subjective to each individuals personal beliefs so there will naturally be more disagreement, confusion and violence in an atheist society.
@zinknot. I’ve made a slight adjustment your last sentence and please notice how it’s descriptive of our actual world rather than the speculative nonsense of your OP: “RELIGIOUS morality is subjective to each person’s RELIGIOUS beliefs, so naturally there is a lot of disagreement, confusion and violence in our world over RELIGION”
This is just as poor as Sam Harris metaethics but just on the other side of the naturalist line. It's not clear why we have this sudden reappearance of moral realism__naturalists or metaphysical- among the fairly educated. It's probably because they are improvising philosophical issues without having read the first two pages of the textbook.
It's obvious. The consequences of moral relativism are heinous. In every country in the West venereal disease is at all time highs, tens of millions of children have been aborted, mental illness, even in children is at an all time high, drug abuse is at historic levels. The result of moral relativism is, at absolute best counter productive, at worst permanently corrupting and scarring for many people. The results of moral relativism are atrocious - for everyone. It's perfectly rational to attempt to go back to the origins to re-examine them. Ultimately though it's unnecessary. We can simply ask - are people better ethically, are they more selfless, are they more happy, are they reproducing? On every response the answer is no. The culture is simply failing and must change or slowly fall into decrepitude and irrelevance. It may take a century or so, but on the current trajectory the West will not self-correct without intervention.
@@MartinGak Let's see. Absolute /Objective morality says that there is a fixed and unalterable morality that we should follow. How do we determine what that morality is? There is no morality that can be pointed to that fulfills the objectivity criterion. If you can't enumerate something that does then it's obvious that it doesn't exist. For example, it's objectively true that two intersecting lines in the plane cut it into four parts - try drawing that without that being the case. Objectivity means that no-one can say that it's not true - and lots of people say that the various religious moralities are not true. You might say, God is the most important being that can be so we should follow his/ laws. That doesn't follow at all. You assume that god exists, you assume that he is all loving (for no reason than that you would like it to be true) and then you assume that we should all defer to him - but why? It is not an absolute morality, just a relative one that you like. So, you see, relativism in morality is unavoidable because the choices/decisions made as part of morality can only be made by a moral being rather than a principle which can only produce one result - that's the nature of "free will"/personal choice. Theists like to say that god is the foundation of morality because they want their god (and therefore they themselves in the absence of a god that can speak for himself) to be able to specify what everyone should do. The ruse of absolute morality is just a power grab that they hope no-one notices. But we do notice and, though they keep trying to put the genie back in the bottle, they can't because once you have noticed their self serving proclamations you can't un-notice them.
@@joblakelisbon Please do enumerate these heinous consequences that you refer to. How does moral relativism affect mental illness and drug abuse? BTW simply raising abortion as an emotive subject without discussing exactly what you mean is the attempt to ride on the coat tails of our obvious aversion to hurting others, especially babies and infants. There are many many moral issues around this and lumping it all together without being precise just shows that you want to try to bypass any thinking and appeal only to our emotions.
Why is it that whenever Peterson talks about metaphysics his IQ drops by 50 points? Empathy, our ability to problem solve, our need for inclusion in a social group, etc., etc., etc., all of these parts of being human and being alive were around before the bible was written and will be around after Christianity has evolved itself out of biblical literalism completely. It seems like theology stunts the mind when it comes to appraising objective truth.
@@MathewSteeleAtheology so what? That has nothing to do with accusing of Jordan being a Christian theologist when he's not a Christian. For the record, it's God for those who are part of the Catholic Church.
Please copy-paste where I claimed Jordan Peterson is a Christian. In the OP above, I mentioned Christianity's demise because that’s the largest demographic of religious people in the US, and the most harmful one. And the Old Testament is the same for Jews, Christians and Muslims too.
The morality concept is rather simple. If it is indeed subjective, its opinion vs opinion. If morals are absolutely objective, then a standard above humanity is needed. It's that simple. If you think morals can be objective based off human conditioning and feelings, you are delusional.
We are all God hiding behind Ego. Do what you want all long as you don’t impede or hamper someone else’s happiness in the mental, physical, or spiritual realm.
Well I'd propose for the same reason parents don't eat their own children [theres always an exception]. Thats an extreme but the idea that morality has to be based in God is ridiculous. Of course it also depends on the definition of "god". I'm of the opinion that morality is something like a personal contract of which the basis of it lies in ones particular experience growing up. No one is born mighty and strong and even the strong are not strong indefinitely. If you can understand that then you can understand why people might intuitively believe that you mustn't do unto others what you wouldn't have done unto you. Feel free to critique.
Furthermore, if its true that morality has a basis in some divine entity then it has to be true that said divine entity is moral. However, for what reason then must the divine being be moral in character? To put it another way if love, kindness and all good virtures come from God then where does God get this love, kindness and all the good virtues? Does God have a God? If you believe these virtues come from God then at best you can only have hope and faith that what you believe is true but you can never have certainty, that is, you'd have to trust that God has all these virtues because there is no definitive proof that God has them. And is morality by proxy really morality?
some truths are no longer self evident. Hierarchial differences are result of growth and development a process of nature that all men are entitled to by virtue of being alive
A person who tries to be happy only with material things will fail. A person survives and rises with values such as family values, love, cooperation, patience, gratitude, etc. Islam commanded us to value spirituality, not materiality, and to attain heaven.
I agree with Jordan Peterson here. Many people in this comment section are triggered because it involves God. They're just insulting JP and not addressing the argument
no, he's inserting God into a conversation that doesn't warrant him. And the real objection here is thsat Peterson loves hierarchies - he loves the idea that there are powerful people at the top of the heap. His appeal to equality here is meaningless, since absolutely no-one cares about it in the way he's using it, unless they also reject the notions of hierarchy he supports.
Let's look at the definitions Sacred connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration. The keyword here is veneration, now let's look at what that means Veneration great respect; reverence So the reason why you're not supposed to violate that which is sacred is because they deserve great respect.
All the detractors in this comment section are missing the point, and have very shallow conceptions and arguments, and are assuming the axioms that took centuries to establish are just a given and self evident, taking everything for granted, assuming that all their preconceptions and predicates are self evident and require no source, foundation or defense also not realizing how deep what he is attempting to articulate is.
There is a much simpler pragmatic way to solve this for Peterson. Morality has the same basic claim of many other spiritual and physical disciplines...which is that the disciplined path is better FOR YOU. The answer to his question is that you "shouldn't" use other people for your selfish purposes because that's not the best way to get you what you ultimately want. The disciplined path requires delayed gratification but it pays out in satisfaction and sustainable pleasure in a way that selfishness simply can't. Peterson has a quote that he's "never seen anyone get away with anything....not even once" and that's the answer here. Morality is as much a description of how things work as it a prescription.
So everything moral revolves around what benefits you right? So why do people donate money to charities? Volunteer their time to help others? Take on the burden of someone else when they can't shoulder it? Your entire argument breaks down when you add the fact that people often act selflessly. But I could flip your logic and ask is anything immoral then? If killing someone innocent, say a political opponent in order to take seize control which directly benefits you, why or rather is that immoral? What about when an animal adopts the new borns of a different species when they've been abandoned? That doesn't benefit them or their bloodline for survival, and Infact puts more burden on them to provide for said new children.. Let's just be glad that we don't yet live in a world that abides by your moral standard which revolves around only what benefits the individual exclusively.
