Conscience: Simple, Powerful, Infallible

[icehorse]

Didn't get that. Explain that, please.

On expertise: You have proposed that juries be allowed to pass judgments independent of existing bodies of law. Would you think the same thing about neurosurgery? Would you propose that a group of well intended, but untrained citizens be allowed to perform neurosurgery?

My guess is that you'd reject my surgery idea, so how is it that you are deciding that one domain of expertise can be ignored, but another cannot?

 

[icehorse]

Conscience IS intuitive. It derives from the subconscious which might well be in touch with a greater reality.

Conscience has an intuitive component, I'd agree with that.

 

[joe1776]

Perhaps, but we all have different senses of what is permissible and what is not. I'd say that it would be an equally chaotic system.

As stated, my position is that "we all have different senses of what is permissible and what is not" because of biases.

 

[YmirGF]

You don't accept that conscience is a simple, powerful, infallible tool for moral guidance, and you minimize the importance of moral guidance, so of course you don't see the conscience I describe as evidence anything.

I'm not big on calling anything infallible for starters. It is possible to overthink issues rendering one incapable of moving forward due to unlimited consequences of our actions. Moral guidance? Who decides, for me, what is moral and what is not? You? Are you pretending that we will arrive at the same moral perspective? Seriously?

 

[shunyadragon]

When we read the facts in a case of cold-blooded murder, we immediately feel moral outrage. That's a signal from our conscience that the act is wrong. We have to regard that judgment as infallible because conscience is the only moral authority we have.

The moral responsibility of human consciousness is not as reliable as you naively propose.

When we write criminal laws to prohibit murder, they are unnecessary at best and biases at their worst because human acts happen in an almost infinite variety, moral situations are not an exception. Conscience is equipped to deal with those variations, the reasoning function of our brains cannot. It's not possible to write the perfect law on murder or any other kind of act.

The reality of the witness of human fallibility our consciousness is not equipped to deal consistently with the many variations possible, Laws have never been expected to be perfect only practical application moral code in Laws, There are not practical alternative.

The very same killing might be justifiable in several states in the USA but not in others. And, we're talking about laws that have a history of a thousand years, going back to English common law. The collective conscience of unbiased juries, after hearing all the facts, and unhindered by laws, would offer the best judgments on such cases.

Juries have never been found to be unbiased, In fact, I believe the jury system in the advocacy law system in the USA is highly flawed.

Criminal laws could be replaced by a simple mission statement to establish the state's obligation to protect innocent citizens from serious harm. Conscience has taught us that it is wrong to intentionally harm or endanger an innocent person. That's enough to guide unbiased juries.

Terribly naive and idealistic. Fallible individual consciousness has not taught that it is necessarily wrong to intentionally harm or endanger another person.

 

[YmirGF]

As stated, my position is that "we all have different senses of what is permissible and what is not" because of biases.

So, if we removes all that makes us different, we would all think the same. That's farking brilliant.

 

[joe1776]

On expertise: You have proposed that juries be allowed to pass judgments independent of existing bodies of law. Would you think the same thing about neurosurgery? Would you propose that a group of well intended, but untrained citizens be allowed to perform neurosurgery?

My guess is that you'd reject my surgery idea, so how is it that you are deciding that one domain of expertise can be ignored, but another cannot?

You used a false analogy. The use of a conscience requires no training and the use of a group rather than an individual is to rule out relevant bias.

Are you implying that lawmakers, lacking the facts of the case, are the experts on its judgment?

 

[pearl]

I don't think our conscience is formed in isolation, but is an informed conscience. Many mistakes, miscarriages of justice have been carried out in 'all good conscience'.

 

[icehorse]

Are you implying that lawmakers, lacking the facts of the case, are the experts on its judgment?

Of course not. Good legal decisions require BOTH an understanding of the body of law AND an understanding of the facts of the case.

 

[joe1776]

So, if we removes all that makes us different, we would all think the same. That's farking brilliant.

