Conscience, Our Only Moral Authority

[joe1776]

What if your conscience tells you one thing is justified but my conscience tells me it is not?

It won't happen. One of us is allowing a bias to confuse the issue.

 

[joe1776]

If you had your wish then presumably that would mean 9/11 was not a criminal act?

I didn't follow your reasoning. Please restate.

EDIT: If you meant that we need criminal laws to label an act of misbehavior a criminal act, I don't agree.

 

[Secret Chief]

It won't happen. One of us is allowing a bias to confuse the issue.

How do you know it wouldn't happen? How would it be determined which one of us it was confusing the issue?

 

[Secret Chief]

I didn't follow your reasoning. Please restate.

EDIT: If you meant that we need criminal laws to label an act of misbehavior a criminal act, I don't agree.

By very definition an act is only criminal if there is a criminal act proscribing it.

 

[Heyo]

Conscience, moral intuition is always hasty. In fact, it's immediate. To label it 'wrong' would imply that we have a higher authority trumping its judgment. What could that authority possibly be?

Our intellect, of course; it is thorough in its evaluation, at least more thorough than our instinct.

Give me an example if you can.

Have you ever felt something to be unfair towards you? (One reflex we often have). But when you thought about it, it was clear that it was equalizing a privilege you had before.

 

[joe1776]

How do you know it wouldn't happen? How would it be determined which one of us it was confusing the issue?

As stated in the OP, conscience is aligned with survival. Logically, the same act is either aligned with survival or it isn't. It can't be both aligned and misaligned.

Also, as stated in the OP, a group of people unbiased on the relevant issue would be the objective standard to decide which of us was misled by a bias.

 

[Koldo]

I'm defining conscience here as moral intuition emerging instantly from the unconscious when a specific moral situation is encountered. Conscience is a moral guide only. We can follow it or ignore it.

This is a brief argument supporting my claim that conscience is the only moral authority that we humans have. It concludes that criminal laws and the moral advice of theologians and philosophers should be abandoned because they are unnecessary at best and they create biases, capable of sending judgment off course, at their worst.

Learning begins with the senses: An effect (as in cause-and-effect) must first be sensed. It must be seen, tasted, smelled, heard or felt before we can use reasoning to learn from it. Science, humanity's best attempt at learning, must begin with an observed effect.

Since the difference between right and wrong and fair and unfair can't be seen, tasted, smelled or heard, it must be 'felt.' We feel an unpleasant sensation produced by the pain function of our brains which can be interpreted as 'wrong' or 'unfair' depending on the situation. If we don't feel that signal, we can assume the act was justified or fair. We call this faculty 'conscience.'

Conscience, emerging from the unconscious, is a remarkable faculty. It's able to render immediate judgments despite the fact that the situations it encounters are as unique and plentiful as snowflakes.

So, everything we humans know about morality, we learned from feeling the effects -- the judgments about right, wrong, fair and unfair -- produced by the moral intuitive sense that we call 'conscience.'

Now, here's where we went wrong.

There's no question that reason is a very useful function, but we arrogant humans are much too proud of it. This phenomenon has been referred to as 'reason worship.' Having learned from conscience, we illogically decided that we could improve upon the judgments of conscience by writing moral rules and laws. It was a very foolish thing to do.

We can write general rules, like "It's generally wrong to kill." But general rules are useless as guidance because the guidance is needed in specific situations -- which might be exceptions to the rule.

We can write absolute rules which offer guidance in specific situations but there is no act, killing, stealing or any other that is always wrong. So, in order to write criminal laws, lawmakers have attempted to write absolute laws covering every conceivable moral situation.

The criminal laws in the USA have a history that goes back a thousand years, to English Common Law. The books fill library shelves. They have been edited countless times over the years when their judgments conflicted with conscience. And yet, they are very different in all 50 states. In cases where the facts are not clearly one-sided, a killing which will be found murder in 25 states, can be justifiable self-defense in the other 25.

Writing absolute laws to cover every situation is a foolish, impossible task. It's also unnecessary because conscience can make the right calls in every conceivable situation.

The judgments of conscience are not subjective. They are unlike opinions on art, music or architecture. The conscience of the majority of a group of people unbiased on the relevant case is the standard for judgment. This unbiased group might be a jury in a courtroom or, in the case of the 9/11 attack in New York, the citizens of nations not involved in the attack would constitute an unbiased group. The worldwide sympathy from uninvolved nations for the USA's loss was the objective moral judgment on 9/11 as a criminal act.

In making moral judgments, reason's function is mainly to get the facts of the case straight. There is just one exception: In a moral dilemma, conscience will instantly determine that both of the optional actions feel wrong. However, conscience doesn't have the ability to weigh the consequences of each action, so reason will weigh the consequences of both optional, harmful actions in order to choose the option which does the least harm.

Up to a certain extent I agree with you, in the sense that our conscience is effectively our moral ruler.
The problem is: How do we figure out whether someone is truly unbiased to be the judge? I don't even think there is someone truly unbiased, just more or less biased.