@@dartskihutch4033 That's not what I'm suggesting at all. We are social beings first. Our well-being is interdependent with the well-being of others. I don't believe there is an inherent conflict between pursuing my well-being and pursuing the well-being of others...they are one and the same. Similarly, morality itself is a relational, social system. It's not answering the question "how should I act?" - it's answering the question "how should we treat each other?" The question is relational and the answer is relational. Doing sacrificial things for others can be very difficult but it enriches our lives, it's part of having meaning and seeing ourselves as a member of a community that is bigger than ourselves. Selfless acts are precisely the outcome of the moral theory I'm advocating for. It's just also true that this ultimately serves me as well. That when asked what basis I have for moral truth, I can say the well-being of all (which includes me). This is the exact same answer given by theism in most cases. Sure, there may be an afterlife component in some traditions but the only reasonable motivation is to be moral because the outcome is preferred. If the outcome is not preferred, if moral action led to misery and destruction for all, it would have no value. Does that make more sense? Let me know what you think.
@@dartskihutch4033 It's work reiterating that last point. Without appealing to the intrinsic value of experience, you cannot establish the value of any morality, including from theism. We can say that "god's will is X" or "god's nature is Y" but until we define what that means for us in practice it doesn't have intrinsic value. Christians seem to overlook this flaw in their argument because God is defined as being perfectly "good" so we don't have to worry about the authority dynamic but in this case "good" is simply the virtues and qualities that we already recognize to be conducive with well-being... I say all this to say that at bottom, if our moral theories are coherent, we are making essentially the same argument: living a moral life is best and living an immoral life has inevitable consequences.
@@landonpontius2478 honestly I agree with just about everything you've said and it actually aligns with my belief very closely. So I apologize for my loaded and maybe accusitory tone. You mentioned theism briefly and I would say most arguments about an objective good vs a subjective good revolves around this idea because tbh only one can be true! Either mechanistic means deam morality, or a higher power deems reality since each are conflicting with each other. So based on your view (which I totally agree with) the common good is the essential basis for morality right? You can have individual morality (that which benefits yourself) without harming another, but the bigger moral is one which benefits you and* another. Furthermore I would argue that the ultimate morality is an action of an individual which is a detriment to oneself while actively benefitting another. This is called martyrdom because it is the active sacrifice of oneself for another's. In terms of the objective moral, I feel that everyone who speaks about it knows what we speak of, year argue it simply for the sake of philosophical intellectualism. If any of said philosophers were to be punched in the face and robbed of their belongings, I doubt any of which would say, "well that ways their relative moral to do so, therefore I cannot be mad about it". So in the face of objective relativism, I find it circular logic to assume everyone can be right, while we live in a society which proves otherwise, and I we know that society is Merely a culmination of individuals. This trait in society existed well before Judeo-Christian religion, and is a testament to the fact that "objective morality" has existed through the ages.
@@landonpontius2478 I'm sorry if I didn't address all of your posts individually, but TH-cam makes it very hard to write a comment while having access to your entire comment, so I apologize in advance However, I just want to reiterate the galaxy of subjective morality as being nonsense. To say morality is subjective would assume that everyone is right and everyone is wrong simultaneously. Those who argue for it will say that it's a 'societal standard" and I say in contrast that the societal standard is built upon the collective of individuals. You can't put the candle before the buggy. Maybe some will agree that the objective moral is something of a democracy, and though that may be true, why is it that when the populace is free and not under dictatorial rule, the same common morals surface? We are born intrinsically with morals and that's been proven with infants being shown videos of people in pain before adults can teach them right or wrong. Those who oppose this idea only oppose it in ideology, yet live a life that aligns with the same principle.
morality should never be pared with religion in the first place because its not about doing things out of reason logic or for the sake of good but "noooo" for the sake of fear if a person does good things out of hope god wont punish them for the bad stuff they do Im sorry but thats not being a good person thats called morality blind. Is it not lawful to do good things in defilement of some image like a god, wouldn't it be in a god will to speak up respectful to your creator to tell them thats not right? Or does the blind rage of our eyes con trick us?
Many people have done horrible things in the name of God. So I agree with you. But it's also true that God was never a part of those horrible acts. God cannot do what is wrong because he is only all good. If someone says "in the name of God" then hits you, they are lying. The Bible says that people will pervert the name of God. Even church leaders. So don't believe people when they do evil things in the name of God.
@@nathanpeneku3258 Yes But theres one thing wrong with your agreement theres more then one god, which sadly means different teachings end up causing more harm for everyone.
@@azyy1248 But morality isn't suppose to be subjective or objective, the point of it is to understand why the action you take effect others and to make exceptions with others about your beliefs its suppose to be flexible and not bound by things like limited options or being told you cant do 2 things at once or nihilism its simply a way of doing things not by rules but by choosing to do something "good" you choose to be moral by choosing when something isn't right Just because you were born to feel pain doesn't mean you have to feel pain the point of pain is to avoid it which is why you wouldn't hurt others because pain is a bad feeling to have. (i swear if you bring kinks into this your not thinking right because people still feel pain they just get mixed emotion from it)
@@azyy1248There is no such thing as 'objective' morality. Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma). Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own considerations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.
When it comes to atheists and morality its like theyre trying to use a compass in the bermuda triangle. Theres a saying from the religious texts about building your house on a solid foundation vs sand. It applies to atheists and morality.
When it comes to theists and morality, they try so hard to pretend that the magic stuff in their heads exists in empirical reality, then they try so hard pretend that obeying that magic stuff in their heads defines "morality", then they try so hard to pretend that the magic stuff in their head applies to everyone else! 🙄 It's _absurd_ how theists derive "morality" merely from the whims of their own *inflated egos,* then pretend that their own whims are objective reality.
It's wrong because we say it is. That's what morals are. This is the problem (well one of the problems) with Petersons nonsense is that he is trying to ascribe more to things than they actually are. Morals, by definition, are just the rules and values of an individual or a society. There is no reason not to do anything other than that the society is telling you it is immoral or you think it is immoral yourself. Peterson is trying to start from his presupposition that morality is objective and then using the implications of that presupposition argue that it's true. It's nonsense dressed up with a lot of flowery language. Basically he's saying that morality must be objective because he is redefining morality in such a way that it must be objective, then using the implications of that to prove morality is objective. I used to think Peterson was intelligent, but the more and more of him I hear the less I have any respect for his so-called intellect.
You essentially dumbed down morals to social protocols to increase the chances of survival and passing on genetics. That's neither objective or morality.
Well if u say its moral because I can you have to assume things too Jordan. Like might and power DOES EQUAL Right and being favored by the gods or god. There are assumptions both ways no doubt. That doesnt mean YOU CANT MAKE THE CASE unless you have some Christian god that declares ever soul of equal value
This is the kinda guy that thinks incarceration isn't slavery, then he'll try try to uses the pseudo argument of "they have no masters" even though third parties control private prisons and wardens control regular confinement
Do you mean the "Argument from Morality" for the existence of God? If so then you have not looked very far. Most atheists I speak to understand this fallacy quite well. So maybe you mean some other argument? Because the fallacy that morality somehow is evidence for God or that morality is objective has been so completely demolished and disproven that it is sad anyone even brings it up.
