HOLY

I'm back.

I even checked to see if Debute was a word before I made my first post with the windows 7 stock art koala.

I accept my typographical error, but if you use a dictionary you'll find the word debute, my friend.

I meant refute, by the way.

>6 month old conservative infants already capable of complex moral judgments
>20~ year old progressive infants only capable of simplistic moral judgments on Twitter

LIBERALS

BTFO
T
F
O

does anyone describe themselves as a "postmodernist"?

>not being a kaballistic androgyne eurynomid

My black, female sociology professor did during my freshmen year.

Go back there

>debute
debut is in my dictionary, with debuted and debuts, but no debute

This seems to be a Strawman.

Wait, is he arguing that 6 month old babies are acting upon objective morality?

Isn't this antithetical to the very behaviouristic model he has been pushing? How would you even begin to prove that a baby is making objective moral decisions as opposed to taught, subjective ones? Complexity is entirely a human conceptualisation and is dependent upon a given context.

This guy seems to be arguing not only against a strawman but against himself. He derides post-modernists for deriving their positions from an ideology yet he himself is acting upon this archetypal framework he has created.

What a hack.

>buzzwords buzzwords buzzwords buzzwords

What did he mean by this? Does he think babies are capable of abstract thought? Or that decisions made without abstract thought, based purely on instinct/whim count as moral judgements? And are objectively correct because they're made by babies?

FUCC

Where?

he meant reddit because hes a fag

Just checked out his twitter to find a link. Holy fuck, this guy is a living meme. Also seems to be on twitter 24/7 based on the amount of tweets I had to scroll through just to go back two days.

no, this is the power of stem

kant you just think critically for once?

it's so easy to seem super revolutionary when articulating yourself against a non-existent "movement" that you describe as pretending to be revolutionary while actually being conservative, while in reality all you're doing is projectively describing your own stupid jungianism

>that roundness
>that glaucous surface with breaks showing the darker skin, inexhaustible midnight blue
>geometric perfection of the berry contrasting with the prickles of the stem

How the fuck is nature so aesthetic, I can't even stand it.

right, dat artistic blueprint

So perfect it must have been designed.

:^)

could* have been designed. read the 3rd critique

What do you mean?
The categorical imperative has little to do with genuine ethics. It's about willing consistently within the Kantian metaphysical framework.

i don't give a shit if he's right or wrong, i like his personality. he's fun

lol

Rarely is being awoken by a deafening din a fortuitous event. One has never awoken to one such sound and heard "your mother has made pancakes" or "we have resolved to adopt a golden retriever".

fug, this was meant for the "worst opening line" thread as a joke

laugh at me

Haha, hoho.
Now be gone.

>he posted in the wrong thread

YOU RUINED MY BROWSING

Now 6 month olds are virtue signalling

>cites a single study, in psychology of all fields
>"haha, checkmate people who disagree with me"
lol

Yeah, the metaphysics of MORALS.

Check out this gem.

Meme indeed. I watched a few of his lecture videos to see what he was about and now my youtube recommended section has a bunch of red pill, mgtow, 'dumb CUNT feminist DESTROYED!' type videos. Too many red flags on this ol' boy.

>Yeah, the metaphysics of MORALS.
I was mainly referring to the phenomenal/noumenal distinction & noumenal free will vs phenomenal determinism. Of his works on ethics, I've only read the Groundworks and as far as I'm concerned he fails completely in laying the foundations for genuine morality. It's only consistency of willing within his ontology/metaphysics. He doesn't even give legitimate reasons for consistency, only that we humans like to follow duty. Which, even if it woud be true, is trival, because he only asserts this on a posteriori grounds. Even if we would assume his framework is correct, it's 'merely' descriptive - if anything at all.
Am I missing out on some aspect of his ethics?

Not an argument.

Peterson looks like a shrivelled Steven Pinker

Nah dont associate Peterson with some people who have opted to adopt him as another mascot of theirs or whatever.

Come on now

>don't associate figure with the overwhelming audience of said figure

What did he mean by this?

