All Episodes
Previous Next
June 6, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
04:33
Jordan Peterson on Morality
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
So we know that at some level, early in our evolutionary history, we actually developed altruism.
Altruism is doing things for others at no benefit or negative or at loss to yourself.
Altruism is helping others at no benefit or at a loss to yourself.
Now, why is that morality?
It can't be universalized.
The concept of sacrifice cannot be universalized.
If I say, well, it's moral, For me to give you $100, it's moral for me to give you $100, and I don't even like you or your cause, right?
So I'm sacrificing myself and my money to give you $100.
Well, it's asymmetrical, right?
Because if it's moral to give $100 to add a negative for you and we dislike each other, then I should give you $100, you should give me the $100, I give you the $100, you give me the $100, and it can't be universalized.
It's asymmetrical.
Asymmetrical.
Morals are always a prequel or a manifestation of exploitation, right?
There's just people telling you, well, you have to give stuff to me even if you don't like me because that's virtue.
It's just a way of getting things for free.
So, yeah, it's not virtue.
We have examples of chimpanzees who actually have a basic understanding of fairness, right?
If you give a chimpanzee two grapes, right, and his buddy gets three, right?
He actually freaked out, right?
But you give both chimps three grapes and they're good.
We have examples of parrots.
Except for the greedy chimps.
Right.
So, I don't know.
How is that morality?
That if you do things that are unequal, chimpanzees get angry.
And again, Jordan Peterson is saying you cannot get an ought from an is.
You cannot get morality out of science.
And then for Brian here to say, ah, yes, but chimpanzees, and he was going to come up with something to do with parrots, and these aren't morals.
These are just instincts that are beneficial to the tribe.
Sharing equally.
produces less conflict, so the chimps don't tear each other apart for inequality, right?
I mean, if you've ever Ugh.
They want four graves.
They want four graves.
You know, those do exist, right?
But we have similar examples where we do animal tests, right?
And so, the greedy chimps, right?
So this is Jordan Peterson's point, is that, yes, you can say that there are these tendencies, but there are also the, quote, sociopathic Neanderthals or greedy chimps or whatever, the people who just want more and more and more, which means it's not a universal instinct.
So morality is intrinsic?
So it precedes science?
So he's saying morality is intrinsic, which means it can't be morals, it's just an Right?
That's like saying, you know what, man, chimps can catch a ball you throw, therefore chimps are physicists.
It's like, no, you've got to understand the abstractions, not just manifest the behaviors.
actually a better way to define it would be that social animals, which we are, right?
Require some level of morality or...
Do not disagree.
Why did they require Why?
Why do we need that?
Human societies, all human societies, past, present, and hopefully not in the distant future, all societies run on asymmetrical false morality and predatory coercive exploitation.
All!
All of them!
No exceptions!
No exceptions.
That is how societies work.
Well, you see, we need a certain level of ethics in society because we're social animals.
It's like, okay, then why the living fuck are American children, to take one example out of many, why are American children born over a million dollars in debt?
Because we need a whole system of morality.
Why is it that the government can just declare a war, take your money, use it to provoke people overseas, and then you have to deal with the blowback and you have to be drafted to deal with the war?
How is that moral?
You know, you work for 50 years, and then the government prints 40% of the money over the last couple of years and inflates away 20 of your 50 years.
▲
Export Selection