@@VestigialHead I see Atheists make assertions without any evidences and it makes me laugh. Argument has been demolished and bla bla bla. Who demolished it if I may ask? You?? Argument that has been sound even before you drew breath?? LOL. Are you saying there's no Objective morality?? LOL. That's an unwise thing to say. Maybe you don't even know what the vast majority of ethicists believe. Goes to prove my point that atheist don't even understand any argument 🥱
Anyone who thinks morality happens in the mind hasn’t tried to be good. No. Goodness is a battle which is waged from within and the strength and guidance to do what is right comes from a connection to the divine. To be good is to love, which is a much broader all encompassing characteristic than we understand and the very essence of God. I can say too that without God there is only endless cycles of desire, pleasure, suffering, and ultimately death. Free yourself from any preconceived notion you have about religion in connection with God if it prevents you from connecting with yourself, the world, and God
Humans are a social species that developed ‘rules’ to ensure the survival of a majority. Read the Selfish Gene to learn about altruism in evolution. Also, actually read the three sacred texts of God and tell me that you are no more moral than the wandering tribe butchering and raping it’s way across the Sinai WITH GOD ON YOUR SIDE.
No Each person is human and deserves respact from other humans for that fact if for no other reason Sacred has nothing to do with it God does not exist
![[en-US | fr-FR] Chapter 01:09 - The Gospel according to Matthew | English (US) - French](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9EUN9rBu3Ng/mqdefault.jpg)
And if individuals have no intrinsic worth, then the collective has no intrinsic worth. Eight billion zeroes is still zero.
However; it is very unlikely that you believe yourself to have no worth, intrinsic or otherwise, in other words; you value yourself, and *the key lies in convincing others,* who value themselves just as you value yourself, to recognize your value, and if they do not, to recognize a very real danger in denying your value, this is the basis of what is called The Social Contract, and even in very hierarchical social groups, such as Chimpanzees, the top males recognize the value of having as many allies as possible and having as fewer enemies as possible, they too have a Social Contract
Now, take a very primitive social group (with a social contract) and add the ever complexity that comes with evolution, and you will eventually get a society with a very complex set of morals, there you have morality achieved without a god.
Bingo. Why care if we come from nothing, going to nothing when we die?
Bags O' meat with brain fizz... Right?
touche
Intrinsic worth does not need to be rooted in a belief in god. We can create our own intrinsic worth.
@@claudiusatlas8083but it has to be rooted in something. I can very well cultivate an intrinsic worth of a unicorn, but it’s clearly not rooted in anything concrete, so it’s meaningless.
I am in no way a Christian but what I've realised is every value I hold is formed in Christian theology and there's no way to escape that.
Wow very few people can even admit that but it’s true
I can honestly say the opposite is true for me. Most of my views run counter to Christian morality.
@@michaelregis1015so you don't believe life has intrinsic value?
@@Buddy1530 no, I don't think life has intrinsic value because value itself is subjective, or rather, preferential.
@@michaelregis1015 aha so killing people is okay?
Treat others the way you would like to be treated. Society prospers most when everyone adheres to this concept. It’s in our best interest to treat others well. That’s the simple truth.
Yeah but how you can say this is our best interest? Like maybe if we follow the word of god that will be in our best interest because we will go to heaven, and think about maybe some people wanna be treated in the way the divine legislation mentioned
@@user-sd4fx7gh4j - which “word of god”, or the words of which god, do you propose that people follow?
We can argue here which word of God is genuine or none at all (after exhausting all claim of word of God), but we must agree on what basis to evaluate it objectively first
Not really. 70+ years, maybe. There is no way you can make that case without God.
@@pflume1 - make what case without god? That humans practice morality because it’s in their best interest?
Wasn’t religion founded upon basic human empathy and morality???? It existed long before the idea of god, even animals display these traits
Hmm I do not think religion is founded on empathy or morality. Religion was founded as a tool to control the masses. But on a tribal scale. It was useful for making unwilling people work or fight or die for the so called leaders or chiefs or "wise" men. Religions often claimed they were the only conduits to morality or empathy. These are sales and marketing tricks used to cajole people into joining.
Morality existed before religion though. Albeit in a much simpler and minimalistic form than we see today. Because morality has nothing to do with Gods or Creators or dogma. Morality has its roots in tribalism and social groupings. Before humans started to form medium size groups it was pretty much every one for themselves. But people found if they worked together they could be more successful and dominate less organised humans so tended to have better lives. If you then add empathy on top of this tribalism it is a straight forward step to creating a system where not doing things that harm others is a good idea. So morality was born.
Is a lion display that when he kills a another lion ? Doesn’t that happen ? Only the strong survive ? Is that moral for human too?
@@dejankojic1713well it still is for humans ,just not as directly as before.
@@dejankojic1713 human beings literally drove other types of humans to extinction, objective morality doesn't exist bro sorry😂😂
@@Southpaw88U lack a lot of knowledge BROTHAA sorry.. educate yourself talk to some smart people, zqlk to some philosophers..
You don't need God to punish you if you don't behave well. Misbehaving often has consequences. People trust you less, don't want anything to do with you or punish you. If you are friendly to other people you have a greater chance that people will be friendly in return and accept you. In general, treating someone the way you want to be treated is useful for yourself and others. Some people have less respect for animals because they cannot have a social contract with them. Because they would not be intelligent enough to understand the social contract. But what if someone gets sick or has an accident that results in brain damage? Do you no longer have to treat such a person with respect? The answer to that is quite simple. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Because if you suffer brain damage, you also hope that people will still treat you with respect.
Even if you don't feel empathy for animals, it is still useful to treat animals with respect. Because it is often a signal that a person who treats animals poorly has serious psychological problems. And that person may be unreliable or dangerous. And that is not to anyone's advantage. This alone proves that sane people do not need a god for their morality. Because they understand the consequences of their actions.
The idea of a god has so many things that defy logic. The problem of the omnipotent omniscient God. Who creates imperfect people and then punishes them for their imperfection. While he is omniscient, and therefore knew exactly what they would do. A god who willingly allows terrible things to happen is not a loving God. A God who cannot prevent evil from existing is not an omnipotent God. If he does it to test people, he is not an omniscient God. Because you don't have to test anything if you are omniscient.
Another problem that religion has is that they believe in one creator. Because according to them there has to be a beginning somewhere. Because according to them, something cannot just come from nothing. The big problem then is, how could a God arise from nothing? And why does that perfect god create all kinds of imperfect things? Nothing can come from perfect nothing. So wouldn't that God automatically be imperfect, if he arose from imperfection? Doesn't it make more sense that perfect nothing never existed? So that perfection can never exist. In such a reality you don't need a real beginning or end. Because nothing is perfect and therefore not permanent. This is how things arise from themselves.
Very eloquently stated. It is a shame that so many people do not seem to understand the points you are making and let themselves be deluded by religious scammers. So much pain and suffering has been caused by those who seek to enslave others within their cults. Israel right now is a perfect example of two groups of dogmatic extremist religions at each others throats all because of idiotic fantasies about how they want the universe to be.
