Why Jordan Peterson is Wrong About the Fundamental Basis of Science and the Ethics of Open Societies

Replace the root nature of the subjective concept of "good" with an evolutionary basis for treating others with respect and dignity allows us to progress without justification of rule by brute force

Preface: In my view, people in the US are entitled to worship or to not worship as they see fit. And I think that’s an important part of America. But I disagree with Jordan Peterson - and with Richard Dawkins - on the fundamental source of ethics in humans.

The Hoover Institution recently hosted a dialog with Jordan Peterson, who claimed that there was no justification for running our societies by democracy, and also that there could be no justification for Science seeking objective knowledge unless the universe was endowed with knowledge by a God. For Peterson, the rights of mankind stem ultimately from the transcendent - something greater than humanity.

From where I sit, that’s a very dangerous game to play at this particular time in history.

Jordan, and many others believe in God - on their own terms. I’m not making a semantic reference to his “belief” - at all, no not even a little. I won’t even debate his belief: the testability demarcation between Science and faith-based reasoning is clear; I say this in spite of the last two years of CDC and Fauci blurring the lines as hard as they can. Biologist Richard Dawkins attacked the belief in God with Science, often crudely and with abject, obvious hatred - something I’m also not willing to or have any desire to do. People can learn science and technology and hold their faith. He posed strawman after strawman, claiming that the teaching of worldviews that differ from atheistic evolutionary biology was tantamount to child abuse, disallowing the impasse faith-based explanation adopted by many well-known individuals who studied evolutionary biology and cosmology, which is, specifically, who can ever tell that if God created the Universe and mankind that evolution was not a means to an end?

This position does not require the claim that is directedness to the specific, desired outcome - anymore than a casino that sets up a roulette table determines specific outcomes of individual spins. In Evolution, we have a single spin - and in this Universe, iterative occurrences notwithstanding - in this, specific universe in which we exist, now, we are on one spin. The ultimate question of who built the roulette table and casino remains unanswered by Science. If Science were to try to test the hypothesis of intelligent design, the query would return without reply. The inability of Science to ever test the existence of God as a hypothesis is absolute and permanent; thus, my, and Dawkin’s, experience and positions in Science are irrelevant to the question.

Those who agree with Dawkins will no doubt misread my position as supporting the evidence of a deity. A careful read will show the obvious, in that as an evolutionary biologist, as a scientist, I should not dabble in the occult. The two don’t mix.

Now back to Peterson. My position is that Peterson’s understanding of Judeo-Christian or even any faith-based reasoning happens to align with an ethos that allows stability and progress in society based on stability, respect for human rights, and that he has confused the co-evolution of the evolution of the current Western ethos (very much under threat from those from the East) with the theism being the ultimate arbiter of “good”. He’s confused “co-emergence” with “causality”.

First, I’m not willing to accept his axiomatic position that non-believers are subject to manipulation by “any idea out there”, as he references them; nor do I agree that people without a religious foundation for their ethics are, as Peterson claims, morally “aimless” (that would mean that ethically upright agnostics and atheists cannot exist, which is patently false); nor do I accept that without a predicate for functional culture based on God one must necessarily agree that all ideas are equally correct and good. Normal (non-psychotic) individuals have a visceral reaction of disgust to many things that are not “good”.

Another point is that Sociology tells us that people who have never heard of the Judeo-Christian God can, in fact, act ethically, even if the ethos is compatible with their own local norms and mores.

My position is that the emergence of what Peterson and modern Christians with the same understanding of Christian ethos happen to share many of the same characteristics with the winning strategies of running societies wherein random acts of violence or not tolerated; bigotry is recognized as a canalizing process that can blind society to alternative viewpoints and interesting aspects of alternative cultures; the freedom of speech is not only tolerated but is considered an essential fundamental attribution of a free and open society… and many other traits by virtue of the fact that the alternatives - Nazism, Fascism, and Communism have all failed. Meanwhile, the current Western ethos and western religions (especially Jordan’s version) have built each other - sometimes with commensal relationships, sometimes with conflict - but the relationship has been dynamic and of course has involved numerous other parties and influences.

