Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Dan'l Peterson and Moral Relativism


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I imagine that it is delicious unto me, and I'll know it when I taste it.

Well I know what good is, just not what fully good is.

The reason I raise this is that the argument this arises from depends upon what is called reifying the good. That is there aren't just good acts but there's good independent of such things as a thing in and of itself. This tends to arise in arguments that treat God in terms of abstract absolutes like Good. Evil is frequently seen as something independent in opposition to the Good or as merely the lack of the good. (This is called privation)

So as soon as someone starts talking of absolute good or totally good they're usually making use of these arguments which depend in subtle ways on a metaphysics that is frequently seen as at odds with our conception of God. (Not totally - there certainly are Mormons who buy into these things - but they're more infrequent)

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I know what good is, just not what fully good is.

The reason I raise this is that the argument this arises from depends upon what is called reifying the good. That is there aren't just good acts but there's good independent of such things as a thing in and of itself. This tends to arise in arguments that treat God in terms of abstract absolutes like Good. Evil is frequently seen as something independent in opposition to the Good or as merely the lack of the good. (This is called privation)

So as soon as someone starts talking of absolute good or totally good they're usually making use of these arguments which depend in subtle ways on a metaphysics that is frequently seen as at odds with our conception of God. (Not totally - there certainly are Mormons who buy into these things - but they're more infrequent)

True enough, and in my completely inaccurate and provocative OP, I very much used loaded Volksphilosophische phrases.  Back to Herrn Professor Doktor's article, however, don't you find it fascinating that it is a flash of recognition that "this ain't right!" that provokes a complete reconfiguration of a reasonably thoughtful athiest's world view?  Kant thought and wrote what he thought and wrote because of what he experienced and what he observed and what he heard.  Rousseau the same.  Schiller the same.  Their hearts burst because of the painful recognition of things as experienced being evil, not right.  Each went a different direction with those experiences, but there are certain themes that tie, for example, German Romantic thought together.  Mark, if he ever gets here, will, no doubt, have a few things to say about how that something in ourselves, which we experience as if it were not ourselves, acting as a check and a guide.  I observe my thoughts even as I'm developing them; same with my emotions.

And what I find delicious, I recognize as unalloyed good.  What I experience as bitter, I know to be evil.

Link to comment
On 3/15/2019 at 4:06 PM, USU78 said:

And what I find delicious, I recognize as unalloyed good.  What I experience as bitter, I know to be evil.

I am sure you are aware that this is entirely subjective. To illustrate here is a morbid joke:

First cannibal after eating a hearty meal. Your wife really makes a great meal. Second cannibal: Yes she does. But I am really going to miss her.

With moral relativism this is what we get. There is no objective morality. I disagree with Dr. Jordan Peterson's conclusion as quoted by Doctor Dan Peterson that there are some acts that are intrinsically evil “true essentially, cross-culturally — across time and place.” A cannibalistic society would seem to refute that idea. Societies that kill their elderly also argue against such an idea.

Even in modern societies this moral relativism leads down a slippery slope as some state legislatures have passed or considered passing abortion laws that would permit the killing of infants or maybe just letting them die even after delivery.

The recent depredations of ISIS have had much of the world recoiling in horror, yet their culture seemingly thought/thinks nothing of it. The only thing that kept and hopefully keeps their brand of morality from becoming the morality of their region and in time maybe a much greater part of the world was superior firepower and superior numbers.

I just do not see how one can rationally make a case for an objective morality without a Supreme Being, A God that does know everything and can promulgate to us humans that know a little bit less than everything what it Right and what is Wrong. Without Him, we would live in a might makes right universe.

Glenn

Link to comment
On 3/15/2019 at 2:06 PM, USU78 said:

And what I find delicious, I recognize as unalloyed good.  What I experience as bitter, I know to be evil.

I think in practice there's typically both good and bad consequences to various choices. I tend to see most choices are deciding among tradeoffs. So I don't think it's always as simple as you suggest. Or at least the topic is more complicated. To give an obvious example, is Satan being here able to test us good or bad? Well at a certain level it's good, which is why God does it even if at an other level it's evil.

Link to comment

Dang.

I posted a longish reply yesterday and I check in to day and it never made it

DOA I guess.

I shall return.  ;)

Edit: Sam Harris just does not get it at all.  He needs a little Derrida/ Rorty/ Schiller /Habermas / Gadamer in his life.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 3/15/2019 at 1:06 PM, USU78 said:

True enough, and in my completely inaccurate and provocative OP, I very much used loaded Volksphilosophische phrases.  Back to Herrn Professor Doktor's article, however, don't you find it fascinating that it is a flash of recognition that "this ain't right!" that provokes a complete reconfiguration of a reasonably thoughtful athiest's world view?  Kant thought and wrote what he thought and wrote because of what he experienced and what he observed and what he heard.  Rousseau the same.  Schiller the same.  Their hearts burst because of the painful recognition of things as experienced being evil, not right.  Each went a different direction with those experiences, but there are certain themes that tie, for example, German Romantic thought together.  Mark, if he ever gets here, will, no doubt, have a few things to say about how that something in ourselves, which we experience as if it were not ourselves, acting as a check and a guide.  I observe my thoughts even as I'm developing them; same with my emotions.