Man has appointed mortal sorrow but the Blessed God shall come down teaching that his death shall bring the despairing rest. Christ was punished on the cross so that we might be pardoned
@@JesusIsMyRock.RedeemerAide You write that as if we know it will happen. We do not even have a tiny scrap of evidence any God exists. Let alone the God of the Bible. So all you can say is the Bible says this or says that. Do not act as if it is a likely thing.
Life is the teacher
Depends on the social environment and circles. Some circles are rotten and punish the good ones.
Welcome to Christian-Judeo ethics
Basically you can't decide what is wrong or right
Thank you for the greeting, now let’s dive in!
Um, people had the concept of the golden rule way before Christianity. Buddha preached that.
These people who think if you didn’t read your morality in in the Bible or learn it from you parents, you must not have one…It i it’s not as if anyone knows what the objective is or if there is one or not. You have to either posit an external moral. authority based on no reliable evidence (i
even if we assume a creator, how can we really know what if anything it expects us to do), you borrow someone else’s, you go without (if that is even really possible given our socialization and need for one, or you decide for yourself what moral code gives you a sense of integrity and fits the general morality you would like there to be, based on yes a consideration of consequences consistency and a sort of aesthetic sensibility. So those people are choosing a pre-packaged morality from Ming many possible ore-packaged ones, often the one that their family or the majority in society uses, rather that designing one themselves, and that is the only difference.
If you build your own morality system you may give your last words on how nothing matters so you killed 30 people for the fun of it.
This is why we want well founded morality.
The Christians used to say the law nailed to the cross. If it is so how do you follow the God's law?
This is a thing I strongly disagree on with him. There is nothing that suggests morality comes from some god
@A2 First you would have to prove god exists. Morality comes from humans. You don't need a god to know throwing a child from a cliff is bad. Unless it is to sacrifice it to some god of course. Or if they are the children of your enemy
@@voodoochild5440 humans came from molecules , molecules had morals? monkeys had morals? can morals evolve?
So if we all agree as society that eating babies is good, then eating babies is good. Please defend yourself. Don't cop out like he other guy here who "doesn't need someone to explain" or more often i hear "a book to explain"
I quite agree and that actually makes our point, that morals are given to you intrinsically by God. You're argument is that you can somehow know what is "good" or "bad" by using electrical signals in three pounds of evolved matter between your ears, and your observations using your senses. Please explain that because if you are consistent with your logic there can be no absolute truth. Is that what you believe?
@@lalonguecarabine4952 No, eating babies will never be good. That understanding is what we develloped over hundreds of thousands of years. People used to sacrifice children to their 'gods' but we learned that doesn't benefit the survival of the group. We don't 'just know'. We learned and evolved. You think morality comes from something you can't prove exists? That seems more farfetched than morality coming from learning and experience
@@voodoochild5440 Tell me does logic exist?
Yes. Morality without God is like a shell without the egg. Not an easy concept to digest for most people today, but it’s true.
Seriously read the Bible and tell me that the genocides of the Israelites were moral.
@@troygrindley3793 They were not “moral”, which is a word that means nothing if not “in line with Christ’s ethics”. Since the very beginning, the catholic Church has been teaching how to read the Bible, but for some reason, today people have completely forgotten, or they think they know better.
@@tomlabooks3263orthodox church taught it too. Also how do you know Christianity is true outside of the fact you're born in Christian countries?
God is immoral. He killed his own son.
@@tomlabooks3263 they were moral because God commanded them to do it. He even punished King Saul for not killing the sheep and cattle (even though he killed every man woman and child). All you have are so called moral outlooks that are not different than what Socrates, Confucius and Tao said. Not saying Christ doesn’t say good things, but he’s not the only one.
You can thank Oprah Winfrey for popularizing the idea that truth is relative, and must be defined by each individual for himself. She even had a phrase for this nonsense: "Your truth for you."
Yes, Oprah is right. There is no such thing as one size fits all. We each have unique experiences that shape us and influence how we see the world. To expect everyone to be the same, think the same and do the same, is the height of idiocy.
Oprah is Satan's spawn.
@@the8thchurch461 lol did you miss his point or are you avoiding it on purpose.
You know you and she are arguing that there is no such thing as right and wrong objectively.
@@stevepest4143 Who said there is no such thing as right or wrong? There is still the thing called GREY area. Even law makers know that. That is why there is such a thing as MITIGATING circumstance. Most people complain about "lenient" sentences being passed in law courts. It's not because judges are morally bankrupt when they pass sentences not popular with the public at large. We live in a broken world that always leaves people dysfunctional. This is why working with just black and white, defining things as right and wrong, is not practical or e Even you should know. I bet you do not apply those brutal rules within your family when dealing with the ones you love.
@@the8thchurch461 lol that's not right and wrong, that's law..
And I didn't say there's no such thing as right and wrong, I said that was his position based on his ideology or world view.
How about the part where "you might rebel" being an important reason not to abuse others.
If I have power and I use that power to effect the best outcome for everyone, who would rebel..?
If I have power and all I do is take from others and suppress their innate rights of selfhood- Who won't rebel?
Maybe that's just ethics...
Frankly if you are a benevolent monarch then nobody would rebel, but if you aren't someone is going to want you gone, if that someone finds enough like minded people you'll lose your head.
What if i dont care, you rebel and i crush you. Works for me. And also "the best outcome" what is that. What is "the best outcome"?
I think you are missing the moral and ethical point.
If I have the power to enslave you it's only wrong if you have no intrinsic worth.
You might rebel or might not, but either way you have no intrinsic worth in this world view.
@@stevepest4143 Those who believe others have no intrinsic worth are evil. Full stop.
@John Hansen that's what atheistic worldview teach that we are a random coincidence of atom arrangement rather than a divinely created creatures
The concept of good and bad is relative and can only be understood in comparison to one another. Therefore, there couldn't have been a notion of something being bad until there was a standard of good to compare it to. Before this standard, everything was simply a part of life, neither good nor bad. It was only after humans started to create and recognize what was good that things began to be judged as bad in comparison. Thus, it can be argued that bad didn't exist until the standard of good was created.
There is no foundation for morality without God . Empirically you cannot observe morality or immorality. You only have your feeling's that the stimuli evokes and that can vary from person to person. You can only describe actions happening in it.
"There is no foundation for morality without God." even with God, if true, there is no objective morality.
My problem with this argument is that you can't prove god exists at all so how can this bring any morality.
I find it much more convincing that as people evolved and societies rose rules were created to keep order and most of them seem to be formed around the don't treat others how you would not want to be treated. I also find it hard to believe that people before the bible couldn't be moral to eachother as it seems unlikely humanity would survive long.
Nobody seems to have an actual answer it's just unimportant why we have mortality but more important it's used properly
@@gaminginhdmax3854 I actually agree with everything you said here. I'm just pointing out that the new atheists pick and choose where they apply the empirical data and they are still Christian in their behavior. They are inconsistent. What we consider moral cannot be detached from historical developments on the rails of religious convictions. Our belief in universal rights and our strong aversion to suffering was not shared with those that lived in the Roman empire. They disbelieve in God but still believe in Man, another platonic ideal of sorts.
@@jeremytine it makes me feel better to discover there are people as intelligent as you in the world.
no one responded to you because your comment was over their heads.
Nothing has intrinsic worth. All value is subjective. If you don't matter to anyone (including yourself), you don't matter. Period. That's reality.