We cannot laud exclusively the Christian American, British, French and Russian soldiers who fought against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan in World War II. The Godless regime of the Soviet Union deserved credit for ending these other forms of totalitarianism. As the American Journal Helen Thomas quipped, “War makes strange bedfellows”. Even then, there were people of all walks of faith who fought in the last great war - and there were also agnostics and atheists. The ethos of the peoples of Western countries is, by and large socially reinforced by norms, mores, codes of ethics, and laws - all of which exist in nearly all societies, regardless of the role of religion or faith in the supernatural.

In World War II, most of the world united to eject from this planet the corrosive atrocities of the military regimes who adopted a view of self-destiny inconsistent with personal freedoms and liberties. They also happen to be non-deist, or to hold a non-specific reverence for nature. But they were not aspiritual. The transformation of Germany into a dictatorship occurred as the most obvious cult of personality in the history of mankind, and the Nazi regime hijacked all of the inner psychological workings of our propensity for religion.

To view why we have these propensities, Peterson should study evolutionary biology closely - specifically, the areas that evolutionary biologists dare not study because Hitler cited Darwin and the American eugenics movement as his inspiration. To avoid discussing the evolutionary aspects of our psychosocial biology is to abandon Science because a failed water-color artist got evolution wrong. Hitler’s position on Jews was subjective, and worse, political - politicized to the end of accessing their collective personal wealth to the end of winning acclaim among the starving Judeo-Christian German society. It was unscientific and cruel.

Peterson would do well to understand that in every act of kindness, and goodness, there is an intrinsic, built-in selfishness. It’s not a selfishness of which we are always consciously aware. But there is an evolutionary logic for individuals to be kind, even generous to an extent - to defend the rights of others, even at the risk of being ostracized by those playing in dark allies of neocommunism and post-modern subjectivism.

From the dawn of civilization, our ancestors evolved mostly in small tribes and villages - and the chance that neighbors were also related to us was high. Kin selection is an area of evolutionary biology in which it is understood that the survival or your kin increases your inclusive fitness - the survival of genetic variation that is unique to you and your relatives, relative to other families without the same genetic variation.

Fast-forward to modern society, and in a day we can move ourselves from our small town to another small town or village where we, as individuals, are foreign among people who have genetics that are different from ours.

So why would we ever think in the modern world that doing right - that is, being ethical in manner that excludes, for example, exploitation of others, when there is no benefit to ourselves in the long run?

Evolution renders traits that lead to survival of those who are most able to garner resources necessary for survival and reproduction. From the standpoint of evolutionary success, we’re all descended from the winners of competition over a history of 3.8 billion years of organic evolution on this planet. Each of us have inherited a slew of traits that cause us to live relatively efficiently.

With the advent of technology, and the cultural transmission of know-how, some have been at a relative advantage compared to others. And those with more technological prowess have historically oppressed others. Any empirically accurate definition of ethics must acknowledge that history is filled with conflicts between local ethics and global ethics. Psychologists have noted for years, for example, that when others are watching (or when subjects believe others are watching), people tend to behave in a manner closer to a model of global ethics. But in those studies, the people knew they were part of a study, so the general utility of the results is uncertain.

The selfish motive for ethical behavior is attached to the likelihood of a potential short-term return on investment. The return for ethical local behavior does not have to assured; it’s just the potential for short-term ROI. And the return need not be “in kind” or even commensurate with the investment of good-doing; there only needs to be the potential of ROI from those around you.

