"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
I elaborated upon this theme in my OP.I think much of their authority comes from their supposed understanding of the self. If they are recognized as superiors in that realm, the individual doesn't take much convincing that the Psychologist understands you and what is best for you. So if they understand (more or less) all the "you"s out there, then they must be able to figure out how to mediate between them optimally. Not a big leap to ethics.
I would disagree that morals and ethics are equivalent. Morality is absolute. Ethics are specific to situation and application. Morality implies Moral government. Ethics imply "best suited to maintain order and right action". So Peterson is, I think, trying to get at the reality. Jung called archetypes "living psychic forces" so he wasn't just dealing in the abstract. I think Jungians take on a metaphysical air because of that.
That's funny you should say that. I almost said the exact same thing (then deleted it)!
There's no such thing as a Christ archetype. There is Christ, and then as hubristic men are wont to do, they take a perfect singularity and invent a set or category, of which Christ is but a member. Not so. Christ is categorically unique and there is just One of Him.I'm more cautious. Because Jung got fairly involved in spiritism, I think he probably took on something that had an air of appeal and reality to it. The closer that is to the truth, the more dangerous it can be. Some good quotes of Jung on Christ here:
Jung on the Antichrist Archetype
What is the distinguishment between ethics and morals but the knowledge of good and evil? And what is the pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil but the pursuit of happiness? And what is the right to the pursuit of happiness but the right to ethical independence? And what is ethics but the knowledge of good and evil? And what is the knowledge of good and evil but the distinguishment between ethics and morals?
How you distinguish ethics and morals is your ethics, is how I'm using the word.