Humans create value and meaning and apply it to themselves. If you claim that's invalid as a foundation, I can say the same about your hypothesis.
What non-circular reason do you have to value the image of a deity, such that harming something in it's likeness would be "wrong?"
Eventually you have to end in a brute fact. My brute fact doesn't require me to come up with excuses for slavery, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, and all the other atrocities committed, commanded, and condoned by God in the Bible.
Well it's not subjective, there just is no value, then humans can feel about some things a certain way, largely due to our evolution and genetic makeup.
Moral thinking has literally been bred into us but logically it doesn't really matter and killing babies is just what it is, killing babies, it's not good or wrong, it just is.
You understand that your idea of morality is circular as well right? You create your own morality, but someone else can also and they dont have to add up. So in that sense morality is relative therefore chaotic with no foundation.
@@dartskihutch4033 Correct. Every person decides for themselves what is and isn't moral, based on their goals and inclinations driven by genetics and cultural norms. If two people disagree, one must convince the other to conform to their standard, or else conflict is inevitable.
What about the entire history of mankind makes you think this isn't how morality works?
The "foundation" of morality is utility. Some moral positions are more useful than others. If a moral position results in its adherents dying, then that position fails, and is replaced by a superior one.
This is why moral values shift over time as the environment and cultural landscape change. Behaviors that were once necessary for survival become maladaptive, as their costs no longer outweigh their risks.
@@chameleonx9253 desire does not equate to morals. You can desire power and money yet know certain avenues to attain it is immoral. Stealing someone money to become rich is moral then if you deem it so correct? To donate money to a random struggling family does not benefit you or further a career or put you ahead yet people do it, and it's moral. Objectively, would you agree that is an act of kindness or good?
How can anything be true if you're the only one to deem it so? There is good/evil, true/false. So how can anything be true if you're the only one who can say so subjectively? How can anything be evil if you're the only one who can say so subjectively?
@@dartskihutch4033that's honestly the problem of chameleon's argument. Is morality supposed to apply to each individual's advantage in society or society to survive even if it means doing something that isn't advantageous for an individual's survival (or opinion of it)?
He’s so confused
You're the confused one!
I wonder if you both ever going to understand how pointless are your statements:)
One of the reasons people have intrisic value is because if you have a problem you are going to seek help from humans and not from animals or plants.
But i believe overcrowding people together and people not behaving politely and respectfully towards each other might cause trouble.
It is still wrong even without the existence of God, because the victimizer knows full well he wouldnt want to be done to himself that which he did to the victimized. The victimizer knows it is wrong because he wouldn't want it done to him.
Now whether he cares about it when he is not the one being victimized and it is someone else who is being victimized, is a different topic...
But to say it is not wrong is preposterous because every sentient, conscious, mortal and vulnerable being in existence thinks and behaves the exact same way when being victimized, whatever form of victimization that maybe, doesnt matter whether you are talking about a lion, or a gorilla or a sheep or a human being.
If every sentient being, capable of self preservation to any degree, thinks that way, then it is not a subjective preference, it is an objective preference, because this is a preference common to all sentient being. That is what makes it objective, that is what makes morality... Always objective.
The only person to possess subjective morality would be God. Because he is unlike his creation.
I am not an atheist, I am a theist.
In a scenario where an individual lacks belief in the existence of a divine entity to whom they are morally answerable, consequently eliminating the prospect of an afterlife, and when one contemplates the inexorable destiny of eternal oblivion as humanity's ultimate culmination, the query arises as to the purpose of endeavoring to regulate one's conduct within the confines of socially acceptable norms. What significance can morality possibly hold if the ultimate destiny of all entities, encompassing time, space, and matter, culminates in an abyss of perpetual nothingness, obliterating any semblance of meaning? In such a godless cosmos bereft of a divine presence or an afterlife, the very notion of morality and meaning dissipates into a mirage. Subjective morality, a mere illusion, emerges as a construct born from the emotional inclinations inherent to humanity, fostering the development of secular principles under the banner of humanism. Thus, the constructs of human values and societal norms appear devoid of purpose and devoid of meaning. The pursuit of moral conduct aimed at the welfare and cohesion of society appears futile in the absence of divine judgment, especially when considering the ultimate annihilation of said society in the distant future. Secular ethical frameworks, exemplified by utilitarianism and deontology, mirror the assertion made by atheists regarding the man-made nature of religious dogmas. People may espouse the belief that life and consciousness inherently possess value, thereby imbuing significance into the endeavor to enhance well-being while mitigating suffering. Yet, one may ponder the rationale behind such pursuits when suffering remains an inherent, inescapable facet of existence. Many individuals derive purpose from their existence by striving to forge a positive impact upon the world; however, the query lingers - why engage in such endeavors if the cataclysmic eventuality of an asteroid, capable of irrevocably extinguishing the human race, threatens to render one's selfless acts and altruistic deeds utterly devoid of meaning? Ultimately, the enigma of why anything bears significance within a godless universe remains persistently unanswered.
objective morality does'nt exist. it is all subjective, its just that humans are so similar that it seems like morality is objective.
Empathy is like an emotion, and emotions aren't always beneficial to individuals or groups. All our emotions are biological.. If morality isn't objective like it would be with god, then it isn't something you need to follow.
The problem with this analysis is that it is the religious zealots who commit atrocities specifically because they have the power to do so, believing God is on their side.
If belief in God is a requirement to live a moral life, why are so many atrocities committed by the religious?
You been hibernating the last 10 years?
@@dougdownunder5622what are you on this guy knows what je is talking about
Guessing youve never grown a garden or farmed crops. Theres weeds that you need to pluck to keep the order. Taking a bugs life can be considered an atrocity to bugs, but ppl need to do that to feel secure, and not be compromised when vulnerable like say, when theyre asleep. You cant always be vigilant so you need to keep it clean. Unless you want to co-exist with parasites, that's not a decision you should force onto others. Unless u want to be against free will ofcourse.
Simple answer
everyone is a hypocrite
You said that religious people commit more atrocity is the same with scientist saying "god doesn't exist" while naming planets and stuff after the names god's in roman-greek. mythology.
@@nototoxicpeople2218 Firstly, I didn’t say that. And secondly, what has naming planets after gods have to do with actually believing whether those gods exist or not?
Religion has not made a net positive difference in human interaction. It has been mostly an unnecessary source of division. If we decide to live in human societies and groups, we enter a contract with each other about what is expected of each person as they interact with each other. We create rewards and punishments for each of those interactions. Morality is based of what we expect out of those interactions and it is constantly evolving. The covenant we make is not with the supernatural but rather with nature and each other.
Good job A.I. is up and running and spot on otherwise we'd have to sort it out ourselves.
This is the Geneology of morals. Like exactly.
JP, how do you explain the morality of Buddhists and Jains for example ? Neither of which believe in a god yet they are amongst the most loving compassionate kind and virtuous people on the planet. Where do they get their morals from ?
At the root of morality lies the notion of well-being and the mutual understanding of pain and suffering. All living creatures strive to thrive and recoil from pain
Inconvenience tests patience and can produce character can even be the evidence of true love
"Builds character" is the iconic dad line, dads know you have to put up with that stuff so they're starting you off early.