The first part of the math of ROI on “altruistic” behavior is that in a one-to-many relationship, individual do-gooders are the potential recipient of ROI from many. That immediately implies the potential for a greater ROI. But that math would predict that one should only act ethically when others can, or might, discover their ethical behavior. We know that people act based on their core principles (if they have them), and that their own personal sense of right vs. wrong is learned primarily by social reinforcement by those with whom they identify. Behaviors that fall too far outside the range of collective norms raise eyebrows, raise public ire, or raise outrage, all of which can lead to pressure for individuals to conform to the norm. Even people who study these processes and who are astutely aware of them practice normative behavior. For most, the perceived unknown cost of breaking the mold is too high however low: we all seek to be accepted socially, and the fear of the psychological burden of isolation and the fear of the pain of being rejected socially is an incredibly powerful social reinforcer.

This is where I strongly agree with Peterson, Yaron Brooks, and others who warn against the recent push for “equity” in all things for all people. They recommend sticking with “equal access to opportunity without bias” because “equity” requires an enforced redistribution of resources (wealth). They, and I bemoan the loss of the need for drive and initiative and problem-solving with the emergence of the ultimate arbiter of “fairness” - the nanny state. I’ll never hit a home run in a major league baseball game. Should I be entitled to the same resources and acclaim bestowed upon and with which we remember Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron or Willie Mays? Individual accomplishments inspire others and inform them of paths to success. When communist governments ensure equity, the minority in power defines “the excess”, hold “the excess” and eventually everyone gets nothing - because some have none, all get none. This is where Klaus Schwab (net worth $7M) comes in with the good news that you will own nothing and you will be happy.

The second part of the math on ROI on acting ethically without a spiritual basis is the distributed benefit aspect of good-doing. People often think they are an ethical unit unto themselves; they seem to forget about their personal interest in the well-being of others around them. A person in a social environment made of people who are well-adjusted, calm, rational, and who practice some degree of collective good-doing will have a more peaceful experience that those in a social environment made of people who are fearful, anxious, excited, irrational and selfish. Which social environment would YOU like to find yourself in? We tend not to think about this aspect of our own personal ethos in particular because we like to think of ourselves as a “good person” and we might even enjoy a well-earned ego boost for doing the right thing. Sometimes this is hijacked as “virtue signaling”, in which a person speaks as if they have done a right and good thing but in reality, it came at little or no personal effort or cost to themselves.

What we forget is that the good we do for our immediate community is a good we do for ourselves - even if the measurable benefit is minor to ourselves - because we are, as individuals, members of the set “immediate community”. I’m not expert enough in the psychology of altruism to pretend to be able to discern whether the “good feeling” we experience when we help others is pride, or self-reward, or both. I’m content to leave that part to human biology and human psychology and be glad we have it.

The Christian missives of the Golden Rule “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done Unto You” and “Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself” reveals the wisdom of working toward a collective, common good in our individual - and ideally voluntary behaviors derived from free will.

Christianity does not hold a monopoly on this essential human virtue, and thank goodness. Norman Rockwell pointed out in 1960 that the Golden Rule is common to many (he said all) religions. Here’s an excerpt from the Norman Rockwell Museum’s remembrance page of Rockwell’s 1961 Saturday Evening Post article,

Golden Rule

The Saturday Evening Post: cover, April 1, 1961

A group of people of different religions, races and ethnicity served as the backdrop for the inscription “Do Unto Other As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.” Rockwell was a compassionate man, and this simple phrase reflected his philosophy.
“I’d been reading up on comparative religion. The thing is that all major religions have the Golden Rule in Common. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Not always the same words but the same meaning.”

– Norman Rockwell

But as patently self-evident the idea itself may appear - based on the precept that if all acted accordingly, we could all live in a more wonderful world (aka “for the common good”) - it can and has been repeatedly been hijacked by those who argue that society can mandate sacrifice by or of the individual for their particular view of “the common good”. An imperfect application of this has been attempted with vaccine mandates, but the social contract has been repeatedly rigged and voided by the continuous and thorough acts of Public Health to minimize the public’s perception of vaccine risk and penalize those who manage to see through the veils of deceit. Ethical secular programs, too, can be conscripted and used for evil.

