What proof is there of the conscience?

[Mole]

One argument is to say that the conscience is much like consciousness, in that it can only be proven with introspection. This is morally appealing because it shifts responsibility to the other person to either accept or reject their own subjective experience since no outsider could ever convince them. This allows for free will. It is also semantically appealing because just as language requires consciousness, it could be said that language requires conscience, so even by using language we have to accept consciousness and conscience. It is not to say that some things can never be proven, but rather that they are proven a priori.

Can we put conscience into the same category as consciousness? Can we catagorise conscience as a part of human nature? Is conscience a part of being rational? If so, then no more work needs to be done or can be done to prove the existence of the conscience. We might be able to argue that the conscience is a part of being rational because rationality requires that we don't make arbitrary distinctions. For example, it is irrational to believe in things such as country borders or heaven because those things cannot be objectively measured. Likewise for morality, perhaps we can say for example that everyone has a preference for life. If they didn't, they would be in a vegetative state and wouldn't be really a human at all. So we could say that this preference for life is a part of that human nature I discussed earlier *. If someone prefers their own life, they must also prefer the other peoples' lives because other people are in no way objectively different to them (they share the same human nature). Otherwise, it would be like believing in country borders or in heaven. If someone is immoral, they would have to be irrational because they would have to ignore that fact. Perhaps it's that irrationality that creates psychological distress in the form of cognitive dissonance. This argument sounds very abstract but perhaps it doesn't need to be known consciously to create that psychological distress. The unconscious mind processes things vastly faster than the conscious mind, so I assume that this is where the conscience would exist.

More questions could be raised, such as why does the conscience raise so much guilt compared to non-moral mechanisms? One answer might be that moral judgements are existential in nature. For example, believing in country borders has little to do with your wellbeing. But if you are a murderer, the kind of distress you would feel would be epistemologically equivalent to as if you were being murdered yourself because the unconscious mind wouldn't be able to objectively distinguish you from the other person and so would have to sort of assume you are the other person.

What do other people think?

 

* Of course, some people kill themselves but even that requires a preference for life because life is required to even decide to kill oneself. Killing oneself is a future preference which does not exist because the future does not exist.

[Mole]

Just now, Philociraptor said:

Consciousness means living being that is sentient/aware. Conscience is just the natural ability to determine right from wrong. This of course requires consciousness, but they are not synonyms like you seem to think they are.

I did not mean they are synonymous. I mean that they both belong to the same category called 'things required for rationality'.

[Mole]

Just now, Philociraptor said:

well, that's proof conscience exists. It's not a thing on it's own, it's a property of consciousness. It's the ability to determine right from wrong

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by conscience? Do you mean the ability to determine right and wrong with logic, or naturally like an instinct, or a desire to do what's right, or some mix of those? When I used conscience I mean the part of the self that will criticise you if you do something wrong. For example, a murderer might know what's right and wrong but we don't say a murderer has a strong conscience.

[Mole]

3 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

Conscience is the ability to determine right from wrong. It doesn't matter what path you wish to get there. I could look at an online news article and get information about what is the next right move that I might choose. I could also just go outside and talk to people and get opinions on current events and try (again) to make the right move. Conscience is simply the ability to determine right from wrong. 

Your real question is "is morality relative?" and depending on how you mean that, I would most likely say no. But if you mean "morality is how you apply the conscience to society and/or your daily life" then I guess you could say it's relative. But that's no how morality is generally defined. And "moral relativism" is defined as "there is no true right or wrong only what society says" which of course is pure idiocy and retarded.

Why is that idiocy and retarded?

[Mole]

25 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

If you think it's relative, then I can say it's not and you can't tell me I'm wrong as "there is no right and wrong". Attempting to make an absolutist "that's wrong" statement about a moral issue when you believe morality cannot be absolute is called circular logic. 

Would you say the same about murder? Like someone says "murder is not wrong" but implicitly saying "I prefer my own life because I wish to say that murder is not wrong". So a person who argues that murder isn't wrong is also using circular logic?

[Mole]

6 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

If morality isn't relative, then neither is murder.

Why?

[Mole]

Just now, Philociraptor said:

If morality isn't relative, then murder is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I don't think it's a good idea to say it's absolutely right

Is sleeping absolutely right or absolutely wrong?

[Mole]

Just now, Philociraptor said:

sleeping doesn't hurt anyone. Murder does.

Why does whether it hurts someone matter?

[Mole]

So hurting people is wrong. And what is wrong is saying 'there is no right and wrong' because that shows a preference to believe that 'there is no right and wrong' is right. What do they share in common? I know from reading UPB that what they share in common is that neither is universally preferable. To say 'hurting people is right' is to prefer to not to be hurt.

