joe1776
Well-Known Member
It won't happen. One of us is allowing a bias to confuse the issue.What if your conscience tells you one thing is justified but my conscience tells me it is not?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It won't happen. One of us is allowing a bias to confuse the issue.What if your conscience tells you one thing is justified but my conscience tells me it is not?
I didn't follow your reasoning. Please restate.If you had your wish then presumably that would mean 9/11 was not a criminal act?
How do you know it wouldn't happen? How would it be determined which one of us it was confusing the issue?It won't happen. One of us is allowing a bias to confuse the issue.
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.
Our intellect, of course; it is thorough in its evaluation, at least more thorough than our instinct.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?
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.Give me an example if you can.
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.How do you know it wouldn't happen? How would it be determined which one of us it was confusing the issue?
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.
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.
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.Our intellect, of course; it is thorough in its evaluation, at least more thorough than our instinct.
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.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.
We humans all have biases, but the question is -- are we biased on the relevant issue and, if so, to what extent?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?
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.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?
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.Sure. How do we figure whether someone is biased on the relevant issue?
Nonsense. "criminal" is just a word. There's no rules saying it can't be used in more than one context.By very definition an act is only criminal if there is a criminal act proscribing it.
a group of people unbiased on the relevant issue
It is indeed just a word. A word with a meaning.Nonsense. "criminal" is just a word. There's no rules saying it can't be used in more than one context.
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.
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?I don't believe such things exist.
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.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.
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.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?