It must be considered also that merely basing an ethos on tenets of religious understanding does not imbue higher ethics into the program: one must still look for the fly in the ointment. Much has been done in the name of God, not all of it good by any measure. Thus, appeals to higher authority do not guarantee ethical positions.

A MetaCognitive Test of Free Will

It is necessary for independent, individual consciousness to exist for an ethos to exist and evolve new tenets not found in writings that are thousands of years old. It is necessary, therefore, for free will to exist for individual members of a society to assess and react to newly proposed tenets of the collective ethos - some for, some against. The emergence of new ideas also requires independent thought - by someone or someones separate from the pack. And in this we find, to me, clear evidence of free will, contra some fatalist views that claim that free will does not exist. My “metacognitive” simple test that proves free will is this: Person A tells Person B that free will does not exist, and that they can prove it by compelling Person B to act against their own will. Free will is proven each and every time Person B refuses to be compelled - even if the point of their refusal is merely to prove free will. Even if free will does not exist, the refusal to abide against one’s will manifests it in the here and now.

A General Ethos Can of Course be Based on Precepts that are Not Specifically or Uniquely Religious

The following is meant to be descriptive of what we are all capable of, and is not prescriptive, although I recognize it may be difficult for many to see it any other way. It’s a list of “Coulds”, not “Shoulds”.

Per The Golden Rule (A),

1. Not doing harm to others is a good practice for those who do not want harm to be done in kind to them;

2. Doing good to others is a good practice for those who want good to be done to them; and

3. Being principled and practicing these tenets at all times in a naive-like manner is the foundation of a free and open society.

Further (B),

1. Not tolerating exploitation of and cheats on society or parts of society is required for a stable and open society;

2. Therefore, some form of government is necessary;

3. Government exists to protect our individual rights; collective rights protection are emergent thereof;

4. The collective interest should be acknowledged as playing a role of social reinforcer of those in positions of power; that is, the ethos of individuals in governmental positions should be especially scrutinized and kept in check by means in place to formalize the enforcement of societal norms. But the collective interest should never be confused with “ultimate truth” or “ultimate good”.

Further (C)

1. Consensus does not imbue correctness; therefore, might does not make right.

2. Personal belief and understanding of “the best interest” of society will vary in time and space, and no one individual or party of individuals is guaranteed to have the optimal solution for all problems at all times. This is why the majority must not silence the majority. The majority should seek out and cherish dissent from the minority to keep the interests of all involved in play for the collective benefit of problem-solving, and to avoid narrow-mindedness, mob mentality and groupthink.

Finally (but not completely):

1. The need and wants of others are a concern of yours if only that if left unattended may escalate to the point of harm upon yourself.

2. It is therefore in one’s best interest to view the world from others’ perspectives with the intention of feeling the consequences of being in their position.

3. It is useful also to demonstrate to others, especially in conflicts, that you have the capacity to see the world through their eyes, and that you have compassion for them as individuals. A common, shared viewpoint often allows the parties to begin for form a path toward ending conflict.

There are no doubt other “coulds” worth contemplation that I’ve not thought of, or thought to include. I want to recognize and look forward to those that will hopefully be offered in the comments below from readers.

My reference to the collective interest should not be confused with similar-sounding arguments that laid the foundation for the abject subjugation of individual interests to the interests of the Communist party in China or by others, elsewhere. The suppression of dissent is a symptom of a very sick society that is incapable of adaptation and course-corrections on complex issues. It is well known from complex systems theory that conflict can yield novelty. It is also worth keeping in mind that the sacrifice of individual rights or of individuals for the convenience of others is not the same as the selflessness of individual sacrifice for the interest of the many.

An ethical society is, for many, one that is worth dying for. The fact that sick societies were ejected at the cost of millions of lives must not be forgotten. Once it is forgotten, the immeasurable cost to the many will be repeated.