Peterson doesn't agree with everything the alt-right spouts. They're just rightly sick of pc culture, SJW nonsense, etc. The stupid aspects of the movement don't matter

If you guys read psychology once in a while you would know this is basic knowledge

holy shit

I thought rats show complex moral behaviour too

yea

Post-modernists are bacteria.

>I won't read the paper he is referencing but I still want to call him a hack
HAHA TAKE THAT PETERSON

They do. Wolves and chimps also.
It just depends how you define morality to see that this is completely obvious. But it takes a commie academic professors to argue that it is socially constructed.

What on earth does he mean with "complex moral behaviour"?

This is a good molymeme video, but only because he barely says anything

Well said, friend

Read the paper he linked and find out

>This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action, and its early developmental emergence supports the view that social evaluation is a biological adaptation.
So fucking what? Peterson's comment is just a huge non sequitur and shows a poor understanding of ethics

>social evaluation isn't a complex moral judgement

Still having faith in scientific realism in 2017

The age of god is upon us. Atheists eternally BTFO.

this, couldnt be more excited
>implying we aren't eternally in the age of God

Yeah, so what? That doesn't even come close to disproving relativist. Every stupid evaluative thought is technically a moral judgement. The point is that nothing ethical follows from this.

I lose respect for anyone who uses Twitter.
But he does it for money/fame, so it's ok.

If babies are able to make complex moral judgment without being taught to do so (just like they are afraid of heights), it really isn't obvious that "morality" is subjective.
Moreover, if you frame morality as the rules of the game of Life, you can make the evolutionary argument that those rules have been learned throughout the ages.

Now is morality the same as ethics. Tough question. Is it completely dissociated? Most likely not.

Arguing relativism without considering the fact that moral behaviors seem to be coming in some way from biology (evolutionary forces to be more precise) is not reasonable.

Get to work, Veeky Forums.

>If babies are able to make complex moral judgment without being taught to do so (just like they are afraid of heights), it really isn't obvious that "morality" is subjective.
Where babies get their moral judgment from, isn't helpfull for grounding morality.
>Moreover, if you frame morality as the rules of the game of Life, you can make the evolutionary argument that those rules have been learned throughout the ages.
Nothing ethical follows from this. No principles for ought propositions.
>Now is morality the same as ethics.
NO! They mean something completely different. Morality are evaluative propositions and ethics is the systematical, critical study of these propositions and their principles.
>Arguing relativism without considering the fact that moral behaviors seem to be coming in some way from biology (evolutionary forces to be more precise) is not reasonable.
You can at best make a point against descriptive relativity - the observation that there are more takes on good & bad. You stand chanceless against relativism about moral principles, because there follows no legit moral principle from the biological observations. (I don't know what the corect translation for these kinds of relativism are in English, but I hope you get the point.)

>Watching some Kermit sounding Canadian fucker tell me to sort my life out caused me to stop being a piece of shit

Inspiring, truly. Do you think he also read Meditations by Aurelius and How to Win Friends and Influence People?

Do you think being ironic and cynical is helping you become a better person?

It's another "I'm incapable of responding to posts without quoting individual sentences because I'm an intellectual cripple" episode.

Now THATS how you sort yourself oot!

Say what you will, Peterson may have been the push he needed. Also it's so much more in-depth than self-help. Please.

Now go out and win the affections of the woman you love, sort yourself oot.

I don't see the problem? I find it to be an effective way of adressing all points made by the adresed.

Here's my response without " without quoting individual sentences because I'm an intellectual cripple".

Morality and ethics mean something completely different. Morality are evaluative propositions and ethics is the systematical, critical study of these propositions and their principles. I think your confusing the two and think that ethics can derive a moral principle on a posteriori grounds. On these grounds you can at best make a point against descriptive relativity - the observation that there are more takes on good & bad - but you stand chanceless against relativism about moral principle.

Better? Are you able to respond to the content instead of the form?

If wolves move in pack, that's morality. You may now argue that is is neither right, nor wrong. But that also means that the only wolves who survived were the ones moving in pack. The other wolves disappeared because of evolution.

That's what I mean by "you can't remove biology from morality". Considering ethics purely without biology is also a dead-end: sexuality and reproduction are, in a first approximation, the most important driving forces of the human condition, you can't simply dismiss them.

