The (mostly) unknowable God

[shunyadragon]

I agree that the problem is that we don't always do the right thing. However, since conscience always guides us properly, what training would children need beyond the commonly heard advice to "let your conscience be your guide?"

You spoke of "ethical principles" that needed to be studied. What principles? Do you have an example?

What ethical principle would guide us when it is OK to kill and when it is not OK? And how would it improve on the guidance of conscience?

Your idealistic an unrealistic view of fallible human conscience is out of touch with reality. Yes, humans are capable altruistic and unselfish motives for their actions, but self-justification often over rides one's motives of an ethical and moral conscience.

 

[shunyadragon]

In the context of respecting Baha'I religious leaders, I would try not to argue with them. But in the context of my personal relationship with God, it's too important to take established teachings at face value, at times.

OK

 

[joe1776]

Your idealistic an unrealistic view of fallible human conscience is out of touch with reality. Yes, humans are capable altruistic and unselfish motives for their actions, but self-justification often over rides one's motives of an ethical and moral conscience.

Conscience isn't fallible. It cannot form intent. Our conscious ego forms intent. It can heed the guidance of conscience -- intuition that emerges immediately from the unconscious -- or not.

A WW2 soldier fighting for the allies feels justified killing the enemy whose leaders would oppress the weak. Then, he is given an order to kill civilians and his conscience protests. He can feel the wrongness. If he follows the order, he will feel guilt the rest of his life when he remembers his immoral act.

Human acts happen in an almost infinite variety and yet our conscience will warn us of wrongness immediately, as it did this soldier, when the act we are considering is wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

Conscience isn't fallible.

Our conscience is intimately related to being a fallible human.


.

. . It cannot form intent. Our conscious ego forms intent. It can heed the guidance of conscience -- intuition that emerges immediately from the unconscious -- or not.

I do not believe you can partition the conscience and the unconscious to justify your argument.

A WW2 soldier fighting for the allies feels justified killing the enemy whose leaders would oppress the weak. Then, he is given an order to kill civilians and his conscience protests. He can feel the wrongness. If he follows the order, he will feel guilt the rest of his life when he remembers his immoral act.

Please not bold. Not all soldier's conscience protest.

Human acts happen in an almost infinite variety and yet our conscience will warn us of wrongness immediately, as it did this soldier, when the act we are considering is wrong.

In reality no, human acts are actually very limited; first by the Laws of Nature, second the evolutionary motivations for the species to survive insures that most actions by humans will be made to preserve the family, community, tribe and humanity, by the cultural, and religious orientation of the sense of community and belonging,[/quote]

 

[joe1776]

Our conscience is intimately related to being a fallible human.

I explained the relationship: Conscience is a guide. We fallible humans can follow it or not.

I do not believe you can partition the conscience and the unconscious to justify your argument.

I don't understand. What am I partitioning when I explain that conscience is moral intuition which emerges immediately from the unconscious?

Please not bold. Not all soldier's conscience protest.

All except the sociopaths.

In reality no, human acts are actually very limited; first by the Laws of Nature...

The 50 states of the USA, have massive laws just on acts that involve killings. They are all different. The same killing might be justified as self-defense in some states but not in others. What "Laws of Nature" would limit the number of different fact-situations possible for the act of killing?

...second the evolutionary motivations for the species to survive insures that most actions by humans will be made to preserve the family, community, tribe and humanity, by the cultural, and religious orientation of the sense of community and belonging,

Evolution is a fact but evolutionary biologists have offered some weak theories based on it. Yours is one of them.

Conscience, our moral intuition, is probably well-aligned with survival. For example, conscience dictates that it would be wrong to kill innocent others but allows that killing in self-defense or to protect innocent others is justified. This culls the wrongdoers from our midst and lowers their impact on our gene pool benefiting survival.

 

[shunyadragon]

I explained the relationship: Conscience is a guide. We fallible humans can follow it or not.

I don't understand. What am I partitioning when I explain that conscience is moral intuition which emerges immediately from the unconscious?

I understand your view I just do not agree with it.

All except the sociopaths.

Too much of a generalization.

The 50 states of the USA, have massive laws just on acts that involve killings. They are all different. The same killing might be justified as self-defense in some states but not in others. What "Laws of Nature" would limit the number of different fact-situations possible for the act of killing?

They are all very similar and have their roots in European and English common law.

Evolution is a fact but evolutionary biologists have offered some weak theories based on it. Yours is one of them.

I will side with science here

Conscience, our moral intuition, is probably well-aligned with survival. For example, conscience dictates that it would be wrong to kill innocent others but allows that killing in self-defense or to protect innocent others is justified. This culls the wrongdoers from our midst and lowers their impact on our gene pool benefiting survival.

Loose weak understanding of the evolution of human behavior.