The Relative “Goodness” of an Ethos can be - but Should Not Be - Measured Empirically

All societies have rules, norms, mores and laws that suppress free will to greater or lesser extent to prevent pain and suffering of the many from individual actions by the few. Since it is determined that free will does exist (prove to me otherwise, and I’ll prove to you it does!), then any ethos that cause more harm than good due to the suppression of free will and the denial of individual interests take a ding in their relative “goodness”. When the arrow of “reducing the total sum of human pain and suffering” takes a downward turn under a given ethos, that ethos takes a ding proportionate to scale of the increase in human pain and suffering. Since people generally do not enjoy living in a world full of pain and suffering, the collective will of the people will tend to favor systems that decrease human pain and suffering, and will tend to reject those that increase those features of the human experience.

There is nothing mystical, or faith-based in the desire for humans to avoid pain and suffering. Evolution gave us the ability to experience pain as a way of sensory representation of events and experiences that lead to harm. Comparative neurosciences tells us that pain predated the emergence. All animals, even those with simple nervous systems, have the ability to recognize (sense) physical harm, even if they are not consciously processing the signals further downstream as pain.

The physical recognition of harm — called ‘nociception’ - can be localized in the nerve cells on the surface that the source of harm damaged, and it is considered a form of experience. Even though we cannot read animals’ minds, systemic vital signs such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure track intense, acute pain. Scientists even have formal behavior-based and physiologic measures to determine how much pain an animal is in - including facial expressions in mice, rabbits, horses, does, cats and primates. Injured chimpanzees and gorilla exhibit the same symptoms of pain as humans. Chimpanzee laugh when they play and cry when they grieve. They behave as though they can feel the same emotions as other chimps in distress; they, and even monkeys have mirror neurons, so they are wired for some form of empathy.

The link between pain and survival is not too hard a stretch. Even as a write this I’m experiencing intense lower lumbar pain. Prolonged chronic pain can be debilitating. It is difficult to make progress in the elementary essential means by which animals and humans live - finding or making shelter, gathering, hunting or preparing food, sleeping, and mating - when you’re in pain. The fate of the former Soviet Union provides an excellent example of how an ethos that imposes universal suffering prevents the continuance of a productive society.

So we should strive for societies that reduce human pain and suffering based on functionality - so lives worth living can go on - not for the sake of growth, nor wealth, nor GNP - but so people can live in peace and take care of themselves and others. It’s simple, really.

The reason why we must not commoditize ethics is the same reason why western medicine should not have invented a utility function that allows us to compare relative costs and benefits of medical procedures. The “Quality of Life Years” (QALY) measure places the for-profit medical corporation’s interest in between the sacrosanct relationship between the patient and their doctor - and empowered accountants to take over allopathic medicine. Modern western allopathic medicine strayed far away from the ethos of modern society in the mid-1980s, and it cannot find a way back.

Why Restricting the Definition of Ethical to “Derived From Divinity” is Dangerous

At the beginning of this essay, I stated that requiring our understanding of ethics as necessarily stemming only from a divine source as Jordan Peterson has done is “dangerous”. But I did not explain why.

There is a well-known secular test of the ethical nature of a behavior, an attitude or an action: “Generalize Your Maxim”. The argument goes like this: What if everyone acted that way? What if everyone had that attitude? Clearly, if everyone acted in everyone elses’ best interest, to the best of their knowledge (allowing for honest errors), the world would be a wonderful place - as long as those actions are voluntary and not coerced. This is not to say that people should not act in their own best interest as well. Decisions are easy when the interest of the many are in alignment with one’s own interest; it’s during times of conflict between those interests when our character is tested, and those among us who have decided to act based on principles and eschew instinct will get the balance of conflict right more often.

By contrast, if everyone acted in their own best interest only, and ignored collective interest, Peterson’s dystopia of chaos would result. But even under these conditions, are benign and useful instruments available to help guarantee balance (such as contracts), as minor social reinforcements that can help, too - as can (importantly) logic, and our ability to use logic to think events through and forecast (with varying degrees of success) the indirect consequences of our individual and collective actions.