 

[Koldo]

As stated in the OP, conscience is aligned with survival. Logically, the same act is either aligned with survival or it isn't. It can't be both aligned and misaligned.

Also, as stated in the OP, a group of people unbiased on the relevant issue would be the objective standard to decide which of us was misled by a bias.

I am not sure on what you mean here. Do you mean that if an act is aligned with survival it is a good act? If so, why?

 

[joe1776]

Our intellect, of course; it is thorough in its evaluation, at least more thorough than our instinct.

As stated in the OP, our intellect would know nothing about morality if not for the feelings that we describe as conscience. Your statement reads to me like what I described as "reason worship." Morality is the province of conscience not reason.

Have you ever felt something to be unfair towards you? (One reflex we often have). But when you thought about it, it was clear that it was equalizing a privilege you had before.

You're describing a bias. Judgments of fairness and justice require unbiased minds. That's why in the sentencing of a convicted rapist, we don't leave it to the mother of the rapist or the father of the victim.

 

[joe1776]

Up to a certain extent I agree with you, in the sense that our conscience is effectively our moral ruler.
The problem is: How do we figure out whether someone is truly unbiased to be the judge? I don't even think there is someone truly unbiased, just more or less biased.

We humans all have biases, but the question is -- are we biased on the relevant issue and, if so, to what extent?

 

[Koldo]

We humans all have biases, but the question is -- are we biased on the relevant issue and, if so, to what extent?

Sure. How do we figure whether someone is biased on the relevant issue?

 

[joe1776]

I am not sure on what you mean here. Do you mean that if an act is aligned with survival it is a good act? If so, why?

What I mean is that what we humans think of as MORAL are probably survival instincts. For example, killing others as a serial killer might is thought of as morally wrong. But killing the killer in self-defense is justifiable. This act , repeated over generations, would deplete the serial killer's influence in the gene pool.

 

[joe1776]

Sure. How do we figure whether someone is biased on the relevant issue?

Your're familiar with the process as its done formally in jury selection? It's a rational process, but it relies on the fact that it's less likely that a majority of the group will have the same bias capable of throwing off the judgment of a majority.

 

[joe1776]

By very definition an act is only criminal if there is a criminal act proscribing it.

Nonsense. "criminal" is just a word. There's no rules saying it can't be used in more than one context.

 

[Secret Chief]

a group of people unbiased on the relevant issue

I don't believe such things exist.

 

[Secret Chief]

Nonsense. "criminal" is just a word. There's no rules saying it can't be used in more than one context.

It is indeed just a word. A word with a meaning.

First link from a search:

"criminal Against the law; forbidden by law. Guilty of breaking the law. crime or penal law."

Before laws were made, there was, by definition, no crime.

 

[joe1776]

It is just a word. A word with a meaning.

criminal Against the law; forbidden by law. Guilty of breaking the law. crime or penal law.

Before laws were made, there was, by definition, no crime.

I won't debate definitions of words. I'll use the word "criminal" any way I choose. I,m perfectly fine with you doing the same.

 

[joe1776]

I don't believe such things exist.

So, consistent with your belief, do you argue that justice isn't possible because all juries are biased on the relevant question of guilt or innocence on a specific act?

 

[osgart]

You basically disagree with me but you didn't offer reasons to argue that I'm wrong. So, I acknowledge that you have a different opinion but you didn't give me anything to debate.

If mankind is the sole arbiter of morality then that assumes all consciences are equal. Rather there are standards that are understandings, meanings that never change that are apart of cause and effect for the living. Honesty is one such moral. It's inescapable that people need honesty to not only survive but to have a quality of life worthwhile. If a person is abused and cheated their whole life then survival won't be the most important thing. Honesty is a universal need. Humanity is often relative to the situation in their choice of morals. Their morals can change from situation to situation thus rendering them unpredictable and inconsistent. But a real authority is true, and consistent and trustworthy.

As people change, the themes important to morality never change. There is an actual universal right and wrong regardless of what humanity decides for.

One day all of humanity could decide that it's moral to kill off the weak, and the poor, and downtrodden. What kind of moral authority is that? It's one that is cruel and there are real consequences for choosing such a morality. It would be a far superior morality if humanity chose to value every life instead, and gave real consequences to those whom deprive people the right to life. So in short we could decide that aryan morals are better than universal right to life and the world would become a cruel and more violent place. The authority of morality rests in changeless meanings such as honesty, integrity, kindness, deserve, truthfulness, compassion, trustworthiness, basic levels of equality for all.

The ultimate aim of morality is to live a life worth living and not deprive people of that right. The end result of a worthy morality is love of life, self and others. The goal of morality is to negate hatred.

 

[Secret Chief]

So, consistent with your belief, do you argue that justice isn't possible because all juries are biased on the relevant question of guilt or innocence on a specific act?

All "groups" have biases, that's why barristers can object to the inclusion of specific jurors. Of course, as a separate issue, "justice" and "the law" are not necessarily identical to each other. A court of law is a forum for adversial combat, each side trying the best for their client, to maximise or to minimise the outcomes.