Orals do not just have to be a religious thing it's not hard to know what is right and wrong
it's not hard to know but very hard to admit if you are immoral:) Immoral will always try to justify their wrong doings in some way to make it either seems moral or at least not that bad
Only religious people can be se inhumane to not see that other humans have intrinsic value without a dictatorial sky guy to punish them, if they mistread them
Are you an atheist?
Where do you get this intrinsic value from? I mean, how do you know if something is morally acceptable or inacceptable?
If you believe humans are a byproduct of random quantum fluctuations why do you think they have value?
@@ewoiz9987prove that morality is objective without it saying “god says so”
@@CrystalMannequins Imagine that in the 40s and 50s, the whole world had become Nazi. Genocide against the Jews continues, but the whole world thinks what they're doing is right. Is what they're doing right or wrong? Are you going to say that what the Nazis did wasn't bad, because they
agreed that it wasn't bad? Or is there a higher morality than the agreement of
morality between humans?
Theists individually can be moral, but they have no way to explain through faith why any act is right or wrong. Unless someone can manage it?
The core.
Love it.
you can think what you like but it is certainly not moral to shove your beliefs down any child's throat. A belief is nothing it's just a person's dream. it's nothing.
@sadimuntakim4109he wants us to shove his ideological beliefs instead
Don't push your unbeliefs
Explain why it isn't moral? How do you decide what is moral? Everyone is going to raise their children based on what they believe is best. Other people would say it isn't moral to not teach your children what you believe is true and beneficial.
Then why are you wasting time saying nothing? Do you have any self awareness at all?!
@zinknot you can't just make something up and tell children it's real. I could believe any nonsense and tell my kids it's real. It's wrong to lie to anyone, let alone a child who can't decide for themselves. Indoctrination of children should be a criminal offence. We protect them from alcohol and smoking but not religious loonys.
We are in a complicated reality and thanks god we have those scriptures we need every single word out there written on the subject of morality and ethics everything is useful scriptures human mind those debates everything good
Wow JP is way off here.
You cannot do what you want to others if that action harms them without being immoral. It is the very definition of morality.
Morals need no religion or God or imagined punishment in an afterlife.
All we need is the knowledge that if you do negative things to others it harms the groups ability to move forward and to be happy. JP seems desperate to insert God into morality.
It's a lot more complex than this small clip and that's not the argument he's making
@@reillyflaherty9234 Yes you could be right. I have not seen the full clip so could be missing context here. But it is a point that he tries to make in his first book.
Don't get me wrong I think he is an incredibly insightful psychologist and a great advocate for the downtrodden man. But he does have some irrational religious views that he sometimes tries to sneak in.
He's characterising a way of thinking that prevailed until the Christian notion of individual personal worth took hold.
@@jamesrodgers3132 Okay I will take your word for it. It does sound as if he is describing the opposite. But as I said without full context I am likely misreading his intent.
I can do whatever I want to whoever I want as long as I can get away with it.
There is a whole platora of moral systems that work completely without the notion of a god.
It's insane to me that more than 2500 years worth of moral philosophy is thrown out of the window with zero justification whatsoever
This is kindergarten apologetics....and Jordie says it like he has discovered something really profound. Lol.
It’s more engaging when you realize the steps leading up to that logical conclusion yourself. Then you are more likely to agree with it.
More nonsense from Peterson as he grifts the rubes. So no one ever thought each individual human had worth or should be treated equally before the law until Jeebus came along? Utter nonsense and it's surprising he can keep a straight face while saying that.
How is it nonsense I think he illustrates an interesting point that their exist this sort of appeal to intrinsic human value. That is if one has the power to do something how can one argue they ought not do it. You have the capability its not disadvantages to you only to the one being succumbed and thus motivated to rebel. However one has the power to do something and arguing they shouldn't do it or that it's not right because it say affects another appeals to some sort of value or sacredness as he puts it
Great Explanation 👍
Empathy. There, solved it. Wasn't hard, it only took one word. Now you demonstrate that your God exists and is moral. You can't do either. Which means your position is indefensible and false.
Morality is what a group of people accept as right and wrong so they can live together more peacefully. Religion has worked to set a basic framework that for a long time most people accepted. Athiests morality us subjective to each individuals personal beliefs so there will naturally be more disagreement, confusion and violence in an atheist society.
@zinknot. I’ve made a slight adjustment your last sentence and please notice how it’s descriptive of our actual world rather than the speculative nonsense of your OP: “RELIGIOUS morality is subjective to each person’s RELIGIOUS beliefs, so naturally there is a lot of disagreement, confusion and violence in our world over RELIGION”
@@damienschwass9354 he was so close to getting the point. So close...
This is just as poor as Sam Harris metaethics but just on the other side of the naturalist line. It's not clear why we have this sudden reappearance of moral realism__naturalists or metaphysical- among the fairly educated. It's probably because they are improvising philosophical issues without having read the first two pages of the textbook.
It's obvious. The consequences of moral relativism are heinous.
In every country in the West venereal disease is at all time highs, tens of millions of children have been aborted, mental illness, even in children is at an all time high, drug abuse is at historic levels.
The result of moral relativism is, at absolute best counter productive, at worst permanently corrupting and scarring for many people.
The results of moral relativism are atrocious - for everyone. It's perfectly rational to attempt to go back to the origins to re-examine them.
Ultimately though it's unnecessary. We can simply ask - are people better ethically, are they more selfless, are they more happy, are they reproducing? On every response the answer is no. The culture is simply failing and must change or slowly fall into decrepitude and irrelevance. It may take a century or so, but on the current trajectory the West will not self-correct without intervention.
@@joblakelisbon this is nonsense. Sorry. Relativism is precisely the mark of the failure of these projects.
@@MartinGak Let's see. Absolute /Objective morality says that there is a fixed and unalterable morality that we should follow. How do we determine what that morality is? There is no morality that can be pointed to that fulfills the objectivity criterion. If you can't enumerate something that does then it's obvious that it doesn't exist. For example, it's objectively true that two intersecting lines in the plane cut it into four parts - try drawing that without that being the case. Objectivity means that no-one can say that it's not true - and lots of people say that the various religious moralities are not true.
You might say, God is the most important being that can be so we should follow his/ laws. That doesn't follow at all. You assume that god exists, you assume that he is all loving (for no reason than that you would like it to be true) and then you assume that we should all defer to him - but why? It is not an absolute morality, just a relative one that you like.
So, you see, relativism in morality is unavoidable because the choices/decisions made as part of morality can only be made by a moral being rather than a principle which can only produce one result - that's the nature of "free will"/personal choice.
Theists like to say that god is the foundation of morality because they want their god (and therefore they themselves in the absence of a god that can speak for himself) to be able to specify what everyone should do. The ruse of absolute morality is just a power grab that they hope no-one notices. But we do notice and, though they keep trying to put the genie back in the bottle, they can't because once you have noticed their self serving proclamations you can't un-notice them.
@@joblakelisbon Please do enumerate these heinous consequences that you refer to. How does moral relativism affect mental illness and drug abuse?
BTW simply raising abortion as an emotive subject without discussing exactly what you mean is the attempt to ride on the coat tails of our obvious aversion to hurting others, especially babies and infants. There are many many moral issues around this and lumping it all together without being precise just shows that you want to try to bypass any thinking and appeal only to our emotions.
