Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[bennyboy]

You can insert the dominant demographic in any situation, and put the word "privilege" after it.

No shit, but this doesn't address what makes privileged groups "dominant" in the first place.

It's because they succeed in conflict.

But on what basis should those in power be expected not to act on it? If there really IS white privilege, why shouldn't every white person say, "Wow man. Thank God I was born white, my life is fantastic!"

Because it makes one a shit person to only think about oneself, and fuck the sufferings of others. Plus, the world would be heaps better when everyone is happy and living a productive life, and all are treated with basic dignity and respect (not just a select few).

Hmmmm. . . let's hold that thought for a second.

That's the part in all this discussion that nobody has ever brought up-- if it IS white oppression, and if black people can't or won't challenge that oppression, then what of it?

Black people have been doing this for quite a while now. Where have you been, man?

No, they haven't.  Marching in parades isn't the kind of conflict that we're talking about.

Is there something intrinsically wrong with taking advantage of favorable circumstances, or in preventing others from turning the tables?

Of course. Why would you want to make it difficult for others to enjoy some success in life?

Because there's limited pie.  Are you saying that I have an obligation to share what I have with those who have less than I do? Should I be willing to take a reduction in my quality of life for those who are worse off than I am? Who am I to bring under the umbrella of my magnanimity? Are people I dislike included? How about other species?

The comparison made is that competition for resources is so fundamental  to the process of evolution that it is found among lobsters-- a particularly ancient species.

What's the point? No one is asking for every single human being on this planet to spread their genes around. It's about making sure all people are treated equally in society. Or, if not equally, fairly.

It's not all about what you say it's all about.  It's all about genetic fitness.  The rest, including all moral ideas, are cognitive attempts to mediate between the environment and our instincts.

I'm pretty sure lobsters don't have much of a brain, if any ...

Plus, even if they did, you do realize the same neurotransmitters can cause different bodily/behavioral changes depending on the type of receptors being acted upon, right? And between lobsters and human beings, there's a world of difference in terms of neuronal structure and functioning, so that the effects of such chemicals as serotonin are not going to be the same in lobsters as they are in human bodies.

The mechanism isn't the point.  It's the ubquity of dominance hierarchies.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but let's be accurate here. Humans are of course animals, but it's not like their brains are purely "reptilian". We are advanced primates with a highly complex nervous system that cannot be dismissed so easily as just a tool to act like vicious beasts. We have evolved to a point that we can really think about the things we do, and we can (and should) do better as a result.

Individually, we can.  As a species, probably not.  We've had thousands of years to come up with superior moral ideas and put them into effect.  Why, then, don't we live in a perfect world?  It's because our more primitive instincts are able to take hold of our conscious processing power.