Conscience, Our Only Moral Authority

[joe1776]

You judged that the man was good because he was better than those around him.

No, I judged his act morally justified because his intentional act helped rather than harmed innocent people.

Today, most people see slavery as a great moral crime. Being a 'good master' still makes you guilty of a great moral crime.

That opinion is the result of faulty reasoning. Had you been one of his slaves, you would have felt differently. They must have felt very fortunate.

 

[joe1776]

What is good for survival is environmentally dependant. This is a very obvious fact.

Conscience informs us that killing an innocent person is wrong but killing in self-defense is justifiable. This aligns with the survival of our species. Please explain why this would change depending on the environment.

Do you really think people conditioned into strict honour cultures like the Taliban have exactly the same moral intuitions as uber-liberal Progressives in California?

Yes, they do. However, because of cultural biases, they don't appear so.

 

[Rival]

Conscience informs us that killing an innocent person is wrong

Meet Jack the Ripper.

And a whole bunch of other lunatics.

 

[joe1776]

Meet Jack the Ripper.

And a whole bunch of other lunatics.

I don't understand. What's your point? Please clarify.

 

[Augustus]

No, I judged his act morally justified because his intent helped rather than harmed innocent people.

He could have freed them, but he chose to exploit their labour and help perpetuate a slave economy requiring further people are enslaved to meet demand.

He could have use the money spent to promote abolitionism. He chose to be a slave master.

This is only excusable if we accept a culturally contingent view of morality than sees people as a product of their cultural environment (which I actually agree with)

That opinion is the result of faulty reasoning. Had you been one of his slaves, you would have felt differently. They must have felt very fortunate.

Had I been a freeman who was violently taken form my family and friends, enslaved then my master forced me to work for him without pay but wasn't actively cruel to me, can't say I'd have felt "very fortunate".

Could have been worse, ok. "Very fortunate"? I'd prefer my freedom, family, etc.

Conscience informs us that killing an innocent person is wrong but killing in self-defense is justifiable. This aligns with the survival of our species. Please explain why this would change depending on the environment.

Why do you always go back to the most simplistic examples? Most moral issues are far more nuanced than 'it's ok to kill in self-defence' and are far more culturally contingent.

Even with the most simple examples you fail to see the cultural contingencies though.

Innocent is absolutely a culturally contingent concept.

In a strict honour culture, those having the affair are not innocent and may deserve death.

Self-defence is a culturally contingent concept.

In a tribal honour culture where your family's survival may be dependant on maintaining an honourable reputation, then it is 'self-defence' to kill someone who challenges your family honour by cuckolding you.

Alternatively see 'stand your ground' laws in America.

Yes, they do. However, because of cultural biases, they don't appear so.

So basically it is culturally contingent, you are just trying to use some semantic quibbling to say it is not.

 

[Rival]

I don't understand. What's your point? Please clarify.

 

[joe1776]

He could have freed them, but he chose to exploit their labour and help perpetuate a slave economy requiring further people are enslaved to meet demand.

He could have use the money spent to promote abolitionism. He chose to be a slave master.

This is only excusable if we accept a culturally contingent view of morality than sees people as a product of their cultural environment (which I actually agree with)


Had I been a freeman who was violently taken form my family and friends, enslaved then my master forced me to work for him without pay but wasn't actively cruel to me, can't say I'd have felt "very fortunate".

Could have been worse, ok. "Very fortunate"? I'd prefer my freedom, family, etc.

Your opinions on the French slave owner are obviously biased by the fact that you don't want to admit that I'm right about him.

Why do you always go back to the most simplistic examples? Most moral issues are far more nuanced than 'it's ok to kill in self-defence' and are far more culturally contingent.

I have to keep my examples simple since you're having so much trouble understanding the concepts I'm offering.

Even with the most simple examples you fail to see the cultural contingencies though.

I can't see what doesn't exist. Cultural environments change the facts of the situation and the biases involved. They don't influence our intuitive moral sense (conscience).

In a tribal honour culture where your family's survival may be dependant on maintaining an honourable reputation, then it is 'self-defence' to kill someone who challenges your family honour by cuckolding you.

You've taken a cultural bias and, with a little wordplay, turned it into an act of self-defense. Who are you writing this kind of argument for?

So basically it is culturally contingent, you are just trying to use some semantic quibbling to say it is not.

Minimize it all you like, but the fact is that you confuse biases with our intuitive moral sense (conscience).

