[3] Some mixture. Morality doesn’t have to be one thing, or achieved in one way.
Sure this is a valid hypothesis. But my assessment and the individual points I offered above can be applied to this possibility as well uncovering the same issues with it.
In particular, novel technologies and social situations provoke novel moral quandaries that intuition is not well equipped to handle , and where people debate such things, they tend to use a broadly rationalist style, trying to find common principles, noting undesirable consequences.
Novel situations can be seen through the lens of certain stories because they are acting to such a level of abstraction that they are applicable to all human situations. The most universal and permanent levels of abstraction are considered archetypal. These would apply equally to a human living in a cave thousands of years ago and a Wall Street lawyer. Of course it is also true that the stories always need to be revisited to avoid their dissolution into dogma as the environment changes. Interestingly it turns out that there are stories that recognize this need for ‘revisiting’ and deal with the strategies and pitfalls of the process.
Your comment seems to me an indication that you don’t understand what I am talking about. It is a complex subject and in order to formulate a coherent rational argument you will need to study it in some depth.
Cool. Peterson is much clearer than Jung (for which I don’t have a clear opinion). I am not claiming that everything that Peterson says is correct and I agree with. I am pointing to his argument for the basis of morality in cultural transmission through imitation, rituals, myth, stories etc. and the grounding of these structures in the evolutionary process as the best rational explanation of morality I have come across. I have studied it in depth and I believe it to be correct. I am inviting engagement with the argument instead of biased rejection.
I am pointing to his argument on our [communication] of moral values as cultural transmission through imitation, rituals, myth, stories etc. and the [indication of their correspondence with actual characteristics of reality] due to their development through the evolutionary process as the best rational explanation of morality I have come across.
And you should care because… you care about truth and also because, if true, you can put some attention to the wisdom traditions and their systems of knowledge.
The second set of brackets may be the disconnect. If “their” refers to moral values, that seems like a category error. If it refers to stories etc, that still seems like a tough sell. Nothing I see about Peterson or his work looks encouraging.
Rather than looking for value you can salvage from his work, or an ‘interpretation consistent with modern science,’ please imagine that you never liked his approach and ask why you should look at this viewpoint on morality in particular rather than any of the other viewpoints you could examine. Assume you don’t have time for all of them.
If that still doesn’t help you see where I’m coming from, consider that reality is constantly changing and “the evolutionary process” usually happened in environments which no longer exist.
If “their” refers to moral values, that seems like a category error. If it refers to stories etc, that still seems like a tough sell.
Could you explain in a bit more detail please?
Rather than looking for value you can salvage from his work, or an ‘interpretation consistent with modern science,’ please imagine that you never liked his approach and ask why you should look at this viewpoint on morality in particular rather than any of the other viewpoints you could examine. Assume you don’t have time for all of them.
No I do see where you are coming from and I don’t blame you at all. But do see that you are not addressing the actual argument, in its proper depth. My problem becomes one of convincing you to give your attention to it. Even then it would be difficult to accept an approach that is based on a kind of lateral thinking that requires you to be exposed to multiple patterns before they connect. It is a big problem that I alluded to when I wrote my post Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence. Peterson is trying to create a rational bridge towards the importance of narrative structures so that they are approached with seriousness.
If that still doesn’t help you see where I’m coming from, consider that reality is constantly changing and “the evolutionary process” usually happened in environments which no longer exist.
This is addressed. The most archetypal stories are universal at all times and places. Other ones are modified according to time, place and people. Even the process and need of modification is encoded inside the stories themselves. These are extremely sophisticated systems.
Sure this is a valid hypothesis. But my assessment and the individual points I offered above can be applied to this possibility as well uncovering the same issues with it.
Novel situations can be seen through the lens of certain stories because they are acting to such a level of abstraction that they are applicable to all human situations. The most universal and permanent levels of abstraction are considered archetypal. These would apply equally to a human living in a cave thousands of years ago and a Wall Street lawyer. Of course it is also true that the stories always need to be revisited to avoid their dissolution into dogma as the environment changes. Interestingly it turns out that there are stories that recognize this need for ‘revisiting’ and deal with the strategies and pitfalls of the process.
That amounts to “I can make my theory work if I keep on adding epicycles”.
Your comment seems to me an indication that you don’t understand what I am talking about. It is a complex subject and in order to formulate a coherent rational argument you will need to study it in some depth.
I am not familiar with Peterson specifically, but I recognise the underpinning in terms of Jung, monomyth theory, and so on.
Cool. Peterson is much clearer than Jung (for which I don’t have a clear opinion). I am not claiming that everything that Peterson says is correct and I agree with. I am pointing to his argument for the basis of morality in cultural transmission through imitation, rituals, myth, stories etc. and the grounding of these structures in the evolutionary process as the best rational explanation of morality I have come across. I have studied it in depth and I believe it to be correct. I am inviting engagement with the argument instead of biased rejection.
Without using terms such as “grounding” or “basis,” what are you saying and why should I care?
Good idea, let me try that.
I am pointing to his argument on our [communication] of moral values as cultural transmission through imitation, rituals, myth, stories etc. and the [indication of their correspondence with actual characteristics of reality] due to their development through the evolutionary process as the best rational explanation of morality I have come across.
And you should care because… you care about truth and also because, if true, you can put some attention to the wisdom traditions and their systems of knowledge.
The second set of brackets may be the disconnect. If “their” refers to moral values, that seems like a category error. If it refers to stories etc, that still seems like a tough sell. Nothing I see about Peterson or his work looks encouraging.
Rather than looking for value you can salvage from his work, or an ‘interpretation consistent with modern science,’ please imagine that you never liked his approach and ask why you should look at this viewpoint on morality in particular rather than any of the other viewpoints you could examine. Assume you don’t have time for all of them.
If that still doesn’t help you see where I’m coming from, consider that reality is constantly changing and “the evolutionary process” usually happened in environments which no longer exist.
Could you explain in a bit more detail please?
No I do see where you are coming from and I don’t blame you at all. But do see that you are not addressing the actual argument, in its proper depth. My problem becomes one of convincing you to give your attention to it. Even then it would be difficult to accept an approach that is based on a kind of lateral thinking that requires you to be exposed to multiple patterns before they connect. It is a big problem that I alluded to when I wrote my post Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence. Peterson is trying to create a rational bridge towards the importance of narrative structures so that they are approached with seriousness.
This is addressed. The most archetypal stories are universal at all times and places. Other ones are modified according to time, place and people. Even the process and need of modification is encoded inside the stories themselves. These are extremely sophisticated systems.