I'm a bit late to the discussion, but there's certainly a lot to address in this thread, so let's keep the conversation going.
Re OP: There's a lot going on here. One of the first things I think is that while we don't necessarily have a higher moral responsibility as power / influence increases, we ought to.
The key to this puzzle is that everyone ought to take responsibility for the things they have power over. So while those who wield greater power should take more responsibility, that does not absolve those in lesser positions of their responsibilities. Everyone has power over someone or something, and regardless of how significant or insignificant that might be, society functions best when everyone is doing their best to account for the things they have control over.
I think that this solves one of the problems you run into if we extrapolate the logic you're looking at. For example, in Nietzsche's case, while he was an influence on Hitler's ideology, that influence was largely through misinterpretation and expansion of those ideas on behalf of Hitler, not something directly written by Nietzsche. To avoid a situation where we pass the blame on ad infinitum (what about influencers of Nietzsche?), Nietzsche is responsible for what he wrote, but ultimately Hitler has to take responsibility for the Third Reich. He can't take inspiration from someone else and pass the buck onto them; it was his doing. There were many, many years where the direction of the Third Reich could have changed if not for the ideological goals of Hitler, and nobody else can own that.
I think we should take advice from Spiderman here; with great power comes great responsibility. So take as much responsibility for something as you can. But not more. That isn't helpful.
With that said, you should probably seriously consider the fact that you might have inserted your own biases into the interpretation of Peterson's statement that may be a misinterpretation. Personally, I do not interpret the lobster statements that way. Obviously none of us are psychic, but in this case my interpretation was that this statement is an analogy used specifically to attack the idea that hierarchies arise causally as a result of systems of oppression. The assumption being that if hierarchies can arise in the absence of oppressive structures then they aren't causally related and biologically we would have to look deeper.
Interpretation is tricky business. That's why open dialogue is key, and everyone should be careful in making assumptions about what others mean by their statements. Sometimes those assumptions can reveal our own biases.
Quote:
|
It is immoral to have wealth, full stop. If you are rich you absolutely have an obligation to help the poor. You're a human. Basic application of empathy and compassion should make you obliged to help people when you can. I do not believe it is possible to be a billionaire and not also evil. Yes, even the ones who donate some pittance of a percentage of their billions to good causes.
|
I almost feel as if this would deserve a separate thread, but could you elaborate on this? More specifically, that it is immoral to have wealth, and that billionaires by definition are evil.
I disagree with both statements, but I would need to hear more from you to really get into this.