Jordan Peterson was recently interviewed by a woke leftist, and the two clashed in a heated exchange over trans issues. We’re going to analyze the profound points made by Peterson and see how the woke left is so utterly morally bankrupt.
– Jordan Peterson discusses the distinction between law and justice, highlighting the clash between negative freedom and positive freedom.
– Peterson advocates against the blurring of the line between health and harm in the medical industry regarding transgender issues.
– Jordan Peterson has admirable clarity and compassion in addressing these complex issues.
Kyle Kulinksi of Secular Talk speaks to Jordan Peterson, who said, ‘Not everything legal isn’t criminal.’ There is a very important distinction between law and justice. That is a profound point about this issue because he revealed the real clash that’s happening. It is a clash between rights and responsibilities and between what ethical theorists have termed negative freedom versus positive freedom.
The great Oxford philosopher Isaiah Berlin argued that freedom has two hierarchical parts. The lower part is the negative side of freedom, “freedom from,” which is the side of freedom that teenagers, for example, are so famous for in their need to be free from the supervision of parents and schools. It is the triggered form of freedom, which is seen in the hysterical ‘Not my president’ protests. Berlin noted that this negative side of freedom is incomplete without the higher form of freedom which he called positive freedom.
Positive freedom is a “freedom for.” This is the notion that we are free to do what we ought to do. We are free to do what’s right and good. This is what Lord Acton taught when he said freedom is “not the power of doing what we like but the right of being able to do what we ought.” We don’t just do what is right, we hunger and thirst for righteousness. It’s not a question of what Ellen Paige had the right to do, it’s a question of what Ellen Paige ought to do. That’s the question that this woke leftist can’t appear to even fathom.
There is a very important distinction between the issue of transgenderism and the issue of gay marriage. They’re demonstrably different. Pundits have recognized that a crucial difference between the success of the gay rights movement and the frustration of the transgender movement is that while it’s widely recognized that gay marriage involves a consensual relationship wherein adults are free to enter into or leave, the trans movement often entails surgical alterations on children that can’t be undone.
The end of a marriage is always legally possible, but surgically performed body modifications cannot be undone. Unlike two adults entering into a consensual relationship, the gender reassignment surgery that’s being imposed on children who are not prepared to make such a life-altering decision involves a permanently body-altering act. The distinction between permanence vs. impermanence and adult vs. child represents a fundamental difference between gay marriage and transgenderism.
The whole notion of the LGBT community is absurd. Sociologists recognize that a community is a highly coherent social formation with distinctive commonality in thought and practice. There’s no such thing as that among the highly diversified aggregate designated as trans. Just like we’re seeing with women’s sports, once again, we are seeing how trans issues end up adversely affecting others. Unlike the issues surrounding gay marriage where no one is affected beyond the two consenting adults, trans issues adversely affect others.
The key here, which this leftist doesn’t seem to even consider, is that the Western medical tradition is rooted in the Hippocratic oath, which is the refusal to do harm. Peterson pointed out that what makes the trans issue so unique is that it has the potential of causing the medical industry to cross the line between health and harm. The trans issue has the potential of using medical technology to harm rather than heal, and the blurring of this line has potentially disastrous consequences for society where medicine could end up being used legally to intentionally harm and destroy.
This goes way beyond harming children, this is an issue that has the potential to harm the whole of society. This was a fascinating, though heated debate, and it is encouraging to see Jordan Peterson discuss these issues who so faithfully contributes clarity and compassion during his profoundly insightful arguments.
Copyright, 2023. TurleyTalks.com