In his "Jordan Peterson vs. 20 Atheists" Jubilee episode, Dr. Peterson was confronted with a classic challenge to Kantian ethics. His response was...odd.
I stopped watching the video as soon as Peterson said to one of the people: “Thanks for the talk. It was very brave of you doing this.” — something along those lines anyway. That’s all it takes to understand what he thinks of himself.
For lack of revealing my moral and intellectual shortcomings, Peterson is just a fucking asshole who demonstrates what is so wrong in our Western pseudo-moralistic, materialistic, individualist "culture."
The funny thing is, even if Peterson really does hold the Geach view (which I really doubt he does - the actual situation in that debate very much reads as, "Peterson gives an obviously ridiculous definition of 'believe,' and then keeps saying whatever he has to say to avoid admitting his definition was wrong while also avoiding committing to a monstrous moral conclusion, which leads to him backing himself into a corner when his interlocutor presses him"), this wouldn't actually work as a response to the hypothetical for the purposes of the debate. Peterson isn't just being pressed on his moral views but on his definition of the word "believe." But it's straightforwardly the case that people who lied to protect Jews in their attic or escaped slaves in the Underground Railroad still believed that they were harboring Jews or slaves in their homes, and yet they did not want to defend this belief at all (since they didn't want anyone else to believe it), let alone die to defend it. It's completely irrelevant to Peterson's definition whether these people had to commit some other sin beforehand to get there. His definition did not include a clause that says, "If you've never sinned, 'believe' means this, but otherwise it means something else." (And even if it did have such a clause, it *still* wouldn't work because definitions must apply in all circumstances, not just all circumstances in which God prevents moral exemplars from having to lie).
Being philosophy focused - have you ever considered the morale implications for you having a subscription based service? Like, how many people are you capitalizing off of who are not organized enough to know exactly what is going on with their money? If one assumes that free will does not exist, you are potentially benefitting from many this way. Personally, I would not feel good about that. To each their own.
Peterson did the Jubilee debate late in life, and the lying comments are indicative of his cranky mood and declining intellectual capacities.
I wasn't aware "Never speak ill of the dead" applied to people who might, hypothetically, die in the near future. Neat trick.
I stopped watching the video as soon as Peterson said to one of the people: “Thanks for the talk. It was very brave of you doing this.” — something along those lines anyway. That’s all it takes to understand what he thinks of himself.
For lack of revealing my moral and intellectual shortcomings, Peterson is just a fucking asshole who demonstrates what is so wrong in our Western pseudo-moralistic, materialistic, individualist "culture."
The funny thing is, even if Peterson really does hold the Geach view (which I really doubt he does - the actual situation in that debate very much reads as, "Peterson gives an obviously ridiculous definition of 'believe,' and then keeps saying whatever he has to say to avoid admitting his definition was wrong while also avoiding committing to a monstrous moral conclusion, which leads to him backing himself into a corner when his interlocutor presses him"), this wouldn't actually work as a response to the hypothetical for the purposes of the debate. Peterson isn't just being pressed on his moral views but on his definition of the word "believe." But it's straightforwardly the case that people who lied to protect Jews in their attic or escaped slaves in the Underground Railroad still believed that they were harboring Jews or slaves in their homes, and yet they did not want to defend this belief at all (since they didn't want anyone else to believe it), let alone die to defend it. It's completely irrelevant to Peterson's definition whether these people had to commit some other sin beforehand to get there. His definition did not include a clause that says, "If you've never sinned, 'believe' means this, but otherwise it means something else." (And even if it did have such a clause, it *still* wouldn't work because definitions must apply in all circumstances, not just all circumstances in which God prevents moral exemplars from having to lie).
If there was a God though, of course it would matter.
Being philosophy focused - have you ever considered the morale implications for you having a subscription based service? Like, how many people are you capitalizing off of who are not organized enough to know exactly what is going on with their money? If one assumes that free will does not exist, you are potentially benefitting from many this way. Personally, I would not feel good about that. To each their own.
I have been charged $60 for a subscription to your blog. I thought I had cancelled it long ago. Subscription services are so predatory.