And what I find delicious, I recognize as unalloyed good.  What I experience as bitter, I know to be evil.

Sounds pretty dang good in my book!  ;)

 

Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 11:53 AM, hope_for_things said:

Another poorly written article by DP.  No surprises here.  Take a complex set of ideas and reduce them down to a strawman argument against the evil atheists.  

Where did you get the impression that DCP was advocating the position he was quoting any more than USU was in raising the same question?  I am kinda surprised you would get that impression.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Where did you get the impression that DCP was advocating the position he was quoting any more than USU was in raising the same question?  I am kinda surprised you would get that impression.

First this section:  

““It was impossible any longer,” remembered Auden, “to believe that the values of liberal humanism were self-evident. Unless one was prepared to take a relativist view that all values are a matter of personal taste, one could hardly avoid asking the question: ‘If, as I am convinced, the Nazis are wrong and we are right, what is it that validates our values and invalidates theirs?’”

Then finishing with this:

“Powerfully, it occurred to him that the Nazis depicted in that newsreel, and the reactions of some members of its audience, didn’t merely flout convention. They were genuinely, intrinsically, objectively evil. But how could that be? “The answer,” Auden said, “brought me back to the church.””

It’s a pretty short article with a pretty simplistic but clear thesis.  Humanism cannot ultimately guide correct moral principles, only religion can do that.  

Link to comment

He invoked Godwin’s law. Then claims to know God we must first know Hitler.

The first few generations of Nephites as recorded in 4 Nephi, must have been ignorant slobs, according to Dan Peterson and all those Saints who lived before Hitler.

Of course, he thinks Muhammed was a Prophet of God, despite Jacob 4 to the contrary, and Joseph Smith learned the geography of The Book of Mormon from a travel book wrtten by John Lloyd Stephens, and the Nephites were Maya while the one of the last, The Prophet Mormon, was a pure descendant of Lehi.

Such a brilliant scholar. A true treasure.

Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 12:24 PM, USU78 said:

If we see something that we cannot deny is fully, irretrievably, unredeemably evil, does it necessarily follow that there must be something that is fully good?  And that that good is G-d?

If something is fully evil, is not the opposite something fully good?  Well, according to the the theme of this scripture, as quoted by President Oaks.

“It must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, … righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” ~President Dallin H. Oaks

 

Just throwing wrenches for the reaction...

Link to comment
On 3/18/2019 at 10:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

Dang.

I posted a longish reply yesterday and I check in to day and it never made it

DOA I guess.

I shall return.  ;)

Edit: Sam Harris just does not get it at all.  He needs a little Derrida/ Rorty/ Schiller /Habermas / Gadamer in his life.

 

When do we get to see your revised and improved offering?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Burnside said:

He invoked Godwin’s law. Then claims to know God we must first know Hitler.

The first few generations of Nephites as recorded in 4 Nephi, must have been ignorant slobs, according to Dan Peterson and all those Saints who lived before Hitler.

Of course, he thinks Muhammed was a Prophet of God, despite Jacob 4 to the contrary, and Joseph Smith learned the geography of The Book of Mormon from a travel book wrtten by John Lloyd Stephens, and the Nephites were Maya while the one of the last, The Prophet Mormon, was a pure descendant of Lehi.

Such a brilliant scholar. A true treasure.

Please don't help any more. This is not remotely useful.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Burnside said:

He invoked Godwin’s law. Then claims to know God we must first know Hitler.

The first few generations of Nephites as recorded in 4 Nephi, must have been ignorant slobs, according to Dan Peterson and all those Saints who lived before Hitler.

Of course, he thinks Muhammed was a Prophet of God, despite Jacob 4 to the contrary, and Joseph Smith learned the geography of The Book of Mormon from a travel book wrtten by John Lloyd Stephens, and the Nephites were Maya while the one of the last, The Prophet Mormon, was a pure descendant of Lehi.

Such a brilliant scholar. A true treasure.

You're dreamin' dude.

How's that for a scholarly response?  :)

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Please don't help any more. This is not remotely useful.

This thread is a great Rorschach test.  

I keep re-reading that VERY short article of DCP's and can't find any of what people are attributing to him.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 10:24 AM, USU78 said:

If we see something that we cannot deny is fully, irretrievably, unredeemably evil, does it necessarily follow that there must be something that is fully good?  And that that good is G-d?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900059073/jordan-b-peterson-12-rules-for-life-god-evil-faith-daniel-byu.html?fbclid=IwAR1uaOP8eCDjdMcTyOcFKGQ6UCoJ4HrHqAZ0rtwpzr2sSieOpBSXgPVjFd0

Isn’t this a variation of the ontological argument?

