“You might say that someone incapable of cruelty is a higher moral being than someone who is capable of cruelty, and I would say that is incorrect, and it is dangerously incorrect. If you are not capable of cruelty, you are absolutely a victim to anyone who is.” – Jordan Peterson
The Editors’ Quote of the Day:
JBP’s advice is well-intended, but so WRONG I felt compelled to answer him.
See https://rethinkingsurvival.com/2017/10/25/article-be-a-warrior-not-a-monster/
‘cruel
adjective
1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.’
In order to use a weapon, you have to be able to willfully cause pain or distress to the enemy. If you are incapable of being cruel, there is no purpose in owning a firearm or other weapon, in which case you would absolutely be a victim to anybody who owns a firearm or other weapon and who is capable of willfully causing you pain or distress.
The context of JP’s statement: “That doesn’t mean that being cruel is better than not being cruel, it means that being able to be cruel and then not being cruel is better than not being able to be cruel. In the first place you’re nothing but weak and naive, in the second place you’re dangerous but under control.”
Daniel Webb: Your remark, like Peterson’s point, is partially correct. HOWEVER, your comment is NOT responsive to my blog. (Did you read it?) My point is that motive matters. Monsters cause pain for its own sake and enjoy doing so. Warriors act out of love, to protect those they love from harm.
Firstly, in what manner is my remark only partially correct? Please address the specific points of it that were incorrect.
My comment was a direct response to your comment. “JP’s advice is well-intended, but so WRONG…” Your assertion is that JP’s advice is wrong. My comment was asserting that JP’s advice is not wrong. I don’t know how much more responsive I can be.
I did read your blog post. “That cruelty is innate — part of our essence. DEAD WRONG. Worse, he says we should actually cultivate it in ourselves as if owing it is the only way to recognize it and thereby prevent being victimized.”
Anybody who practices with weapons, practices martial arts, or trains in self-defense is actually cultivating cruelty in themselves in order to prevent being victimized. This is a good thing for people to do. The purpose of your blog post seemed to be claiming that JP’s idea that it is good to be capable of cruelty is wrong, so I responded to that idea in proving that being capable of cruelty is a very good thing. Your entire blog post seems to be you reading into isolated quotes of JP in order to demonize his viewpoints.
“My point is that motive matters. Monsters cause pain for its own sake and enjoy doing so. Warriors act out of love, to protect those they love from harm.” When has JP ever said anything differently? It is very often that he expresses that same sentiment.
Daniel Webb: No offense to either JBP or you intended. You should be aware that I have followed JBP very carefully for a long time. He speaks to subjects dear to my heart and I agree with him on many points. I wish him and his many followers only the best.
Defending your life with deadly force is always an unpleasant business. However, there is nothing immoral or pathological about feeling good after you fend off an illegal attack:
Neither the act of violence you committed, nor the pleasure about surviving reflect cruelty: Cruelty implies taking pleasure in hurting people or animals.
Cruelty has the objective to cause pain. In legitimate acts of self defense, stopping the attacker is the objective, with pain just being the probable side effect.
I would reword Peterson’s quotation thus:
“You might say that someone incapable of violence is a higher moral being than someone who is capable of violence, and I would say that is incorrect, and it is dangerously incorrect. If you are not capable of violence, you are absolutely a victim to anyone who is.”
I would go further and state that to tolerate violence from other at a level that threatens your life and those of your children does not make you morally superior to the one committing the violence: If you do not defend your own life, the perpetrator who would kill you is likely to continue on to kill your children and your neighbors, and so on. Thus, defending yourself against an illegal attack by appropriate force is not only justified, it is your duty to others.
You may choose to lay down your life, but in doing so, yo are may be laying down the lives of others who are not willing or able to make that choice.
A person who call the cops or has armed security is no more moral than a person who is willing and able to commit violence in defense of their own life more directly. Rather, those with armed security that criticize individuals for arming themselves are the ones to be frowned upon.
The USA’s violence problem is not that so many people are “equipped” to commit violence. Rather, it is that violence is the only tool in the mental toolbox of so many, rather than the tool kept at the bottom as a last resort.
A higher percentage of the US population owned guns 40 years ago than do today. High-school teenagers took guns to school to go hunt afterwards. Not only didn’t anyone get shot, nobody was spooked by the sight of these guns either. It was completely normal and legal then. Now we try to ward off evil with “gun-free zone” signs.
It is not that modern tools are different, or else kids with access to cordless drills would be making holes everywhere. It seems that when self-respect is lost, then respect for one’s fellows goes along with it.
Someone should study parental involvement with kids to see if that is related to unruly young adult behavior. I bet that absent fathers cause more trouble in society than anything else.
In any event, it is the job of parents to teach value for life, and the difference between movie make-believe and real life. And the difference between fame and infamy.
Petter Fellingham: Well said. Agreed.
its a fine line just becareful how you cross it…