Yes that's much better. I'm not the person you're talking to.

By popular demand (), I'll answer your whole post in one blob.
Is there some kind of innuendo in the wolf pack example? Because, again, nothing follows from your example. When we're talking about morality in the sociological/anthropological perspective - when we're making descriptions of believes about prescriptive propositions - the biological origin is indeed to be considered. However, from the philosophical perspective the biological orgin of these believes is irrelevant. It has no effect on the (meta-)ethical questions about the nature and/or existence of universal prescriptive propositions.

Ethics can be seen as derived from sexual selection. That's the argument.

It's not a philosophical or scientific proposition, it's a pragmatic one.

Truth is what survives. The scientific method works similarly: only the ideas with the less amount of errors (the most accurate representation) survives.

Thus, if wolves move in pack, it's because every other way of behaving failed historically.

Then it is no surprises that biological organisms behave along some biologically learned behaviors.

I know that someone philosophically enclined will reject that but I can't see anyway around Darwinism.

>The scientific method works similarly: only the ideas with the less amount of errors (the most accurate representation) survives.
Less amount of known errors. Scientific theories can switch back a bit, similarly how a sin-cos loop operates.
Example would be tectonic theory and renaissance.

Thanks! This post helped me understand the essence of your position. I still have to disagree thought. Aren't you presupposing the universal Truth of the evolutionary process to formulate a definition of truth - being that which survives? What kind of truth would you call darwinism?

Boxes within boxes.
What is more true? What is objective and replicable or biological selection?
Science/philosophy needs individual to be conducted, but these individual are themselves the results of sexual selection.
Both are correct insofar as it doesn't violate the other.

I haven't gone much further than that. Most of these ideas comes from Peterson. Check his two discussions sith Dam Harris.

Evolution doesn't result in the outcome with the smallest amount of errors, just with something that randomly happened to work out or not, you tard.

The issue isn't whether his system of ethics isn't or isn't right, but rather that it succeeds as an attempt to ground morality within his metaphysical framework. It's still a genuine attempt at a framework regardless of it being right or wrong. And Kantian ethics are prescriptive insofar as he is attempting to parse out how one ought to act with respect to his allocation of maxims.

>it succeeds as an attempt
Kek. You're laying the bar really low there ;^) Ofcourse it's a genuine attempt. I don't think he succeeded thought, for the reasons I briefly presented in the post your responding to.
Is he really prescriptive thought? I think it's more accurate to say that he describes how we can genuinely will, but I'm not certain whether a real ought follows. He says that there are things we intuitively think we can will, but since they don't pass the KI, we can't genuinly will them. He 'merely' describes the nature of willing. It's all descriptive. Would you disagree?

Maybe I'll one day study this position more, but right now I'll use my time otherwise.

>telling people to sort themselves out

Muh luv of wisdom will dig me out.

Bacteria only in the sense we outnumber you, and will eventually take you down!

Your days are numbered, rationalist swine!

I refuse to believe that the/pol/ cult surrounding this guy isn't complex, high-level memery until it's proven otherwise.

>If babies are able to make complex moral judgment without being taught to do so (just like they are afraid of heights), it really isn't obvious that "morality" is subjective.
why is the "morality" of babies some sort of objective template that le bad evil men have strayed from

this is just more christian corruption of the world bullshit
babies are a completely different animal to a grown man, there's no reason why their moralities should be the same

Steven Pinker looks like a shriveled Steven Pinker

...

of course it is memery... how could it not be?

but it's a good meme

professors peterson never said the bottom, he definitely isn't a pacifist.

Everything Peterson says about postmodernism is guilty of the exact same disqualification based on association. Even worse, it's one of his fundamental points.

Not an argument.

>it's a psychologist tries philosophy and confuses moral psychology with moral realism thread

>it's an ideologist confuses the constructions of his mind with reality chapter

No I don't. If I had any interest in becoming a better person, I'd quit Veeky Forums as the first thing.

Please tell me how Peterson's Jungian self-help be-the-hero-of-your-own-story empowerment narrative is different from all other self-help shticks out there.