Link to comment
On 3/15/2019 at 8:06 PM, USU78 said:

And what I find delicious, I recognize as unalloyed good.  What I experience as bitter, I know to be evil.

I think you need to re-think this.

For example: my experience of death is bitter, but death itself is not evil.  And can even be a comfort.

And chocolate ice cream is delicious, but it is definitely bad for my manly figure. 

Link to comment
On 3/18/2019 at 12:03 AM, Burnside said:

Articles like this allow the paper to have more ad space.

I found this ad to be particularly intriguing:

30914CAC-C885-48CE-9FF6-41CB18B91F7B.jpeg.fe6efef7b1e968a37d4e81f675197554.jpeg

 

Thanks for pointing this out!  I had quite forgotten about the passion play.  Perhaps my wife and I will go there this time!

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Burnside said:

He invoked Godwin’s law. Then claims to know God we must first know Hitler.

The first few generations of Nephites as recorded in 4 Nephi, must have been ignorant slobs, according to Dan Peterson and all those Saints who lived before Hitler.

Of course, he thinks Muhammed was a Prophet of God, despite Jacob 4 to the contrary, and Joseph Smith learned the geography of The Book of Mormon from a travel book wrtten by John Lloyd Stephens, and the Nephites were Maya while the one of the last, The Prophet Mormon, was a pure descendant of Lehi.

Such a brilliant scholar. A true treasure.

Such a brilliant post.  As brilliant as your avatar was in battle.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think you need to re-think this.

For example: my experience of death is bitter, but death itself is not evil.  And can even be a comfort.

And chocolate ice cream is delicious, but it is definitely bad for my manly figure. 

You are mixing contexts that's the problem.

In some contexts what is good is evil. Mouse traps are good unless you're a mouse.

Notice that USU kept his statements strictly in terms of his experience. He did not change contexts to "reality" whatever that means. He did not speak of "death itself" thereby making it into some kind of objective entity.

He kept what is subjective subjective and did not mix it with what is called "objective" but at my book all of this is just narratives. All we have are people's stories about things. Because we are humans we can only know things as humans know them. We can know nothing in itself.

Everything we allegedly know comes in through human eyes human ears human noses and we speak with human mouths and then make that into language. And then we have peer review which makes everything legitimate. But guess what. The peers are also humans.!

So we have humans observing human comments and confirming them.

And then we think we have reached "reality itself."

The only reality we have reached is human reality.

The more we look into what we think is outside of us the more we look into how we think.

Our mirror of reality is simply a mirror of our own thinking and perceptions.

Then our faith shows us that God is a human and that everything was created by the Word.

Now do you know why I am LDS?

Because it's the only church that understands this truth.

Sort of anyway. ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Isn’t this a variation of the ontological argument?

It is and subject to the same deadly problems that show it cannot work.

You can prove anything you like with the ontological argument.

I am still on the quest for the best chocolate ice cream because I know it must exist somewhere and somehow in the universe. ;)

Ultimately the problem comes from the Greek notion that "perfect" means "complete."

And something cannot be complete unless it exists.

Therefore perfection must exist somewhere just like my chocolate ice cream.

I'm still looking.

Them old Greeks sure messed up Western philosophy for two thousand years. ;)

Now that we know it's all semantic confusion we are getting better.

Thanks Wittgenstein!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It is and subject to the same deadly problems that show it cannot work.

You can prove anything you like with the ontological argument.

I am still on the quest for the best chocolate ice cream because I know it must exist somewhere and somehow in the universe. ;)

Drive up 700 No in Logan through USU's main campus; hang a left at the light by the Eccles Music Building; drive about a block and pull into the parking lot by the Dairy Science Building; enter said building  and order yourself some at the Creamery.  Here is your link:  https://aggieicecream.usu.edu/  You're welcome.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think you need to re-think this.

For example: my experience of death is bitter, but death itself is not evil.  And can even be a comfort.

And chocolate ice cream is delicious, but it is definitely bad for my manly figure. 

That's because you eat that Provo bland of chocolate ice cream.  Come to the Aggie side.  You'll be glad you did.

Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 5:06 PM, Peppermint Patty said:

 

"If we see something that we cannot deny is fully, irretrievably, unredeemably evil, does it necessarily follow that there must be something that is fully good?  And that that good is G-d?"

I'm not sure Mr. Peterson's logic is sound.  If we follow it to the logical conclusion, doesn't it mean that if we see something we cannot deny is fully good, does it necessarily follow that there must be somthing that is fully evil?  And that evil is G-d?" 

Maybe Mr. Peterson believes there are both good and evil G-ds?  I wish he would expound on this.  I've never heard of such a thing.

 

I must be missing something - this seems to be relying on the same logic of the proposition of opposites. The concept of an object/environment being cold does not exist unless we also know that hot also exists. 

When the context of the conversation is belief in God, then making a statement that the good in the world is God or his influence, then it makes sense to me. 

The concept of both good and evil with their relative divine gods is rather common in world religions. Seems like we are straining at gnats here. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...