joe1776
Well-Known Member
Logical arguments are often built on a basic premise. The argument might be perfectly logical thereafter, but if the basic premise is false, the argument is invalid. For many centuries, theologians and philosophers have almost universally agreed on the premise that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason.
[Example] From the Catholic Catechism: 1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason...
This basic premise is the foundation of the arguments supporting the moral judgments of our social institutions like religion and criminal justice. Philosopher David Hume (1711 - 1776) was one of the few intellectuals who didn't agree with this premise. He said that our moral judgments were based on feelings. Now, it seems that research will support Hume's opinion .
Over the past 20 years or so, research has been confirming that our sense of right and wrong is intuitive and not a product of reason. An unpleasant feeling which signals wrong emerges instantly from the unconscious when we encounter an immoral act. One researcher puts it this way:
Years ago, I suspected Hume was right when I considered the axiom that all knowledge begins with the senses. It's about cause and effect: before we learn, we first have to notice an effect and then wonder about it. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must feel it. I concluded that everything we think we know about morality, we humans learned from those feelings that we refer to as conscience.
Furthermore, if the judgments of conscience were the product of reason as the world seems to believe, then there would be an obvious correlation between intelligence (the talent for reasoning) and morality. We've never noticed that correlation. In general, smart people aren't morally superior to the less intelligent.
Perhaps because reason is a function of the conscious mind associated with the ego, we humans engage in Reason Worship.
Due to Reason Worship, our reasoning minds want to learn about morality from conscience and then make moral rules. When our moral rule doesn't conflict with the guidance of conscience, it does no harm. It's simply unnecessary. When our moral rule conflicts with conscience, it becomes a potential bias capable of misleading those who follow it. Since they can only be unnecessary at their best, and biases at their worst, moral rules should be abandoned.
If I'm right, the following products of moral reasoning will be undermined in the future:
-- most of the work of ethical philosophers
-- the moral guidance of religious leaders
-- the moral guidance interpreted from religious texts
-- criminal justice laws
If I'm right, we humans have a universal conscience. It doesn't seem so because all cultures aren't on the same moral level. For example, in 1860, half the world had abolished legal slavery and the other half had not. It wasn't until the year 2000 that this conscience-driven moral advance had run its course. There are other conscience-driven human rights advances happening now with some cultures lagging behind others.
While the idea that we humans have a universal conscience undermines the notion of traditional religion as a moral authority, it's evidence that a Creator might exist and that we humans were given freewill along with a dirt-simple but quite remarkable internal moral guidance system. We can follow its guidance or not.
It's not compelling evidence of a Creator because an atheist can argue that the intuitive judgments of conscience are well-aligned with the survival of our species and, as such, they're a product of evolution.
[Example] From the Catholic Catechism: 1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason...
This basic premise is the foundation of the arguments supporting the moral judgments of our social institutions like religion and criminal justice. Philosopher David Hume (1711 - 1776) was one of the few intellectuals who didn't agree with this premise. He said that our moral judgments were based on feelings. Now, it seems that research will support Hume's opinion .
Over the past 20 years or so, research has been confirming that our sense of right and wrong is intuitive and not a product of reason. An unpleasant feeling which signals wrong emerges instantly from the unconscious when we encounter an immoral act. One researcher puts it this way:
Years ago, I suspected Hume was right when I considered the axiom that all knowledge begins with the senses. It's about cause and effect: before we learn, we first have to notice an effect and then wonder about it. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must feel it. I concluded that everything we think we know about morality, we humans learned from those feelings that we refer to as conscience.
Furthermore, if the judgments of conscience were the product of reason as the world seems to believe, then there would be an obvious correlation between intelligence (the talent for reasoning) and morality. We've never noticed that correlation. In general, smart people aren't morally superior to the less intelligent.
Perhaps because reason is a function of the conscious mind associated with the ego, we humans engage in Reason Worship.
Due to Reason Worship, our reasoning minds want to learn about morality from conscience and then make moral rules. When our moral rule doesn't conflict with the guidance of conscience, it does no harm. It's simply unnecessary. When our moral rule conflicts with conscience, it becomes a potential bias capable of misleading those who follow it. Since they can only be unnecessary at their best, and biases at their worst, moral rules should be abandoned.
If I'm right, the following products of moral reasoning will be undermined in the future:
-- most of the work of ethical philosophers
-- the moral guidance of religious leaders
-- the moral guidance interpreted from religious texts
-- criminal justice laws
If I'm right, we humans have a universal conscience. It doesn't seem so because all cultures aren't on the same moral level. For example, in 1860, half the world had abolished legal slavery and the other half had not. It wasn't until the year 2000 that this conscience-driven moral advance had run its course. There are other conscience-driven human rights advances happening now with some cultures lagging behind others.
While the idea that we humans have a universal conscience undermines the notion of traditional religion as a moral authority, it's evidence that a Creator might exist and that we humans were given freewill along with a dirt-simple but quite remarkable internal moral guidance system. We can follow its guidance or not.
It's not compelling evidence of a Creator because an atheist can argue that the intuitive judgments of conscience are well-aligned with the survival of our species and, as such, they're a product of evolution.
Last edited:
