Jordan Peterson: What is Morality and What Reality?

What is morality? What is reality? How does science relate to religion and how should we think about the concept of truth? Psychologist Jordan Peterson from the University of Toronto talks about morality, meaning, and the bible. Furthermore, he introduces the concept of phenomenology and compares it to scientific thinking.

#Peterson #morality

---
If you like the content, subscribe!

[missymiller]

Whenever I’m in a moral dilemma I look up Jordan Peterson talking about it and it’s like he’s speaking to me. Thank you for your words !

[gcarlson]

Where are you J.P.? We all miss you ... more than ever. Please get well...

[deoanh]

When the people who eat meat but do not want to kill the animals themselves. It is the most important moral question... The consumers always go on the moral high grow because they did not kill the animals. So the sin fall on the hunters as a default..This is what people think

[ellias]

"Whilst REALITY accordance of senses to what we grasp, MORALITY is actions > words, at least by As-Syaf.";

[dmitrysamoilov]

Morality is about social boundaries. Social boundaries exist because people had ideas about how to strengthen their social group against enemy social groups. That’s the subjective part. The truce both within and between social groups. Then there’s the other part, the objective part. If you eat sugar your teeth will fall out. If you lie, people won’t trust you. If you give guns to kids, there will be a lot of school shootings. And then there’s the third part: people with different values find it difficult to work together and they find it easy to fight and emotionally harm each other. You have 3 choices: fight, segregate, or be uncomfortable. Fighting will lead to death. Segregation will lead to poverty. And discomfort will lead to the loss of your values. K, now. Go live your life.

[monkeymanwasd]

about the field bit there are optimum paths through a field depending on your goals... im half joking

[Mev]

Cool, now all it's left to do is to memorise this verbatim and my life will be alright

[quakers]

I never know what to make out of Peterson. This whole lecture seems to be some kind of stream of consciousness. I would be hard pressed to try to summarize it. We experience the world through our senses past experiences and a brain and body that reacts to these things in emotional ways that we are wired for evolutionarily. Glad to hear that the Bible is useful fiction. I guess he gets that from Jung. He is right about science too. It is always two steps forward, one step back. While I do see him as a man with the main aim of fixing things in front of him that need fixing I wish he would stay with the areas he knows best, what he was trained for, where he spent years working. He seems to think he is a renaissance man. With an IQ of 150, his words, I can see the temptation. When he gets into geopolitics, economics, government and starts on his liberal conspiracy theories.... As he just asked is he creating tools to help someone ? Just my opinion.

[domesday]

in my opinion he's not talking about morality here, but shadow integration and intuition. Those interact with morality but I believe they specifically are exclusive from morality. That conflation causes a couple faults in his reasoning: A person can be in conflict with their own morality (it's not just what you act out) This is because cognitive dissonance is a reality caused by the unconscious. That is a very important detail because some people need to reassess whether they have strayed from their own morality and if a course correction is needed.
the other flaw is that morality in and of itself has no goal to the same extent that logic does not have a goal. Morality serves as a feedback mechanism for our own judgements. Morality assigns value as a form of judgement to tune the "volume" of different ideas and ethics for the sake of harmony.

[jascam]

A society evolve so does the values it hold, changes are inevitable. Its imperative that the Bible, Constitution, UN Security Council (Permanent) and the most basic of laws also evolve or change with the times to accommodate humanity's push forward.

[lamalamalex]

there is a group, who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still: the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest—who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements—who shrug off professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.”—The Virtue of Selfishness.

[johnrainsman]

I learned a valuable lesson about right and wrong: they aren't always split between good and bad. You can be right and still a jerk and you can be wrong and still deserve respect. I mishandled a worker's mistakes. I thought I was right and he was wrong. I mean, I was right in some ways, but I didn't handle his mistakes right. I didn't know this until after he willingly protected me. See, in downtown, I was conf ronted by a man with a pistoI. Thankfully, it turned out it was unIoaded; the guy was mistaken. But _before_ we knew this, the worker pushed me out of the way when the man was ready to fire. Once we discovered the thing was unloaded, the worker went after the guy and screamed he would never let him harm me. The beast was arres ted. I feel really bad. I was kind of insensitive to the worker, and yet he was willing to take a buIIet for me. I want to apologize to him. Someone can screw up morally, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve delicacy when you address the issue, you know what I mean? One day your cheating partner might save your life, to illustrate.

[benseal]

I think it's time to listen to maps of meaning again for the 101th time. :) ty PI

[junevandermark]

When I believed in the existence of a god, I believed that a god wanted me to be "moral." Now that I'm an Atheist, the words moral and ethical have become almost meaningless, because the fact is, I don't know how I would behave if I was starving to death, or angry because my family were all killed by a mob that hated me for the color of my skin, or if someone comes to my home and wants to harm my family. I could then "be" the murderer. Catholics and Protestants probably thought they were moral when they killed each other as being heretics.

It goes beyond the man created word "moral" ... to situations.

[georger]

The world‘s best sociologist is one who isn‘t one.

[malleyosiris]

The moral thing we superimpose is "what to do with what is" given a goal.

I fully agree.

Why then is morality not relative? Peterson has described relative morality as a "lie." Why is it not, as Matt Dillahunty says, the best "move" to make in the "chess game" of life? There are objectively better and worse ways to walk through that field IF "better and worse" are measured relative to a particular goal (getting through it the fastest way, or not tripping in a gopher hole, or not getting ticks or snake bites, etc). Absent the goal there is no framework to overlay. The first bit of this - before he gets on to phenomenology - sounds like a great argument for relative morality, but he doesn't believe in that. Why?

[bitofwizdomb]

Morality is doing what’s right regardless what you are told . Rigid, dogmatic religious indoctrination is doing what you’re told regardless if it’s right

[DFahey-ouyc]

He mas so much better at delivery when he was high on XANAX

[somethingyousaid]

I worry more about my mortality than I do my morality. But that's just me.

[Zzz-izjk]

Morality "for me"? I like Peterson, but his expertise clearly doesn't extend into ethics, epistemology, or ontology. Ethics is prescriptive, but Peterson seems to believe it's merely descriptive and pragmatic, which, upon analysis, reduces them to useful fictions that impose no obligatory duty on anyone.