1. 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!

Featured The judgments of conscience are simple phenomena

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by joe1776, Nov 7, 2019.

  1. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    The judgments of conscience are simple phenomena.

    Is this specific action morally right or wrong?
    Is this specific action fair or unfair?


    Upon hearing the facts of a specific act, the judgments of conscience are immediate. If the act is morally wrong or unfair, we immediately get an unpleasant feeling of wrongfulness produced by the pain-pleasure function of our brain. The act feels wrong. If we don't get that unpleasant feeling, we can assume the specific act is fair or morally justified.

    These judgments happen immediately and usually can't be reasonably explained. Research has shown that the attempts to reasonably explain the judgments occur after the judgment was made and often make no sense.

    What we call the judgments of conscience are the product of intuition which emerges immediately from the unconscious. They are not the product of the slow, reasoning, conscious mind. Thus, most philosophers and theologians have, for centuries, built their arguments on a false premise.

    College Psych courses still teach the moral theory of Lawrence Kohlberg which is based on this false premise the we reason our way to moral judgments even though research is confirming that our moral judgments are intuitive.

    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
    1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

    That "conscience is a judgement of reason" is a false premise which allows the Church to argue that it can inform-teach the conscience by offering moral guidance to its faithful. If the judgments of conscience are intuitive as I've proposed, then conscience has to be recognized as our one and only moral authority.

    However, not only the Catholic Church but all traditional religions as well as moral philosophers will be put out of the moral guidance business when the science on this topic goes mainstream.

    The bottom line: An unbiased mind and the guidance of conscience are the only requirements to know the difference between right and wrong or fair and unfair.

    Comments and questions?
     
  2. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Deus Lux Mea Est
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    28,700
    Ratings:
    +14,021
    Religion:
    Christian Mystic (Anglo-Catholic)
    There's no such thing as an "unbiased mind" as our minds are largely shaped by culture, such as our concept of right and wrong behavior. Also, some are born without a conscience (psychopaths).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Laika

    Laika Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,189
    Ratings:
    +6,890
    What a remarkably sane and normal thing to say...

    Have you met the human race? :D

     
  4. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    Both of your objections are nit-picking attempts to contradict general statements by pointing our exceptions.

    1) Minds need only be unbiased on the specific moral case. For example, in a criminal case jurors must only be unbiased on the specific case.

    2) If my topic had been about the general problems involved with walking, your pointing out that some people are born without legs would be as irrelevant as your pointing our that some people are allegedly born without a conscience.
     
  5. Amanaki

    Amanaki Living in the moment

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    5,756
    Ratings:
    +3,241
    A feeling of good can also be created by immoral acts. words and thoughts. and then this feeling will give a negative experience of morality.
    So it is not by feeling we know if an act is morally good or bad. It is the result after we have done the act that will show if it was good or bad. An example is if someone is hurt or harmed by our actions, it is immoral to do so.
    But it can also be immoral to have pleasure for our self, but reject others the same.

    And to make it even more difficult. an action we do may look innocent and good, but turn out it was bad and it becomes immoral to do so.

    And when you look at the teachings in relgions, it is meant as a guide for what is good or bad moral.
    Then it is up to the humans to follow it or do against it. so it is not religion that is evil/wrong, it is human beinsg who can be immoral
     
  6. Heyo

    Heyo Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    369
    Ratings:
    +305
    Religion:
    none
    Have you heard of the Trolley problem - Wikipedia ?
    When you find that you and people you think of as moral all answered the problems consistently and the same, just by intuition, your hypothesis has merit.

    Our innate sense of right and wrong is the basis of morality but without introspection it remains an instinct. Morality is instinct plus ratio.
     
  7. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,637
    Ratings:
    +10,689
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Not at all. Many times people, myself included, will stop and weigh evidence before making a judgment.,


    Perhaps, but we'll need your evidence before agreeing. Whatcha got?

    Again, we'll need your evidence.

    Of course. An attempt to explain why an action occurred (a judgement) HAS to come after the action. :facepalm:

    Source please. Thank you

    You mean like you've built your conclusions sans evidence? Of course, if you have evidence for those items I asked about please do share.

    Really! And you know so because ______________________fill in the blank______________ .


    And so far you've yet to show evidence that judgments of conscience are intuitive. So why should we bother with your conclusion?

    In light of your lack of any corroboration, this is all hokum.

    .

    .

    .
     
