Jordan Peterson

[inthesomeday]

No, moral relativism does not allow us to make the leap to "nothing is real". You still have to pick actions/policy and they still have to be justified based on some criteria if a society is to enforce them reasonably.

All justification has some moral basis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

All justification has some moral basis.

I'm not going to go so far as to call this wrong, but I will say dubious.

Justifications are often couched in terms of necessity or practicality. In claiming that such justifications, by inclusion, have "some moral basis" I think you are either elevating practicality or demeaning morality. Now, there are certainly schools of thought that will say practicality is the ultimate morality, though off the top of my head I can't name the primary spokesmen for such schools, but whoever they are i choose not to recognize their authority. Practicality, and even necessity, may be valid as justifications, but to me they are not morality.

 

[inthesomeday]

But nothing is objectively necessary or practical; if there is a difference in the moral value placed on human life, for example, actions that save lives could well be condemned.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But nothing is objectively necessary or practical; if there is a difference in the moral value placed on human life, for example, actions that save lives could well be condemned.

If we are trapped in a cave I may very well justify the practical necessity of killing you and eating you, but I won't claim that it is moral.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But nothing is objectively necessary or practical; if there is a difference in the moral value placed on human life, for example, actions that save lives could well be condemned.

Regardless of whether you hold all human lives at equal value in practice (very few people actually do this and will typically bias in favor of at least family members), there are some scenarios where taking action can save some lives at the expense of other lives.

An obvious example of this in practice would be the decision for whether or not the USA participating in a war is a good thing. Your answer might even change, depending on whether you're considering Vietnam vs Gulf War vs 1812 vs WW2 vs US Civil War. It is undeniable that in all of these cases, participation in any of them would cause loss of lives. It is not clear if the balance of doing so adds more to a subjective evaluation of "good" vs "bad".

Some lives would be saved and some lost (with how many on balance often debatable). Could some of these choices be condemned? Absolutely. It's even hard to get away with being completely indifferent in all of these cases.

All justification has some moral basis.

Sounds circular at best, but it's hard to expect more from a line of reasoning that dictates no anticipation for what an "absolutely evil rock" looks like compared to the larger population of all rocks, or no way to give an example of "good" or "evil" absent related context.

Can you show me evil, separated from anything else? Aside from posting some kind of amusing meme it's not going to happen. If morality isn't subjective, that's really fishy, almost as if it lives in the same place as unicorns and dragons.

 

[Bootstoots]

I am not exactly sure what you are implying here with these biological differences when we are talking about ontologically subjects to begin with. For example, people in Russia speak mostly Russian, and not many people speak English. Can we conclude from this that Russians are simply biologically predisposed to speaking Russian? Can we also conclude from this that Russians are not biologically suited for speaking English? Because that is how your passage reads.

Psychology as a field is itself a Western and fairly recent invention. I can assure you that in other cultures people aren't as obsessed with five-factor models, personality tests, and other ways to box and label people as if they were inanimate objects.

And using your logic from the previous paragraph, can we conclude that Westerners are biologically inclined to take personality tests?

The main reference I used for the personality test data, this one, took averages over 55 different nations, from every continent save Antarctica. Granted, the differences are small except in neuroticism, where the difference was of moderate size. But some differences do persist across cultures, and actually tend to widen rather than contract in richer countries.

I don't understand the idea of "diversity initiative". Diversity is not some kind of policy—it is simply a fact of life. People migrate between cities, countries, continents all the time. There were travelers and traders and immigrants and slaves and prisoners of war and all sorts of people even in ancient times, and all of them diversified the cultures they appeared in. In today's connected world people are moving around even more than ever. You can't somehow affect the inexorable march of history with some "diversity initiatives".

A "diversity initiative" is one name for an attempt to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in a company or other organization. So, for instance, programmers at Google, and just about every other tech company, are overwhelmingly made up of white and Asian men. A diversity initiative for them would be a program to increase the representation of women and/or underrepresented minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans). Damore's memo is a criticism of Google's diversity initiative wrt women.

Overall, these "diversity initiatives" don't do anything significant. Despite the fact that most tech corporations have these, most of their positions continue filled by white or Asian men. They're more for PR than anything else.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A diversity initiative for them would be a program to increase the representation of women and/or underrepresented minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans).

A fascinating take on this issue is how you determine what is "under-representation". Let's say on average you have 60 x applicants, 25 y applicants, 10 z applicants, and 5 q applicants.

Your firm has 60% x, 25% y, 10% z, and 5% q. The nation as a whole has 49% x, 51% y, 20% z, and 9% q.

