It means that we must have absolute morality based on some specific rules. It's an absurd argument - it denies personal morality.
And are we to live without transcendent shared moral axioms?https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/902669792175206400 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
Seems like there's an axe to grind here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Didn't Sam Harris explain this to you?
-
He didn't listen to a word that Sam was saying. Too focused on denying truths if he didn't like them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In the US we created the Constitution to address that very question.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We don't need to believe to agree or even disagree, yet it is MY choice to believe and no one right or left can take that away!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I am willing to bet that tribes (assuming 150) that had larger amounts of gender diversity showed decreased stability back then
End of conversation
-
-
-
Meta stories are religion regardless of name
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.