@@christophersinger9149 Oh and one more, I do not claim religion have anything to do with morality:) Or objectivity
Why is it that whenever Peterson talks about metaphysics his IQ drops by 50 points? Empathy, our ability to problem solve, our need for inclusion in a social group, etc., etc., etc., all of these parts of being human and being alive were around before the bible was written and will be around after Christianity has evolved itself out of biblical literalism completely. It seems like theology stunts the mind when it comes to appraising objective truth.
because he actually isn't that smart, just very well educated
The irony right here is that Jordan Peterson isn't even Christian. He's a Jew from Canada
@@pnyhmsmx Yahweh is Yahweh.
@@MathewSteeleAtheology so what? That has nothing to do with accusing of Jordan being a Christian theologist when he's not a Christian. For the record, it's God for those who are part of the Catholic Church.
Please copy-paste where I claimed Jordan Peterson is a Christian. In the OP above, I mentioned Christianity's demise because that’s the largest demographic of religious people in the US, and the most harmful one. And the Old Testament is the same for Jews, Christians and Muslims too.
The morality concept is rather simple. If it is indeed subjective, its opinion vs opinion. If morals are absolutely objective, then a standard above humanity is needed. It's that simple. If you think morals can be objective based off human conditioning and feelings, you are delusional.
We are all God hiding behind Ego. Do what you want all long as you don’t impede or hamper someone else’s happiness in the mental, physical, or spiritual realm.
Jordan's philosophized himself all the way to the Truth, but stopped just short.
Well I'd propose for the same reason parents don't eat their own children [theres always an exception]. Thats an extreme but the idea that morality has to be based in God is ridiculous. Of course it also depends on the definition of "god". I'm of the opinion that morality is something like a personal contract of which the basis of it lies in ones particular experience growing up. No one is born mighty and strong and even the strong are not strong indefinitely. If you can understand that then you can understand why people might intuitively believe that you mustn't do unto others what you wouldn't have done unto you. Feel free to critique.
Furthermore, if its true that morality has a basis in some divine entity then it has to be true that said divine entity is moral. However, for what reason then must the divine being be moral in character? To put it another way if love, kindness and all good virtures come from God then where does God get this love, kindness and all the good virtues? Does God have a God? If you believe these virtues come from God then at best you can only have hope and faith that what you believe is true but you can never have certainty, that is, you'd have to trust that God has all these virtues because there is no definitive proof that God has them. And is morality by proxy really morality?
some truths are no longer self evident. Hierarchial differences are result of growth and development a process of nature that all men are entitled to by virtue of being alive
A person who tries to be happy only with material things will fail. A person survives and rises with values such as family values, love, cooperation, patience, gratitude, etc. Islam commanded us to value spirituality, not materiality, and to attain heaven.
I agree with Jordan Peterson here. Many people in this comment section are triggered because it involves God. They're just insulting JP and not addressing the argument
no, he's inserting God into a conversation that doesn't warrant him. And the real objection here is thsat Peterson loves hierarchies - he loves the idea that there are powerful people at the top of the heap. His appeal to equality here is meaningless, since absolutely no-one cares about it in the way he's using it, unless they also reject the notions of hierarchy he supports.
Why can’t you violate that which is sacred? If you have the power to do so, what does it mean to say that you “can’t” do it?
Let's look at the definitions
Sacred
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
The keyword here is veneration, now let's look at what that means
Veneration
great respect; reverence
So the reason why you're not supposed to violate that which is sacred is because they deserve great respect.
All the detractors in this comment section are missing the point, and have very shallow conceptions and arguments, and are assuming the axioms that took centuries to establish are just a given and self evident, taking everything for granted, assuming that all their preconceptions and predicates are self evident and require no source, foundation or defense also not realizing how deep what he is attempting to articulate is.
Deep
That’s a great argument except that it’s not really what we see in the world.
What is this gibberish?? Nonsensical mouthfuls of disparate letters.
The aww shucks argument. Do I need an entity? When Fred said God had died, he was painting a landscape. Not a slogan.
There is a much simpler pragmatic way to solve this for Peterson. Morality has the same basic claim of many other spiritual and physical disciplines...which is that the disciplined path is better FOR YOU.
The answer to his question is that you "shouldn't" use other people for your selfish purposes because that's not the best way to get you what you ultimately want. The disciplined path requires delayed gratification but it pays out in satisfaction and sustainable pleasure in a way that selfishness simply can't.
Peterson has a quote that he's "never seen anyone get away with anything....not even once" and that's the answer here. Morality is as much a description of how things work as it a prescription.
So everything moral revolves around what benefits you right? So why do people donate money to charities? Volunteer their time to help others? Take on the burden of someone else when they can't shoulder it? Your entire argument breaks down when you add the fact that people often act selflessly.
But I could flip your logic and ask is anything immoral then? If killing someone innocent, say a political opponent in order to take seize control which directly benefits you, why or rather is that immoral?
What about when an animal adopts the new borns of a different species when they've been abandoned? That doesn't benefit them or their bloodline for survival, and Infact puts more burden on them to provide for said new children..
Let's just be glad that we don't yet live in a world that abides by your moral standard which revolves around only what benefits the individual exclusively.
@@dartskihutch4033 That's not what I'm suggesting at all.
We are social beings first. Our well-being is interdependent with the well-being of others. I don't believe there is an inherent conflict between pursuing my well-being and pursuing the well-being of others...they are one and the same.
Similarly, morality itself is a relational, social system. It's not answering the question "how should I act?" - it's answering the question "how should we treat each other?"
The question is relational and the answer is relational. Doing sacrificial things for others can be very difficult but it enriches our lives, it's part of having meaning and seeing ourselves as a member of a community that is bigger than ourselves. Selfless acts are precisely the outcome of the moral theory I'm advocating for.
It's just also true that this ultimately serves me as well. That when asked what basis I have for moral truth, I can say the well-being of all (which includes me).
This is the exact same answer given by theism in most cases. Sure, there may be an afterlife component in some traditions but the only reasonable motivation is to be moral because the outcome is preferred. If the outcome is not preferred, if moral action led to misery and destruction for all, it would have no value.
Does that make more sense?
Let me know what you think.
@@dartskihutch4033 It's work reiterating that last point.
Without appealing to the intrinsic value of experience, you cannot establish the value of any morality, including from theism.
We can say that "god's will is X" or "god's nature is Y" but until we define what that means for us in practice it doesn't have intrinsic value.
Christians seem to overlook this flaw in their argument because God is defined as being perfectly "good" so we don't have to worry about the authority dynamic but in this case "good" is simply the virtues and qualities that we already recognize to be conducive with well-being...
I say all this to say that at bottom, if our moral theories are coherent, we are making essentially the same argument: living a moral life is best and living an immoral life has inevitable consequences.
@@landonpontius2478 honestly I agree with just about everything you've said and it actually aligns with my belief very closely. So I apologize for my loaded and maybe accusitory tone.
You mentioned theism briefly and I would say most arguments about an objective good vs a subjective good revolves around this idea because tbh only one can be true!
Either mechanistic means deam morality, or a higher power deems reality since each are conflicting with each other. So based on your view (which I totally agree with) the common good is the essential basis for morality right?
