• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Conscience, Our Only Moral Authority

joe1776

Well-Known Member
So conscience is clearly not the only moral authority, as you claim.
Conscience is the only moral authority but I haven't claimed that everyone has one.

So conscience is clearly not the only moral authority, as you claim.
Please explain yourself. How does the fact that some people might not have a conscience detract from my premise?



So, again again, it's clearly not the only moral authority since it has no, well, authority.
Conscience is the only authority we have in discerning right from wrong. The fact that it can't compel us to do the right thing doesn't diminish its authority.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
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'.
That I'm smarter than most people is a fact supported by scores on the Stanford IQ test. That fact, of course, isn't evidence that I'm always right. However, the fact that you and others, after trying very hard, can't come up with a valid counter to my argument convinces me that I'm probably right as to the argument in the OP.


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".
Whatever you need to tell yourself to save face is fine by me.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
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'?
You want to compare two entirely different moral situations to the one in question. Are you not able to use empathy and put yourself into the shoes of the slaves that I wrote about?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
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.
Let's call that a fact. So, how does that fact counter the argument in the OP?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Let's call that a fact. So, how does that fact counter the argument in the OP?
It is a fact.
It counters to OP because they have no conscious to act as a moral authority.
Narcissists are also impaired in this area.
Machiavellians also tend to not concern themselves with morality.
 
You want to compare two entirely different moral situations to the one in question. Are you not able to use empathy and put yourself into the shoes of the slaves that I wrote about?

Yes, my empathy tells me they would be at least lightly miffed that they were enslaved in the first place.

Does your empathy not tell you these freeborn Africans might not have been overjoyed simply to be the property of a "good white man'?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
It is a fact.
It counters to OP because they have no conscious to act as a moral authority.
Narcissists are also impaired in this area.
Machiavellians also tend to not concern themselves with morality.
First, you're nit-picking. When I make a general statement like "conscience is our only moral authority," pointing out that a small percentage of human beings may not have a conscience is picking nits. Pointing out exceptions does not negate that the general rule is a fact.

Secondly, conscience is a MORAL GUIDE. The fact that many humans ignore its guidance does not argue against my claim that conscience is our only moral authority.

Do you have anything else?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
First, you're nit-picking. When I make a general statement like "conscience is our only moral authority," pointing out that a small percentage of human beings may not have a conscience is picking nits. Pointing out exceptions does not negate that the general rule is a fact.

Secondly, conscience is a MORAL GUIDE. The fact that many humans ignore its guidance does not argue against my claim that conscience is our only moral authority.

Do you have anything else?
Yeah.
How long did you sit around trying to figure out how to McFrankensteined your own argument around?
Did you use Xactor or Gerber to do the cutting?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Yes, my empathy tells me they would be at least lightly miffed that they were enslaved in the first place.

Does your empathy not tell you these freeborn Africans might not have been overjoyed simply to be the property of a "good white man'?
No, I don't feel the need to feel morally superior to all slave owners. So, given the fact that the people he held as slaves could be educated and given a better life, persuades me that the French slave-owner acted morally.

Oskar Schindler's Jews were his slaves but the more important fact is that he saved 1,200 lives during WW2.
 
No, I don't feel the need to feel morally superior to all slave owners. So, given the fact that the people he held as slaves could be educated and given a better life, persuades me that the French slave-owner acted morally.

So if you were an African farmer minding his own business when another tribe took you captive, raped your wife and daughter, took you to a slave market, sold you to someone else who put you on a ship, raped your wife and daughters then separated you from your family who you'll never see again then shipped you off to the New World where you were sold as property to be owned for the rest of your life, you would think yourself lucky just because the person who bought you was a 'good master'?

You don't think you might just be more upset about losing your home, family, culture and freedom and being sold like an animal and kept captive? You would instead be happy that you now have a 'better life'?

You almost sound like one of these apologists for the Confederacy and their "happy negroes who knew their place and loved their masters" schtick.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
So if you were an African farmer minding his own business when another tribe took you captive, raped your wife and daughter, took you to a slave market, sold you to someone else who put you on a ship, raped your wife and daughters then separated you from your family who you'll never see again then shipped you off to the New World where you were sold as property to be owned for the rest of your life, you would think yourself lucky just because the person who bought you was a 'good master'?