  8. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    I don't understand how this is possible. Give me an example, please.

    What you are claiming is that, if we killed someone, we would only know that it's wrong to do so after we did it. Now, you know that's not true.

    Example, please.

    According to conscience, the act isn't immoral unless the injury was intended. Accidental injuries caused by the negligence of an automobile driver are not classified as crimes, for example.
    I argue that the moral guidance of religion is based on a false premise. When it agrees with the guidance of conscience, it does no harm. When it doesn't , it misleads.
     
  9. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    Moral dilemmas, like the trolley problem, are exceptions to the rule that conscience is all you need to judge moral cases.

    We are offered two options which conscience immediately and intuitively informs us would be immoral judged individually. But, in order to determine which does the least harm, our reasoning mind must weigh the consequences.

    When judging moral dilemmas under fMRI, two parts of the brain light up.
     
  10. Amanaki

    Amanaki Living in the moment

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    5,756
    Ratings:
    +3,241
    1: If the act, word or thought is done to give the ego a boost, and harm other, example in bullying, that is a immoral act. (the bully feel good when seeing others suffering)

    2:We already know that killing is a very immoral act to do. so no this is not what I meant.
    When we do an action that we think is good (for the ego) and it turns out it was immoral, we ourselves will suffer from it in the present moment, or in the future.

    3: If an act is done without intention to harm someone, it could be that the person who did get hurt, was already meant to suffer from a pat act/speech or thought they did in their life, but we were used as the "tool" to make them suffer. This does not count as a immoral act from us.
     
  11. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    If I thought that there was much chance that linking you to the research that supports my argument would change your mind, or simply induce you into an interesting debate, I'd spend the time to give you some. But from the tone of your post, I can tell that would be a waste of my time.
     
  12. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    You seem to be using your reasoning mind to make up moral rules. My position is that you don't need those rules. Moreover, you wouldn't be able to make the rules if you had no conscience.
     
  13. Amanaki

    Amanaki Living in the moment

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    5,756
    Ratings:
    +3,241
    They are not my "rules" :) my understanding of Buddhist teaching about morality is the baseline of what I write. Do I hold the full truth of every part of moral and immoral, no I do not, so I can only share my understanding of it?
     
  14. Heyo

    Heyo Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    369
    Ratings:
    +305
    Religion:
    none
    And thus invalidate your hypothesis.
    Our instincts are not enough. They are survival shortcuts. They favour our kin and tribe. They are the reason an author can make us root for a person who is objectively immoral.
    Btw.: note that I don't argue that religious guidance is needed to supplement our instincts, a thinking brain is enough. In fact religious "guidance" may lead to immoral behaviour.
     
  15. spirtual-philosophy

    spirtual-philosophy seeker of truth

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,892
    Ratings:
    +465
    Religion:
    non-theist / secular humanist
    Unless the person is a narcissist or psychopath or sociopath.
     
  16. spirtual-philosophy

    spirtual-philosophy seeker of truth

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,892
    Ratings:
    +465
    Religion:
    non-theist / secular humanist
    And why would anyone assume this source of information is trustworthy in its claims? Are they psychologists who have done sufficient research to make such claims?
     
  17. spirtual-philosophy

    spirtual-philosophy seeker of truth

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,892
    Ratings:
    +465
    Religion:
    non-theist / secular humanist
    These instant judgments may not be correct. Just because the mind generates such quick judgments doesn't mean they are wise or moral. For example, there is a certain president of a certain country who acts on every impulse, causing great damage to millions.

    I think a better approach is to compare the instant conclusions with a well-reasoned moral system. If they don't match, well,... the intended behavior is probably not a good idea, as it will have unintended consequences which harm others.
     
  18. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    (1) How is my hypothesis invalidated by pointing out the infrequent moral exception which still requires intuition?

    (2) Group pride or tribalism isn't a factor in our moral guidance. It's a bias which can cause us to ignore our moral intuition (conscience).
     
  19. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    My OP discusses how normal human beings make moral judgments. I didn't write about the many biases which can cause us to ignore the guidance of conscience.
     
  20. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,842
    Ratings:
    +987
    Religion:
    None
    No, the research thus far only supports the fact that our moral judgments are intuitive and not the product of reasoning. It does not support the accuracy of our intuition.

    So, we don't know if conscience is fallible or infallible. But since we have no other moral authority do we have any choice but to assume its guidance is correct?
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...