Peterson’s requirement of a divine source for ethos in all settings simply does not generalize as a maxim. The end result, if you play his argument forward, is theocracy. Maybe it’s because we’ve seen the effects of the Taliban on the rights of women in Afghanistan; or because the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion. And while I recognize the role of the Judeo-Christian God in the formation of the beliefs and principles codified in the US Constitution, I just don’t see value in theocratic government because it’s not based on empirical knowledge.

I know that some people feel the exact opposite way. But consider this: Peterson’s appeal to God and the threat of time in hell for bad actions is dangerous because if he is considered by all to be correct, and if the majority of society can then be convinced to decide that God does not exist, he’s put all of our eggs of defense against secular authoritarian totalitarianism in one basket.

We must remain aware that the rights codified in the US Constitution protect the right to worship freely. It is not inconceivable that globalists might deem, as the CCP has, faith as a mental illness. They are worth protecting at all costs because in the absence of God, government becomes the ultimate equalizing total authority -

We who understand the evolutionary benefits of acting toward the common interest - and the effects of past successes leading to relative stability, survival and reproduction, are pointing to the competitive edge of good behavior. We’re not pointing to these processes as a prescription - we are pointing to them as a description of why we are the way we are. Yes, it means that the system can be gamed. Every game with rules find cheats.

Hopefully, the realization or memory that government and laws exist to protect individuals from cheats will find its way into enough minds in time to prevent the globalist nanny state mentality - even as the World Economic Forum establishes a foothold in Detroit, and even as the President of the United States offers amendments to the WHO regulations that cross the line on US sovereignty:

Dr. Peter Breggin explains (See: Biden Handing Over U.S. Sovereignty to WHO, America Out Loud):

“These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.  

If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong to WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population.2

These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”3 U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them.

How It Became Official 

On January 18, 2022, with no public awareness, officials from the Biden Administration sent the World Health Organization these extensive amendments to strengthen WHO’s ability to unilaterally intervene into the affairs of nations merely suspected of having a “health emergency” of possible concern to other nations.4 The U.S. amendments cross out a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…” By eliminating that, and other clauses (see below), all the shackles will be removed from the Director-General of WHO, enabling him to declare health emergencies at will. 

The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes. The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation.”

As I described to Kim Monson this week on my monthly appearance on The Kim Monson Show, my concern is that use of these WHO regulations to declare a health emergency in the US and other countries after patriotism, or gun ownership, or refusal to vaccinate has become medicalized and pathologized. China has a Mental Health Law that makes it illegal for anyone to threaten the mental health of another person (see: The First Mental Health Law of China, 2015). Read that article closely, and watch for the phrases in which the law is described as protecting people with mental disorders from "institutions and individuals"; "individuals and organizations"; "agencies and individuals". All institutions in China and all agencies in China already answer to the CCP. Clearly, if individuals can be charged with threatening another’s mental wellness by the state by their behavior that contradicts party messaging, the only missing next step is the change to the definition of mental wellness.

The Pharmaceutical companies and physicians are, of course, ready to dispense megatons of psychotropic medicines to the public should they persist in their mental illnesses of defending democracy, delusions of self-governance, vaccine hesitancy, and other “conditions” that are being pathologized in the medical literature now.

This is why Congress must inform the President that he must withdraw the proposed amendments to WHO. As if the goal of “Universal Healthcare” is not bad enough. What type of Universal Healthcare is to be forced on the public? We’ve had a taste of that for two years, and it was excised from our norms by massive dissent.

We now need to say “no thank you” as loudly as possible and maintain our sovereignty intact from infiltration by the alleged do-gooders in global public health and think the consequences of forfeiting domestic powers to any global entity.

Do you agree with my analysis, or disagree, in part or in whole? Let me know with your comments. And enjoy the rest of your weekend. We’ll get through all of this. We just need to look after our own AND our collective well-being in balance, without fighting over the balance.