You can make a case that y is underrepresented in the firm, but it's a hollow case at best. On a rate basis, the firm does not appear to show any bias against y whatsoever when it comes to hiring practices.

So what other measures do you use? Is there evidence that the firm is hard on y and z, enough that it skews the applicant pool to this extent? That would be a serious problem...if you have the evidence.

Does the nature of the firm matter? It seems to in society as the social pressure for diversity/representation is not even remotely consistent across industries. But that's strange. Why does society only care about this sometimes, but not other times, if the motivation is diversity and not something else?

And how can anybody make a coherent case that a de-identified hiring process is unfair? When firms use this, it suggests that the bias is already in favor of y in some cases, that if people were brought in on merit alone they'd actually hire more x. That's pretty inconvenient, if you want to make a case that y is underrepresented.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Does the nature of the firm matter? It seems to in society as the social pressure for diversity/representation is not even remotely consistent across industries. But that's strange. Why does society only care about this sometimes, but not other times, if the motivation is diversity and not something else?

It does. If the nature of the business is some sort of producing a product then diversity matters less, from a practical standpoint, than if the nature is delivery of a service...in particular a service of a 'sensitive' sort. I'm far less likely to be concerned about whether a keyboard is available that was packaged and shipped by "someone like me" than I am to be concerned about whether a suicide prevention hotline can connect me to "someone like me." So a commitment to diversity in staffing the warehouse is less of a priority than a commitment to diversity in staffing the suicide prevention hotline.

 

[inthesomeday]

If we are trapped in a cave I may very well justify the practical necessity of killing you and eating you, but I won't claim that it is moral.

Right, but plenty of people may well claim it is. I might.

Regardless of whether you hold all human lives at equal value in practice (very few people actually do this and will typically bias in favor of at least family members), there are some scenarios where taking action can save some lives at the expense of other lives.

An obvious example of this in practice would be the decision for whether or not the USA participating in a war is a good thing. Your answer might even change, depending on whether you're considering Vietnam vs Gulf War vs 1812 vs WW2 vs US Civil War. It is undeniable that in all of these cases, participation in any of them would cause loss of lives. It is not clear if the balance of doing so adds more to a subjective evaluation of "good" vs "bad".

Some lives would be saved and some lost (with how many on balance often debatable). Could some of these choices be condemned? Absolutely. It's even hard to get away with being completely indifferent in all of these cases.

But all of that rests on the moral assumption that a human life has any value, which is just as subject to relativity.

Sounds circular at best, but it's hard to expect more from a line of reasoning that dictates no anticipation for what an "absolutely evil rock" looks like compared to the larger population of all rocks, or no way to give an example of "good" or "evil" absent related context.

Can you show me evil, separated from anything else? Aside from posting some kind of amusing meme it's not going to happen. If morality isn't subjective, that's really fishy, almost as if it lives in the same place as unicorns and dragons.

I’m not arguing that morality is objective here, just that making that point in this kind of discussion is basically useless because it makes discussion moot. If I say “justice means x” and then you go “well what about people who don’t even value life lol socialist owned” then there’s really no point to anything.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Right, but plenty of people may well claim it is. I might.

Which brings me back to what I think is the unfortunate elevation of practicality and/or demeaning of morality. In adjusting your morality to justify the necessary or practical action you open a door that can't be easily shut. If I can't acknowledge that eating you is immoral, yet driven by practicality in the circumstance and have to find a way to twist my morality into accepting that eating you is moral I have paved the way for eating someone else later just because people are tasty.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But all of that rests on the moral assumption that a human life has any value, which is just as subject to relativity.

So what? Even animals act on incentive to continue living. Considering that one's own life falls under the "human life" umbrella, it isn't exactly a high end logical leap to act in a way that demonstrates you value it.

I’m not arguing that morality is objective here, just that making that point in this kind of discussion is basically useless because it makes discussion moot.

It doesn't, but it does force a need for a basis other than "I'm right and a higher power than either of us blocks refutation". It is most typically brought up because someone is claiming that morality (typically their own) > other things without supportive reasoning. That is similarly unhelpful on its own to claiming "morality is relative".

The purpose of discussion on moral issues is what basis you have for preferring some things to other things.

If I say “justice means x”

Rather, if you say "justice means x" when others believe "justice means y", I expected to see a good reason it means x and not y. "Morality" isn't a catch-all or even a viable substitute for that reason. People claiming y also (usually) believe their reason is moral.

 

[Chose]

I’m not arguing that morality is objective here, just that making that point in this kind of discussion is basically useless because it makes discussion moot. If I say “justice means x” and then you go “well what about people who don’t even value life lol socialist owned” then there’s really no point to anything.

