in a World where there is no right or wrong...

[Deleted]

In my tagline, I’ve included a quote from Dr. Jordan B. Peterson that contains the title words of this thread.

Peterson often emphasizes that he doesn’t lie. So, is this statement a lie, the truth, or something in between? The line in question is: “in a world where there is no right or wrong…”

Full Quote: “Intolerance of others’ views (no matter how ignorant or incoherent they may be) is not simply wrong; in a world where there is no right or wrong, it is worse: it is a sign you are embarrassingly unsophisticated or, possibly, dangerous.” — Jordan B. Peterson

 

[Jon]

Does that include my Voting is futile argument?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Does that include my Voting is futile argument?

Only if you listen to vogon poetry...

 

[Galaxiom]

A lie is a lie and liars are running the world because the stupid are too gullible.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Only if you listen to vogon poetry...

Actually I think I'm getting a bit confused between vogon and borg...

 

[Jon]

"in a World where there is no right or wrong..."

Is that statement neither right nor wrong?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Is that statement neither right nor wrong?

I'm right and you're wrong. Now is that a true statement?

 

[Jon]

You need to ask my English teacher because my brain has gone into meltdown.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Peterson and I would have to argue on that statement, since perpetuation of wrong ideas is how the Holocaust happened. It is how Russian pogroms happened. It is how Kosovo happened. It is how the American "Trail of Tears" happened. It is how the American Civil War happened. It is what happened in the Spanish Inquisition. The Rev. Jim Jones in Guyana had a kool-aid party (grape with a touch of cyanide) over his wrong ideas. David Koresh in Waco, Texas had some wrong ideas, too.

All it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand by and do nothing. His premise "In a world there is no right or wrong" does not apply to this world. His statement requires a world not only without right or wrong, but also a world without consequences. I just named a long list of consequences as counter-examples.

The best premise is any form of the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The atheist version of that is simple: Do no needless harm. Either one tells you or allows you to help others who are being bullied, oppressed, mistreated. If you see something, say something. But don't tolerate openly expressed hatred.

 

[Jon]

It is taking a position on one side of the philosophical argument: relativism vs objectivism. Is there objective truth or just relative positions.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There does not need to be an objective truth (e.g., God or Allah - or, for that matter, Zeus) in order for us to know that killing and bullying and cheating people are wrongful activities. With or without God, doing unneeded harm to another is just wrong. There is always the simple question: Would I want event X to happen to me? If the answer is NO and the event in question isn't some form of legal punishment (the word "unneeded" kicks in here), then don't stand by and let that happen to another person.

 

[Jon]

How about the DNA argument that the weak get cut out of the gene pool and that furthers the prospects for the human race? Those species that survived over all this time were self-selecting for the strong. Our genes pull us towards those who appear attractive to us, and these attractive people are healthier, stronger and more popular. Just throwing that out there. And thus, bullying the weak is a good thing.

Sounds a bit Nazi like!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But bullying the weak or disabled would have killed Stephen Hawking and several "nerd" types. Like Bill Gates, the ultimate nerd.

There is a difference between discipline of a miscreant and bullying for the sake of getting your rocks off due to dominance orgasms. When some punk does something stupid such that s/he earns a Darwin award, I am saddened by the death but usually, once I read the detailed circumstances, I am not surprised. Other than being surprised that someone could be SO stupid...

Like the guy who goes into a gun store to rob it despite there being not one but TWO marked police cruisers parked in front and despite it being a "concealed carry" state. In a gun store, you might guess half the patrons would be carrying. So the guy goes in and fires one shot into the ceiling to announce "this is a stick up, give me your money." He gets shot by two cops, the store owner, the owner's assistant, and two other persons with legal concealed carry permits. The perp earns a Darwin award on the spot. Happened in Texas, USA. No surprises in the outcome. The coroner probably didn't have too much trouble regarding cause of death... "carrying a gun while stupid."

 

[Steve R.]

How about the DNA argument that the weak get cut out of the gene pool and that furthers the prospects for the human race?

Natural selection is "dead". Foremost, eugenics is now considered abhorrent so there won't be any reasonable public debate on the topic.

Next, we have medical abilities today that keep people alive who would have otherwise died. So their genes remain in the gene pool to be passed onto the next generation. Along those lines, some surmise that we are increasingly living in a "sterile" world that curtails the human body's ability to develop antibodies. There is some speculation that the lack of routine exposure to certain substances (while children) can lead to some "allergies" or even greater susceptibility to disease. Instead of "exposing" people to an "unhealthy" environment, the trend is to develop a medical "fix". Now - having said that, medical intervention is necessary at times. Nevertheless, the medical profession still most consider draconian measures regarding when to intervene medically. (The administration of antibiotics, as some bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics because of over prescription.)

