Jump to content
USU78

Dan'l Peterson and Moral Relativism

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 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

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.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, Mark B!  Get over here!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't know why you have to call it poorly written.  His style is engaging and accessible.  It's for a newspaper column, for cryin' out loud.  And if somebody in the middle of a crisis of faith in atheism discovers that it provides no answers for the hurt his heart was enduring, what of it?  We only know what we feel, after all.  And if something is sweet to us, well, you know the rest.

Its shallow, and confirmation bias is sweet to a lot of people.  I expect more out of adults with PHDs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 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

That "good" could be the observer... Didn't read the article, but I recall he wrote another one and shared it on this forum about answering such equations as "yes and no (depends)". I'm sure he's addressing one aspect of the issue in is article from a particular philosophical standpoint (or without one, depends!). :)

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post

 

"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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, USU78 said:

f 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?

I don't see it as a necessity if the evil seen is a person's behaviour.  It is not as if it has been proven there is an inherent balance in the world and for every 5 units of evil in existence, therefore must be 5 units of good or that evil and good somehow exist out there independent of humanity (who are the ones who define what is good and what is evil, imo).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, 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.

Read the article that's embedded in the OP.  There's an extended quote concerning a faith journey that begins in a New York theater watching a Nazi-era comedy  ...  but the German-Americans' response to the newsreel about the rape of Poland stunned the non-German-American watcher.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

There seems in the reasoning to be is assumption that there are acts that are intrinsically evil, but this is based on the individual's perception of what is evil.  

How can you demonstrate intrinsic evil without making assumptions certains acts are evil no matter how individuals might view them (the Germans shouting most likely did not see their acts as evil, but justified them as necessary to create a better world....hate is good if you hate evil things, right?)...doesn't that assume what is supposed to be demonstrated?

apologies for bad writing today 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 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 think it should be noted that the line you quoted from the OP isn't in the linked article, and that neither Dr. Peterson used that specific reasoning (at least as far as I could tell).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I find this poorly written :)

Good thing I don't have a PHD to embarrass myself with, just a lowly MBA.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good thing I don't have a PHD to embarrass myself with, just a lowly MBA.  :lol:

Embarrassment is also embarrassment, regardless of one's educational level, no? How does one with less education condemn someone with more education by a corresponding educational standard? If someone considers an educated person to be so greatly embarrassed by virtue of his education, must there necessarily be a less educated person who is not embarrassed, and could that person be himself?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, 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. 

Did you carefully read the article? If so, what is the straw man argument that Daniel C. Peterson (not to be confused with his quotations of Jordan Peterson) makes? And how exactly is it poorly written? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, USU78 said:

I don't know why you have to call it poorly written.  His style is engaging and accessible.  It's for a newspaper column, for cryin' out loud.  And if somebody in the middle of a crisis of faith in atheism discovers that it provides no answers for the hurt his heart was enduring, what of it?  We only know what we feel, after all.  And if something is sweet to us, well, you know the rest.

How Humaean of you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How Humaean of you.

Haumean?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Haumean?

Yes, but I prefer the old-fashioned spelling:

Quote

. . . what Kant called the high road of science has turned into a steep, winding, rocky, and interminable path.  And yet, thanks to Kant, we are not back with Humaean blind custom: we do give order to nature, and it is the very heart of our rationality (not just our habit) that we do so.  But, like Hume and unlike Kant, we never know for sure that we have done the job right.   Marjorie Grene, “The Paradoxes of Historicity,” in Hermeneutics and Modern Philosophy, ed. Brice R. Wachterhauser (SUNY, 1986), 175.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was a good article.  That’s because the topic of objective morality has fascinated me for a long time.  

Can anything be intrinsically good or bad without God?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I thought it was a good article.  That’s because the topic of objective morality has fascinated me for a long time.  

Can anything be intrinsically good or bad without God?

I’m not sure adding God is sufficient, without an added assumption that God is good. This assumption runs afoul of the problem of evil. If you are interested in one atheists attempt, Sam Harris starts with the worst possible misery for each and every conscious creature in the universe is bad. Given that all fields of inquiry have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps a bit, This seems as good a fundamental axiom as any. I’ve never met a person in real life that disagreed with this definition, but apparently it is very controversial among philosophers. Just ask Pogi.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but I prefer the old-fashioned spelling:

 

Dontcha hate it when a silly joke is met with rationality?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/14/2019 at 11:24 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?

What does "fully good" even mean?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...