[Mole]

1 minute ago, Philociraptor said:

Hurting people is wrong. Hurting people also hurts you. If you are at a music concert the person standing next to you can hear the same vibrations coming from the stage's musicians and instruments/speakers etc. You are both being affected by those vibrations at the same time, having a similar response. If someone were to murder another person in front of you and assuming you were frozen with fear and didn't do anything to stop it, you would feel what the murder victim is feeling as they die. To attempt to say "well maybe some people can take seeing MORE murder before it hurts them" is akin to believing you can morph into a whale and swim out into the pacific ocean and save all of the fish from the radioactive material in the waters over there with your special telekinetic powers. Believing that things around you have no affect on you means you don't believe in an objective reality and are therefore certifiably insane.

2

Some things affect you and some things don't.

[Mole]

1 minute ago, Philociraptor said:

Everything affects you. If they didn't, then those specific things simply didn't happen at all in the material, physical world. Of course, even thoughts affect you. But if it didn't happen in the physical world, as thinking about something is just a simulation, not a real physical event outside of you, then of course you're not affected by it. You can't be affected by specific things that didn't happen.

I see. So how do we determine how immoral acts would affect you?

[Mole]

You said that the conscience is the ability to determine what is right and wrong. Then what is sympathy? Isn't sympathy the conscience? Or is sympathy also the ability to determine what is right and wrong?

[Mole]

3 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

Well if it's bad then it's bad, you're going to feel the sympathy pain and terror the person feels in the case of them being murdered. You can feel so much sympathy pain in fact that you are physically in severe pain yourself even though no one is physically touching you. The fact remains, you cannot ignore how the other person is feeling. The vibrations and energy they are giving off as they are being killed and affected you in such a way is no difference than a newton's cradle balls hitting each other back and forth. It's an unavoidable and objective consequence to the energy being put forth. You will feel bad for the person.  

You said that the conscience is the ability to determine what is right and wrong. Then what is sympathy? Isn't sympathy the conscience? Or is sympathy also the ability to determine what is right and wrong?

[Mole]

12 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

sympathy would be the result of your conscience. Conscience is ability to determine right from wrong. Once you have fully realized that this is a murder taking place and not some kind of halloween scare prank, you will deduce quickly that this is wrong. Sympathy is an agreement that someone has for someone else's actions. In the case of someone struggling against a murderer, you would agree with them that they should struggle to get away. Empathy is more of the emotional version of sympathy, but those 2 words in this case cannot be separated from this situation. You will sympathize with the victim's struggle and empathize with how they feel.  

Hurting people is wrong and it affects you. It affects you because you feel sympathy. You feel sympathy because you have a conscience. Your conscience says that hurting people is wrong. Why is hurting people wrong?

[Mole]

3 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

Hurt is when something happens that is destructive to innocent life. Note: I said destructive I did not say destroy. People can get hurt without dying, of course. 

What are you implying with that definition?

[Mole]

2 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

That it is wrong to hurt people. Hurt is not a candy cane to lick at christmas. Hurt is something destructive to innocent life. Hurting people is wrong because if "wrong" (we're talking about murder not a math problem) means "intentional illogical action taken against a living thing" then we can say hurt is illogical and therefore wrong. I can step on your foot and accidentally break your big toe, doesn't mean I had intent. Hurt is illogical because as I demonstrated above, hurting someone else would hurt you, and that destructiveness would stop you from being destructive, eventually, defeating any reason you would have of being destructive, therefore. It is illogical. Of course, nothing truly happens instantaneously, so the karma doesn't require immediate justice. The light that bounces off of your face and into my eyes does in fact take time to do such.

Those who seek to do harm to others will be destroyed, in time.

Have you ever been to a concert?  Have you see how the sound waves affect the crowd as the sound travels away from the stage and the crowd appears to claps in a wave of time lag? Nothing happens instantaneously.

The government hurts others. The government hasn't been destroyed. Politicians don't die. Welfare recipients aren't destroyed.

[Mole]

Just now, Philociraptor said:

The government isn't a thing, and it isn't a person. It is a collection of individuals, some good and some bad. One day it will be only good people running it, but to be honest, a truly noble and virtuous government is the one staring back at you in your mirror.

Politicians and welfare recipients aren't destroyed. In fact, their immoral behaviour keeps them going.

[ofd]

Robert Sapolsky recently published a book on the topic where he describes the evolution of moral behaviour from a biological perspective. Well worth checking as well as his interviews with Sam Harris or Joe Rogan. He claims that conscience serves a role in adapting to society to spread our genes. Since social behaviour is complex and different from culture to culture, this part of the brain develops relatively late and stops when you are into your mid 20s.