 

[Secret Chief]

Had you been one of his slaves, you would have felt differently. They must have felt very fortunate.

Unreal.

 

[joe1776]

So, what you meant to say was obvious to you but you can't rephrase it so that I can understand?

 

[Rival]

So, what you meant to say was obvious to you but you can't rephrase it so that I can understand?

Bro, have you never heard of serial killers? The idea that everyone has a conscience that tells them that murdering an innocent is wrong is clearly wrong. I don't even know why I need to explain this to you.

 

[joe1776]

Unreal.

Why? You don't think they would have felt fortunate?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, what you meant to say was obvious to you but you can't rephrase it so that I can understand?

Arthur Shawcross has stated in an interview he feels absolutely nothing towards his victims and their family. No remorse, no guilt, nothing.
Ted Bundy is on video becoming ecstatic and euphoric in court hearing his crimes and the deeds of his crimes read out loud.

 

[joe1776]

Bro, have you never heard of serial killers? The idea that everyone has a conscience that tells them that murdering an innocent is wrong is clearly wrong. I don't even know why I need to explain this to you.

You're wrong on three counts:

1) As I've told you previously, I haven't claimed that everyone has a conscience.

2) The only research paper I've read on the topic found that psychopaths do know right from wrong. They just don't care. I don't see that it matter much whether they do or don't.

3) Conscience is a moral GUIDE only. We can choose to follow its guidance or not.

Other than that, I thought your post was just fine.

 

[Secret Chief]

Why? You don't think they would have felt fortunate?

I find it incredible that you should think so. Fortunate slaves; a whole new moral bias.

 

[Rival]

1) As I've told you previously, I haven't claimed that everyone has a conscience.

So conscience is clearly not the only moral authority, as you claim.

2) The only research paper I've read on the topic found that psychopaths do know right from wrong. They just don't care. I don't see that it matter much whether they do or don't.

Knowing is different from feeling. And, again, this also detracts from your premise.

3) Conscience is a moral GUIDE only. We can choose to follow its guidance or not.

So, again again, it's clearly not the only moral authority since it has no, well, authority.

 

[joe1776]

Arthur Shawcross has stated in an interview he feels absolutely nothing towards his victims and their family. No remorse, no guilt, nothing.
Ted Bundy is on video becoming ecstatic and euphoric in court hearing his crimes and the deeds of his crimes read out loud.

I don't see how your post applies to the argument in my OP. If you think it does, please explain.

 

[Augustus]

Your opinions on the French slave owner are obviously biased by the fact that you don't want to admit that I'm right about him.

Alternatively, your opinions are biased because you think you have come up with a great theory that makes you smarter than everyone else but no one agrees with you or recognises your 'genius'.

As such your cognitive dissonance has to make out that they are stupid or biased to protect your inflated view of your own intellect.

It couldn't just be that your arguments are fallacious and that's why no one ever agrees with you despite posting 10000 threads on exactly the same topic.

I have to keep my examples simple since you're having so much trouble understanding the concepts I'm offering.

"I could give good, logical, persuasive examples, I just choose not to"

I can't see what doesn't exist. Cultural environments change the facts of the situation and the biases involved. They don't influence our intuitive moral sense (conscience).

Your completely unsupported assertion is noted.

Minimize it all you like, but the fact is that you confuse biases with our intuitive moral sense (conscience).

Alternatively, the fact is you have a simplistic view of human society and cognition that fails to realise the complexities and dynamic relationship between environment, culture and thought. Combined with a strong emotional commitment to an obviously flawed theory, this means you can't see the error of your ways and simply resort to stating "I'm right, I'm right! and the only way you can disagree is because you are stupid or biased".

I'll let the "unbiased" decide who is right in this case as we will never agree

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see how your post applies to the argument in my OP. If you think it does, please explain.

Some people do not have the conscience or empathy that tells them killing is wrong. At most they are able to intellectually deduce there is something amiss with them because other people aren't like them. There is no feeling of "I did wrong." To them, killing a human being is not different than a fisher cleaning a fish to eat it.

 

[joe1776]

I find it incredible that you should think so. Fortunate slaves; a whole new moral bias.

Simple logic: Some slaves were treated with kindness. They were more fortunate than most others, and they probably realized it.

 

[Augustus]

Some slaves were treated with kindness. They were more fortunate than most others, and they probably realized it.

But much less fortunate than people who were never violently enslaved and shipped off overseas in the first place and they certainly realised this.

How would you feel if you were enslaved tomorrow, but had a 'good master'?