Returning to my journey through Jordan Peterson’s videos, I offer several paraphrased tidbits. I believe most, if not all of these come from his series entitled “Professor against Political Correctness,” but I won’t swear on it.
You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.” You cannot derive ethical guidelines from factual knowledge. The reason is that there are an infinite number of facts from which to choose, so which facts are you going to pick? Merely by attending to some and not another you are already using an ethic.
When I hear this from Peterson, why do I think of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics?
Hoppe states that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian ethics. Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument.
When two parties are in conflict, they can choose one of two means to resolve this conflict:
Engaging in violence, or engaging in honest argumentation.
Choosing violence to resolve conflict does not strike me as something sustainable for human life on earth (have I just made a value statement, I wonder?). If they choose argumentation, they inherently reject violence as the means for resolving conflict – hence coming to the non-aggression principle.
Ok, I have taken this one about as far as I am able (probably even beyond this); your thoughts are more than welcome on this.
The Value of a Value System
No value system, no positive emotion. The post-modernists complain about a value system, because it includes some people (winners), and excludes other people (losers). So they flatten the value system, so there will be no losers.
When you flatten the value system, you don’t get rid of suffering. When you flatten out value systems you still have the losers; you merely get rid of the winners.
We see the radical left’s attempts and successes at destroying all value systems. But I will focus elsewhere.
Regarding the non-aggression principle: can this be considered a “value system”? Is there some positive emotion that comes from the absence of the initiation of aggression? Perhaps yes, if one were living in Central Europe at pretty much any time between 1914 and 1991.
But even in this case, it still seems to me that non-aggression results in the absence of a negative emotion; this doesn’t strike me as the same thing as a positive emotion. Is there meaningful “life” in this, a life where all we have is the absence of negative emotion?
Does one even require “positive emotion” in life? Who says this is of value?