You can have individual morality (that which benefits yourself) without harming another, but the bigger moral is one which benefits you and* another. Furthermore I would argue that the ultimate morality is an action of an individual which is a detriment to oneself while actively benefitting another. This is called martyrdom because it is the active sacrifice of oneself for another's.
In terms of the objective moral, I feel that everyone who speaks about it knows what we speak of, year argue it simply for the sake of philosophical intellectualism.
If any of said philosophers were to be punched in the face and robbed of their belongings, I doubt any of which would say, "well that ways their relative moral to do so, therefore I cannot be mad about it".
So in the face of objective relativism, I find it circular logic to assume everyone can be right, while we live in a society which proves otherwise, and I we know that society is
Merely a culmination of individuals.
This trait in society existed well before Judeo-Christian religion, and is a testament to the fact that "objective morality" has existed through the ages.
@@landonpontius2478 I'm sorry if I didn't address all of your posts individually, but TH-cam makes it very hard to write a comment while having access to your entire comment, so I apologize in advance
However, I just want to reiterate the galaxy of subjective morality as being nonsense. To say morality is subjective would assume that everyone is right and everyone is wrong simultaneously. Those who argue for it will say that it's a 'societal standard" and I say in contrast that the societal standard is built upon the collective of individuals. You can't put the candle before the buggy.
Maybe some will agree that the objective moral is something of a democracy, and though that may be true, why is it that when the populace is free and not under dictatorial rule, the same common morals surface?
We are born intrinsically with morals and that's been proven with infants being shown videos of people in pain before adults can teach them right or wrong. Those who oppose this idea only oppose it in ideology, yet live a life that aligns with the same principle.
brilliant
No, its convoluted nonsense
@@enterpassword3313 most important it is cut and seems taken out of context
morality should never be pared with religion in the first place because its not about doing things out of reason logic or for the sake of good but "noooo" for the sake of fear
if a person does good things out of hope god wont punish them for the bad stuff they do Im sorry but thats not being a good person thats called morality blind. Is it not lawful to do good things in defilement of some image like a god, wouldn't it be in a god will to speak up respectful to your creator to tell them thats not right? Or does the blind rage of our eyes con trick
us?
Morality has to be paired with religion because it's impossible for objective morality to exist without a higher creator/being.
Many people have done horrible things in the name of God. So I agree with you. But it's also true that God was never a part of those horrible acts. God cannot do what is wrong because he is only all good. If someone says "in the name of God" then hits you, they are lying. The Bible says that people will pervert the name of God. Even church leaders. So don't believe people when they do evil things in the name of God.
@@nathanpeneku3258 Yes But theres one thing wrong with your agreement theres more then one god, which sadly means different teachings end up causing more harm for everyone.
@@azyy1248 But morality isn't suppose to be subjective or objective, the point of it is to understand why the action you take effect others and to make exceptions with others about your beliefs its suppose to be flexible and not bound by things like limited options or being told you cant do 2 things at once or nihilism its simply a way of doing things not by rules but by choosing to do something "good" you choose to be moral by choosing when something isn't right Just because you were born to feel pain doesn't mean you have to feel pain the point of pain is to avoid it which is why you wouldn't hurt others because pain is a bad feeling to have. (i swear if you bring kinks into this your not thinking right because people still feel pain they just get mixed emotion from it)
@@azyy1248There is no such thing as 'objective' morality.
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma).
Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own considerations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE.
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.
When it comes to atheists and morality its like theyre trying to use a compass in the bermuda triangle. Theres a saying from the religious texts about building your house on a solid foundation vs sand. It applies to atheists and morality.
When it comes to theists and morality, they try so hard to pretend that the magic stuff in their heads exists in empirical reality, then they try so hard pretend that obeying that magic stuff in their heads defines "morality", then they try so hard to pretend that the magic stuff in their head applies to everyone else! 🙄
It's _absurd_ how theists derive "morality" merely from the whims of their own *inflated egos,* then pretend that their own whims are objective reality.
There is very few atheists. Most are just anti-theists
anyway anti theists are as foolish as religious people
Monstrous nonsense.
I love how religious people try to weaponize morality just to make fun of non believers.
Yessss just yes
It's wrong because we say it is. That's what morals are. This is the problem (well one of the problems) with Petersons nonsense is that he is trying to ascribe more to things than they actually are. Morals, by definition, are just the rules and values of an individual or a society. There is no reason not to do anything other than that the society is telling you it is immoral or you think it is immoral yourself.
Peterson is trying to start from his presupposition that morality is objective and then using the implications of that presupposition argue that it's true. It's nonsense dressed up with a lot of flowery language. Basically he's saying that morality must be objective because he is redefining morality in such a way that it must be objective, then using the implications of that to prove morality is objective.
I used to think Peterson was intelligent, but the more and more of him I hear the less I have any respect for his so-called intellect.
You essentially dumbed down morals to social protocols to increase the chances of survival and passing on genetics. That's neither objective or morality.
This guy really likes the word hierarchy doesn't he?
He sure because opposite of his views over the years.
Well if u say its moral because I can you have to assume things too Jordan. Like might and power DOES EQUAL Right and being favored by the gods or god.
There are assumptions both ways no doubt. That doesnt mean YOU CANT MAKE THE CASE unless you have some Christian god that declares ever soul of equal value
drivel
What is your moral authority slavery is bad?
You don’t need God, you need psychotherapy. Exactly what is it that you have done, Jordan Peterson? You know you’re talking nonsense.
This is the kinda guy that thinks incarceration isn't slavery, then he'll try try to uses the pseudo argument of "they have no masters" even though third parties control private prisons and wardens control regular confinement
Still looking for an atheist who even understands the moral argument 😴
Do you mean the "Argument from Morality" for the existence of God? If so then you have not looked very far. Most atheists I speak to understand this fallacy quite well.
So maybe you mean some other argument? Because the fallacy that morality somehow is evidence for God or that morality is objective has been so completely demolished and disproven that it is sad anyone even brings it up.
@@VestigialHead I see Atheists make assertions without any evidences and it makes me laugh. Argument has been demolished and bla bla bla. Who demolished it if I may ask? You?? Argument that has been sound even before you drew breath?? LOL.
Are you saying there's no Objective morality?? LOL. That's an unwise thing to say. Maybe you don't even know what the vast majority of ethicists believe. Goes to prove my point that atheist don't even understand any argument 🥱
Intrinsic worth is empathy from consciousness, doesnt need god.
Anyone who thinks morality happens in the mind hasn’t tried to be good. No. Goodness is a battle which is waged from within and the strength and guidance to do what is right comes from a connection to the divine. To be good is to love, which is a much broader all encompassing characteristic than we understand and the very essence of God. I can say too that without God there is only endless cycles of desire, pleasure, suffering, and ultimately death. Free yourself from any preconceived notion you have about religion in connection with God if it prevents you from connecting with yourself, the world, and God
Humans are a social species that developed ‘rules’ to ensure the survival of a majority. Read the Selfish Gene to learn about altruism in evolution.
Also, actually read the three sacred texts of God and tell me that you are no more moral than the wandering tribe butchering and raping it’s way across the Sinai WITH GOD ON YOUR SIDE.
Nope.
No
Each person is human and deserves respact from other humans for that fact if for no other reason
Sacred has nothing to do with it
God does not exist
Creep!
Irrelevant