[Mole]

11 hours ago, ofd said:

Robert Sapolsky recently published a book on the topic where he describes the evolution of moral behaviour from a biological perspective. Well worth checking as well as his interviews with Sam Harris or Joe Rogan. He claims that conscience serves a role in adapting to society to spread our genes. Since social behaviour is complex and different from culture to culture, this part of the brain develops relatively late and stops when you are into your mid 20s.

Of course, an evolutionary perspective raises the concern of what is morally right when evolution tells us to do destructive things like be a parasite or be patriotic or go to war. Or more personally not to be critical of those around you.

[Mole]

14 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

Didn't anthony weiner just get a 21 month prison sentence? You know I hear hillary's book sale isn't going too well. Also, many things that happen in politics are kept secret. There are some people that believe that the US government perhaps assisted north korean rebels in poisoning Kim Jong Un's father, Kim Jong Il. Now, kim jong un has some kind of severe gout problem. Sometimes, justice comes slowly, sometimes swift. Sometimes out in the open, and sometimes completely hidden from view. Regardless of how long it takes, Kim Jong Un is going to probably be assassinated. He's not going to fair well regardless of what happens and I suspect that soon, either way he will end up dead or missing.

How does this karmic force work? What proof is there for it?

[Mole]

14 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

Didn't anthony weiner just get a 21 month prison sentence? You know I hear hillary's book sale isn't going too well. Also, many things that happen in politics are kept secret. There are some people that believe that the US government perhaps assisted north korean rebels in poisoning Kim Jong Un's father, Kim Jong Il. Now, kim jong un has some kind of severe gout problem. Sometimes, justice comes slowly, sometimes swift. Sometimes out in the open, and sometimes completely hidden from view. Regardless of how long it takes, Kim Jong Un is going to probably be assassinated. He's not going to fair well regardless of what happens and I suspect that soon, either way he will end up dead or missing.

How does this karmic force work? What proof is there for it?

[ofd]

A biological perspective allows you to ask questions that can be answered. Where is our sense of morality located? What role does morality play in group cohesion and group selection?

 

Quote

evolutionary perspective raises the concern of what is morally right

The proof is in the pudding. If your moral system makes the group and the individual spread their genes, it is correct.

 

Quote

evolution tells us to do destructive things like be a parasite or be patriotic or go to war.

Evolution doesn't, your moral system does. And that moral system is under selection pressure over the generations.

 

Quote

Or more personally not to be critical of those around you.

This is the conundrum. Your brain allows you to adjust to dysfunctional enviroments, but once the enviroment changes for the better you are still stuck with those now maladaptive adjustments.

[Mole]

2 hours ago, ofd said:

A biological perspective allows you to ask questions that can be answered. Where is our sense of morality located? What role does morality play in group cohesion and group selection?

 

The proof is in the pudding. If your moral system makes the group and the individual spread their genes, it is correct.

 

Evolution doesn't, your moral system does. And that moral system is under selection pressure over the generations.

 

This is the conundrum. Your brain allows you to adjust to dysfunctional enviroments, but once the enviroment changes for the better you are still stuck with those now maladaptive adjustments.

4

I think what is likely is that we had ideas in our minds which we acted upon for natural adaptation purposes. But soon enough these ideas became maladaptive for natural adaptation purposes. I find it hard to argue against this given that virtually everything we do has been so vigorously conditioned that it has been virtually cut off from the preceding unconditioned stimuli.

The thoughts still existed, however, so rather than our behaviour and corresponding thoughts being adaptations, the thoughts exist as entities in their own right. Now those thoughts give rise to cultural evolution. The key difference it has from natural selection is that the thoughts that survive are those that are rational.

Let me give an example of what I'm trying to say here. Early in our species development, we may have formed the idea that "subjugation is moral". This would be adaptive for both the authorities and for the subordinates. After some technological progress perhaps self-defence becomes more feasible and there is no longer an adaptive need for this moral judgement. However, the moral judgement still exists. Psychologically, our mind still believed that this moral judgement is good for our survival, or more accurately, it's just preferred or good (I don't think the brain knows what is good for your survival, rather it just knows what's 'good'; it simply prefers or doesn't prefer).

So naturally, the idea will try to survive. It will compete against other ideas within the brain. What emerges is an identity. A person. These ideas will only survive if they conform logical consistency and empirical evidence. If they don't, they run into each other but only one can then survive. This allows for rationality, and universal morality where morality is no longer an adaptation towards genetic survival but rather towards the survival of the idea itself, and hence the survival of the mind or ego as the mind is nothing but a bunch of ideas.

If we think of ideas themselves as 'selfish genes', I think it can revolutionalise how we think of ethics.

[Kikker]

21 hours ago, ofd said:

The proof is in the pudding. If your moral system makes the group and the individual spread their genes, it is correct.

Are you saying a moral system is encoded into your DNA?