Why isn't it a good idea that we might all agree on the judgment in a specific moral case, such as whether a killing is justified or not?

 

[joe1776]

I don't think our conscience is formed in isolation, but is an informed conscience. Many mistakes, miscarriages of justice have been carried out in 'all good conscience'.

My position is that the conscience doesn't need to be informed. Moreover, the attempt to do so , by making moral rules, we create biases which lead to miscarriages of justice.

 

[icehorse]

My position is that the conscience doesn't need to be informed. Moreover, the attempt to do so , by making moral rules, creates biases which lead to miscarriages of justice.

How would you include (or not), the study of ethics in your position?

 

[joe1776]

Of course not. Good legal decisions require BOTH an understanding of the body of law AND an understanding of the facts of the case.

If we wanted good LEGAL decisions, I'd agree.. But, if we want justice, then a law that doesn't adequately deal with the facts, becomes a potential bias.

 

[eldios]

If I'm wrong, please correct me. Isn't the goal of your Baha'i Faith global harmony? If we humans learned to use conscience as a moral guide rather than scripture, global harmony would be inevitable, in my opinion.

It all depends on what set of information all those visible images and invisible thoughts are coming from that created man experiences within his consciousness. In this first generation, we have thoughts and images coming from Satan, the beast and for the past 2000 years, from Christ.

 

[joe1776]

How would you include (or not), the study of ethics in your position?

The reasoning function of the brain is the wrong tool to use on moral judgments. So, the study of ethics has been a waste of time. However, there are a couple of very simple systems which rely on conscience to do the heavy lifting. They are less likely to create biases.

 

[joe1776]

It all depends on what set of information all those visible images and invisible thoughts are coming from that created man experiences within his consciousness. In this first generation, we have thoughts and images coming from Satan, the beast and for the past 2000 years, from Christ.

While it's a very slow process, we humans actually are learning from experience. I'm optimistic. I think global harmony is inevitable.

 

[icehorse]

The reasoning function of the brain is the wrong tool to use on moral judgments. So, the study of ethics has been a waste of time. However, there are a couple of very simple systems which rely on conscience to do the heavy lifting. They are less likely to create biases.

From what I'm gathering (which might be a misunderstanding), you are - to a degree - arguing against critical thinking. If that's a largely correct understanding of your position, then I think it's a really bad idea.

 

[joe1776]

shunyadragon, comments in bold

The moral responsibility of human consciousness is not as reliable as you naively propose.

I'm talking about conscience not consciousness.

The reality of the witness of human fallibility our consciousness is not equipped to deal consistently with the many variations possible, Laws have never been expected to be perfect only practical application moral code in Laws, There are not practical alternative.

You disagree without challenging the reasons I gave for my position or giving reason for your position.

Juries have never been found to be unbiased, In fact, I believe the jury system in the advocacy law system in the USA is highly flawed.

Jurors don't have to be perfect human beings. They only have to be free of biases on a specific case.

Terribly naive and idealistic. Fallible individual consciousness has not taught that it is necessarily wrong to intentionally harm or endanger another person.

Test me. Give me a moral case that isn't covered. But include "innocent person" not just "person.

 

[eldios]

While it's a very slow process, we humans actually are learning from experience. I'm optimistic. I think global harmony is inevitable.

There will be a very quick change of everything we have ever experience on a day called the day of the Lord. The earth below your feet will start shaking violently and in one hour, everything on earth will be destroyed. Then created men will start experiencing peaceful images and thoughts within their individual minds.

 

[joe1776]

From what I'm gathering (which might be a misunderstanding), you are - to a degree - arguing against critical thinking. If that's a largely correct understanding of your position, then I think it's a really bad idea.

Yes, critical thinking is a function of the reasoning part of our brain. It learns and it relies on the knowledge that it learns to make choices.

Everything we know about Morality though, we learned from the feelings we get immediately from our conscience. When we allow reasoning to create moral rules, we are foolishly trying to take over judgments which are better made by conscience..