You're the one who brought up moral relativism because you were upset that someone pointed out "justice" means different things to different people. The point is, you were just straight up wrong when you said "social justice" is unambiguous, so you steered the conversation in a completely different direction.

 

[inthesomeday]

Which brings me back to what I think is the unfortunate elevation of practicality and/or demeaning of morality. In adjusting your morality to justify the necessary or practical action you open a door that can't be easily shut. If I can't acknowledge that eating you is immoral, yet driven by practicality in the circumstance and have to find a way to twist my morality into accepting that eating you is moral I have paved the way for eating someone else later just because people are tasty.

Which is just as justifiable as any other moral stance when you really get down to it.

So what? Even animals act on incentive to continue living. Considering that one's own life falls under the "human life" umbrella, it isn't exactly a high end logical leap to act in a way that demonstrates you value it.

I quite value human life morally, but plenty of other people don’t. I don’t intend to work with those people, but that doesn’t matter to the ultimate point that any evaluation of any action comes from a moral framework.

It doesn't, but it does force a need for a basis other than "I'm right and a higher power than either of us blocks refutation". It is most typically brought up because someone is claiming that morality (typically their own) > other things without supportive reasoning. That is similarly unhelpful on its own to claiming "morality is relative".

And any claim I’ve made is founded quite basically in a moral value I have for things like equality, human life, and fairness.

Rather, if you say "justice means x" when others believe "justice means y", I expected to see a good reason it means x and not y. "Morality" isn't a catch-all or even a viable substitute for that reason. People claiming y also (usually) believe their reason is moral.

But what I provided for justice wasn’t so outlandish, I feel. I said it means righting wrongs to achieve fairness. Is that just bizarre or something?

You're the one who brought up moral relativism because you were upset that someone pointed out "justice" means different things to different people. The point is, you were just straight up wrong when you said "social justice" is unambiguous, so you steered the conversation in a completely different direction.

I believe it is quite an unambiguous phrase unless your morality leads you to devalue fairness, in which case you probably shouldn’t be involved in defining justice to begin with.


Yikes guys this all began with perhaps the least controversial way of defining justice.

 

[Chose]

I believe it is quite an unambiguous phrase unless your morality leads you to devalue fairness, in which case you probably shouldn’t be involved in defining justice to begin with.

Justice means X, if you disagree, you shouldn't be involved in the conversation.

This may come as a shock to you, but fairness means different things to different people too. Almost everyone is in favor of "fairness". A fair race for most people is where the fastest person wins. For you it probably means something more like everyone finishes at the same time. Which is more fair is a highly debated topic. It's simply an empirical fact that people have vastly different views on this. So instead of living in pretend land and saying it isn't ambiguous, why don't you put forward an argument for your view?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@inthesomeday

C'mon dude, I know you are conversing with two different people but you have to see the incongruity of immutably "valuing fairness" in the same post where you are describing the eating of people because they are tasty as being within the confines of a reasonably flexible morality.

 

[inthesomeday]

Justice means X, if you disagree, you shouldn't be involved in the conversation.

Okay, if you don’t think justice means “righting wrongs to achieve fairness” then you’re probably acting with a totally different concept of the word than I am. Enlighten me— how would you redefine it?

This may come as a shock to you, but fairness means different things to different people too. Almost everyone is in favor of "fairness". A fair race for most people is where the fastest person wins. For you it probably means something more like everyone finishes at the same time. Which is more fair is a highly debated topic. It's simply an empirical fact that people have vastly different views on this. So instead of living in pretend land and saying it isn't ambiguous, why don't you put forward an argument for your view?

Lol this is exactly what I’m saying. I literally can’t argue this very fundamental concept of my morality. I mean you’re significantly misrepresenting my position but at the basis of the disagreement is a dissonance in the VERY FOUNDATION of morality— you guys are willing to live in a hierarchical society and find it morally justifiable, I find it morally reprehensible on the grounds that it is literally unequal. Like hierarchy is actually the opposite of equality. Since my worldview is based on morally valuing equality and yours is not, we will never see eye to eye on this subject.

@inthesomeday

C'mon dude, I know you are conversing with two different people but you have to see the incongruity of immutably "valuing fairness" in the same post where you are describing the eating of people because they are tasty as being within the confines of a reasonably flexible morality.

I don’t think cannibalism for pleasure is moral, personally, and I do find fairness to be quite valuable. But there’s no objective truth to either because there’s no objective nature of morality. That doesn’t mean people with compatible moralities can’t come to common agreements most of the time, and I think I’m morally quite similar to most people. This is why I think it’s pointless to say “well some people might have different moral values than yours” and expect it to somehow trump me. Like yeah I realize but I don’t really care about those people because I doubt we’ll ever be able to come to ANY kind of actionable consensus. They fundamentally have different social goals than me.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto who hired Jordan Peterson and was his close colleague and friend for years just wrote this: I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous.