21 hours ago, ofd said:

Evolution doesn't, your moral system does. And that moral system is under selection pressure over the generations.

Are you saying a moral system isn't encoded into your DNA?

[ofd]

Quote

Are you saying a moral system is encoded into your DNA?

The basic stuff is likely to be encoded, the minutae not. Caring for deceased could be encoded in the DNA but the way this happens is different. Some cultures put dead people in the ground, others feed them to birds. Both may think that what the other culture does is barbaric.

[lorry]

That man is the only being that is capable of acting contrary to the values upon which his life is dependant, is proof of what you might call his conscious. Inanimate objects to do not have values. Other forms of life have values but can not act contrary to them.

[Mole]

On 9/28/2017 at 10:24 AM, Philociraptor said:

I just replied to this topic but the moderator for some reason didn't let it go through until 2 days until now. Read up above for the comment.

Is it a reply to my karmic force comment? Can't seem to find it, unfortunately.

[Mole]

10 hours ago, Philociraptor said:

well it's getting on my nerves. Let's try again. Karma is just a word that describes the relationship between action and reaction. That's really all karma is. There's good karma and bad karma. The idea is that if good things are done, then the do-gooder will be rewarded with good things. If they do evil, they are punished.

What is the causal relationship between immorality and reward or punishment?

[Mole]

1 minute ago, Philociraptor said:

the initial act. 

If I'm an immoral person, how will my actions affect me?

[Mole]

2 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

negatively. Killing a murderer is not murder. The initial action taken was the ending of an innocent life. Innocent and Guilty are opposites. The opposite effect of murder is to end the "life" of the guilty.

However, not all murderers are killed. Are you suggesting that the only reason why people should be moral is for the sake of their own liberty and safety?

[Mole]

30 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

It is not necessarily up to us to do this. Mother nature takes care of the problem. Remember that everyone dies eventually. But every bad person is known to someone as the piece of garbage that they are. There is always a plot against them to get rid of them. I did not say how something must be done, only that it will be, in time.

To the second question, no. If they understand the concepts of "liberty and safety" then they automatically know not to kill innocent people in cold blood. Concern about those words denotes the physical inability to commit murder.

There seems to be two concepts you are presenting here. The first is that mother nature takes care of immoral people, but I don't see why we should assume that. I think immorality will have psychological effects on people, but not necessarily concerning their liberty or safety.

The second concept is that people who know what is moral are always moral. If people know what liberty is, they will respect it. This second concept interests me because it could answer my topic question. The proof of the conscience would be that morality is objective (as you have said) and conscience is knowledge of morality, and that people will act morally because of this knowledge so that the knowledge of morality and the inclination to act morally are really the same thing. I would like to know why you think it is the case though that knowledge of morality necessarily means acting morally?

[Mole]

3 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

You said it yourself. Morality is in and of itself moral. It's not a choice. Immorality is in and of itself immoral, it's not a choice.

What do you mean it's not a choice? You mean that morality is objective? Or you mean people are determined to be moral if they know what is moral?

[Mole]

23 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

If we define morality as "intrinsic, instinctive, unbreakable, unerasable knowledge of absolute right and absolute wrong", then yes morality is an objective thing but it can only be applied to living beings. Obviously a mountain is not moral or immoral, it's an inanimate object that has no intention of doing anything. It's not alive.

So what did you mean it's not a choice? That it is indeed objective? You're giving me your position on the objectivity of morality. I understand your view on the objectivity of morality already, and I appreciate you are trying to explain it to me but that's not what I'm stuck on. What I'm stuck on is that I really don't know what you meant by 'it's not a choice'. That's why I'm trying to ask you precise questions so I can eliminate potential positions you might hold in my mind, and also so it can be easy for you to answer them in a short way and without having to try to figure out what I'm thinking or what I'm not getting.

[Mole]

16 minutes ago, Philociraptor said:

For something to be a choice, it must be able to be exchanged with another. In the case of good vs evil, it's like being human. You can't just choose to be something other than human. I did explain this already earlier, but I'll explain it again. Good and evil are not choices we can make because that defeats the purpose of defining good and evil. Good is NOT evil, and evil of course is the opposite of good. So the same applies to human beings. If you're a good person, then you're simply good. You cannot choose evil because that would be the OPPOSITE of good. If good as a concept can never be evil, then it cannot be "good" for someone to be able to choose evil.

An evil person is not good and a good person is not evil. So a person who knows good cannot choose evil as well? I get these are opposites, but what does it have to do with the knowledge of good and evil?

[ofd]

Quote

We have a CONSCIENCE, the ability to determine right from wrong. If we were able to commit evil acts, we would not be able to claim that we have a CONSCIENCE.

Nice circular definition.