You don't think you might just be more upset about losing your home, family, culture and freedom and being sold like an animal and kept captive? You would instead be happy that you now have a 'better life'?

You almost sound like one of these apologists for the Confederacy and their "happy negroes who knew their place and loved their masters" schtick.
Is it alright if I assume that the slave isn't completely stupid and he's aware of the kind of treatment other slaves receive in the care of other owners? I think it's reasonable to expect he'd need time to adjust, but eventually he'd fall in with the group whose attitude would be GENERALLY appreciative.

The topic of morality is filled with logical fallacies. Your error here is the most common. Your mind can't get past the act itself: slave ownership. You are trying to make the ownership of slaves wrong as an absolute rule. The mind loves to make absolute rules. They work so well when one needs to feel morally superior. Killing is always wrong is the most common error.

The abolition of slavery was obviously moral progress. But, from that, we can't jump to the conclusion that all instances of slave ownership were immoral.

Thomas Jefferson inherited and kept slaves but he was opposed to slavery. That's not a contradiction. He was dealing with a world where, because of racism, freed slaves were commonly worse off than the life they might have with Jefferson or another slave owner like him
 
Last edited:

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
That I'm smarter than most people is a fact supported by scores on the Stanford IQ test. That fact, of course, isn't evidence that I'm always right.

Of course not. I'm a member of Mensa and even I was wrong once. My ego wouldn't let me admit it though.

However, the fact that you and others, after trying very hard, can't come up with a valid counter to my argument convinces me that I'm probably right as to the argument in the OP.

So in summary: you're probably right but you're unable to convince anyone.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
So in summary: you're probably right but you're unable to convince anyone.
I don't expect to convince the posters who offer debate. That happens on Internet forums, but it's rare.

I write arguments intended to persuade intelligent, unbiased readers that I'm right. I have no idea if I've been successful here or not. But the fact that I haven't had any serious logical challenges works in my favor.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
But the fact that I haven't had any serious logical challenges works in my favor.

So an unconvincing argument is a win-win for you then.

The idea of an appreciative slave is at best inane and at worst could be construed as racist.
 
Last edited:
But the fact that I haven't had any serious logical challenges works in my favor.

Or alternatively, your ego causes the cognitive dissonance that forces you to dismiss counterarguments out of hand as they threaten the emotional satisfaction you receive from considering yourself to have solved several of humanities great problems in one fell swoop. Just like how a fundamentalist can't see the obvious flaws in their logic even though other people can.

As a person of 'above average' intelligence, you have to accept this is at least a possibility, yes? You agree no human is immune to this cognitive phenomenon?

You also have to accept that, in general, any person who has come up with a grand theory regarding issues of great complexity and sees absolutely no logical arguments against their position is far more likely suffering from epistemic arrogance than to be correct. Maybe you are the outlier, but all the others thought they were the outlier too. Agreed?

You will also probably agree that, in general, someone who recognises the logical challenges to their position is far more likely to be correct than someone who thinks there are none, and is certainly more likely to be self-critical and intellectually honest. Agreed?

You have dismissed the following 'logical challenges' out of hand. It is possible to believe your arguments are stronger, but to see these as not even anything worth considering is very telling to me.

You treat the brain as a non-complex system that can be understood reductively like a man-made machine (this contradicts modern scientific understanding of the brain)

You claim you can make predictions with certainty about the long term future based on incomplete information (this is generally considered to be impossible)

You have never provided any scientific evidence that your 'universal conscience' exists, just cherry-picked quotes from scientists who explicitly disagree with your overall conclusions (hence you are making a lot of subjective assumptions and inferences which greatly increases the chance of you being wrong)

You functionally deny neurodiversity exists (if it does, you cannot assume a universal conscience)

If any one of the following is true: the brain is a complex system, you have incomplete information about the brain and human society, neurodiversity exists, it is impossible that your degree of certainty is warranted. If all 3 are true, the degree of contingency increases exponentially and you confidence level decreases in line with this.


No need to address them as I know you won't/can't. They are just for the "unbiased observers" that definitely exist and definitely waste their time reading our silly arguments :D
 
Top