He has done disservice to the professoriate. He cheapens the intellectual life with self-serving misrepresentations of important ideas and scientific findings. He has also done disservice to the institutions which have supported him. He plays to “victimhood” but also plays the victim.

 

[Kyriakos]

Professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto who hired Jordan Peterson and was his close colleague and friend for years just wrote this: I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous.

That Peterson cheapens the profession is obvious, yes. Good for this other professor speaking on this.

There are some uni professors who are exactly like this; drama queens who get into feuds even with their own students. But in the case of Peterson this has got way out of hand, while in the past such phenomena were just known locally.

 

[Bootstoots]

Professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto who hired Jordan Peterson and was his close colleague and friend for years just wrote this: I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous.

Now that is actually a good take-down of Peterson and what he has been doing, cutting right to the heart of some things I'm unsettled by, including his insistence on strawmanning his political opponents as "postmodern neo-Marxists" whose ideology leads inexorably to Stalinism and Maoism, the way he focuses on divisive gender issues, the way he seems to have a martyr complex while at the same time condemning victim narratives, the fact that he's touring around like a rock star, and above all the way he's turned himself into a charismatic leader who enjoys having a devoted group of followers all the while knowing in great detail how those leaders attract followings and the ways that they can go horribly wrong. He seems to have taken on some sort of messianic role in his head, and imagines himself using this entirely for good, helping hundreds of thousands of young men (and some women and older people) straighten out their lives and develop meaning, while simultaneously doing battle with an evil political ideology.

He is a very interesting and broad thinker, and one of the few intelligent conservatives out there. He really is helping people, particularly depressed and directionless men, using a totally novel approach to self-help that doesn't deny or try to minimize the horrors of the world. I'll be listening to him for quite a while to come, albeit with my critical thinking hat on (I actually can't seem to take it off). And I'm rereading 12 Rules, largely because it seems like it might be genuinely helpful in my own life; the first time I mostly wasn't trying to take self-improvement lessons from it. But I am wary about where he's headed with that following of his.

On the plus side, Canadians, it could be worse. Your next Conservative PM will be well-read and will have an attention span longer than that of a 4-year-old on a sugar high. And his Twitter has some good stuff along with the tirades.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I quite value human life morally, but plenty of other people don’t. I don’t intend to work with those people, but that doesn’t matter to the ultimate point that any evaluation of any action comes from a moral framework.

The first and second sentence of the above quote are self-contradictions, unless you are asserting that "plenty of people" never make a single evaluation on any human life in any capacity.

And any claim I’ve made is founded quite basically in a moral value I have for things like equality, human life, and fairness.

You have demonstrated that you prioritize some equality over other equality. What is "fair" is subjective, and in this context doesn't say much. Most humans value human life to some degree (those that don't are pretty uncommon outliers).

But what I provided for justice wasn’t so outlandish, I feel. I said it means righting wrongs to achieve fairness. Is that just bizarre or something?

It is if you don't adequately demonstrate a wrong, and as a result wrong people in the name of "fairness". This is especially true if you can't come up with good reasoning for why X satisfies agreed standards better than Y.

I find it morally reprehensible on the grounds that it is literally unequal.

However, that moral position is incoherent when accepting or even introducing inequality in order to attain other types of equality. At the "fundamental" level, objects in physical reality are not equal. When you force equalize something between human beings that is not already equal, you are necessarily introducing inequality in other aspects.

Doing so can still be acceptable, depending on your utility function and what you are trying to equalize (and in fact necessary, equality in access to breathable air is more important than access to pet elephants). What does not work is to simply claim "equality!" and then introduce both equality and inequality at the same time without a self-consistent framework for choosing what is more important.

There are some uni professors who are exactly like this; drama queens who get into feuds even with their own students. But in the case of Peterson this has got way out of hand, while in the past such phenomena were just known locally.

I'm sure the fame/infamy has padded a few extra $$$ into the wallet. If you're going this route might as well make it lucrative I suppose.

including his insistence on strawmanning his political opponents as "postmodern neo-Marxists" whose ideology leads inexorably to Stalinism and Maoism

Yeah I don't like this any more than I like people spam-calling out others as fascists/nazis. It's inane and only pushes the discussion further from reality. It doesn't matter who's doing it. Victim card is popular nowadays and that's annoying too, especially because it cheapens the treatment of actual victims.