 

[gemma-the-husky]

I don't very often venture to the water cooler...

I thought I would, and this was the first thread, and very interesting too.

However, I have argued on a few occasions that there are no "rights" (as in "human rights") - merely accepted conventions, or mores. For instance, an unwinnable argument is to get into a discussion about a "woman's right to choose". It isn't a right, but in the west, for the present, it's pretty well an accepted convention. It may change in a few hundred years. Who knows.

If Jordan Petersen does not lie, then he is consistent, which is probably a god thing, even if we disagree with him.

With regard to voting - in the vast majority of cases, the individual vote carries no weight. I presume that's what Jon is getting at. It's just that overall, enough voters do follow a sort of "herd" instinct to effect change. How else does an exit poll of a handful of voters produce the lection result. Instead of everyone voting, you may as well have a small panel of voters for each election. 2000 should be enough.

 

[Jon]

Natural selection is "dead".

I would say that natural selection will always be here. We have genes that determine how we think, what proclivities we have. Some people are born healthier than others, whatever medical intervention we give. We have social constructs that frame biological realities.

Remember that modern medicine is only very recent. In the scheme of things, the last 100 years is tiny. We are where we are today because more of the weak died and more of the strong survived. I am not sure that is in dispute, is it?

You could say that Nature is eugenics. That is what happens amongst animals.

 

[Jon]

With regard to voting - in the vast majority of cases, the individual vote carries no weight. I presume that's what Jon is getting at. It's just that overall, enough voters do follow a sort of "herd" instinct to effect change. How else does an exit poll of a handful of voters produce the lection result. Instead of everyone voting, you may as well have a small panel of voters for each election. 2000 should be enough.

I will do a thread on it sometime, so the perspective can be fleshed out. I can guarantee emotional responses. People have very strong views on the topic. I am just talking about mathematics. People try to argue with me on the maths of it. When that doesn't work, they go to the ethics. But that doesn't work either. Then we go into irrationality mode. No one is prepared to see reality.

Edit: Just started the thread. People normally like to abuse me when discussing this topic. That just tells me they have lost the argument.

Here it is: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/voting-is-pointless.309969/#post-1674551

 

[Steve R.]

Remember that modern medicine is only very recent. In the scheme of things, the last 100 years is tiny. We are where we are today because more of the weak died and more of the strong survived. I am not sure that is in dispute, is it?

Modern medicine has improved our quality of life. But it has also allowed the "weak" to pass on their "bad" genes. In a sense, we may be living in a "sweet spot" were the "bad" genes have not yet had a significant adverse impact on human health. Time will tell.

Take a look at the increase of diabetes and peanut allergies in the US overtime. How much of these increases can be directly attributed to genetics as opposed to other factors (such as eating foods we shouldn't), I don't know. The observed increases could simply be a reflection of better medical testing/reporting. Nevertheless, the degree of impact of "bad" genes needs to investigated.

Then there are direct genetic based diseases, such as Hemophilia (Queen Victoria as a carrier), which can be passed down to the next generation provided that the parents survive, which they can now through better medical treatment.

 

[Jon]

Modern medicine has improved our quality of life. But it has also allowed the "weak" to pass on their "bad" genes. In a sense, we may be living in a "sweet spot" were the "bad" genes have not yet had a significant adverse impact on human health. Time will tell.

I agree with much of what you say here. Remember that in the past, people could still pass on their weak genes. It was just that less weak genes got passed on than strong. I think the same happens nowadays too. Actually, scrub that. It's probably the reverse. According to the stats, if you are poor or less intelligent, you are more likely to have more children. Don't kill the messenger! So perhaps indeed nowadays, the situation is reversed. The weak pass on more genes and the strong less. Yikes! What is the likely effect of that?

Perhaps eugenics will make a return as being the ethical choice in the future, should the human race go down the genetic plughole. What do you think?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I almost feel disqualified to step into the eugenics argument since for better or worse, I have not passed down any genes. As a younger man, I had enough responsibility to verify that I was not leaving anyone behind. My dear wife and I never had kids because of medical reasons so no genetic pass-down there, either. At my age, it is highly unlikely that I ever will father a child, directly or through donation.

Therefore, anything I say here is arm-chair philosophizing.