Conscience

@William,

i think we all born with it but some loose it later.

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

Do you think conscience is innate in man, or an acquired weakness? What do you think it is?

I love questions phrased like this ("... what do you think"), they allow for open-minded/open-ended answers. Gotta love low-stress stuff! Ok, so here's mine:[INDENT]Conscience is that dynamic of the sapient mind that recognizes its own morality. Thoughts and actions that run contrary to what it considers 'right' activate the contradiction; a feeling of unpleasantness. Thoughts and actions consistent with what the mind considers 'right' activate no such alarm.
[/INDENT][INDENT]Since it's based on an individual's morality/ethics, it's highly individualized. The sources for ones' morality are also many and varied. When I was little, I was told this was, "... man's name for the holy spirit" and I think many believe this to be - to some lesser or greater extent - true. But regardless of any accompanying associations folks may have, it still contains the essential element of that which reminds us of our own morality.
[/INDENT]How'd I do?

Thanks

1 Reply

@William,

Mea mihi conscientia pluris est quam omnium sermo.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Since it's based on an individual's morality/ethics, it's highly individualized. The sources for ones' morality are also many and varied.

So you are saying it is not innate? In other words ones individualized moral and ethics is the determining factor, Ted Bundy's morals and ethics were as such that his "conscience" was not arouse concluding he "had" a conscience. I argue, if he had a conscience, it was buried so deep nothing would arouse it. Am I interpreting you correctly? I think the ego and the conscience are in essence constantly battling each other. I could be wrong. The stronger the ego the more subdued the conscience. :perplexed:
Thanks,
William

2 Replies

@William,

Ted Bundy would be an example of someone with little or no conscience whatsoever.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Ted Bundy would be an example of someone with little or no conscience whatsoever.

That's why I brought it up, If Khethil's assumption is right and the conscience is a matter of individual morality and ethics, it can be that those attrocities fell within Bundy's individual, yet skewed moral and ethical definitions.
William

0 Replies

@William,

Further, if it is innate, it is possible to totally lose touch with it creating a monster,so to speak. IMO.
William

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

So you are saying it is not innate? In other words ones individualized moral and ethics is the determining factor, Ted Bundy's morals and ethics were as such that his "conscience" was not arouse concluding he "had" a conscience. I argue, if he had a conscience, it was buried so deep nothing would arouse it. Am I interpreting you correctly? I think the ego and the conscience are in essence constantly battling each other. I could be wrong. The stronger the ego the more subdued the conscience. :perplexed:

Yea I agree with what you're saying here.

I believe that all humans have a conscience of one sort or another, but that's not to say that it always can 'activate'. There are so many aspects of psychology that can suppress, overshadow or obliterate conscience-based behavior. I don't think it's a lightbulb that's ON-or-OFF, more like a bulb with a dimmer switch. :cool:

As far as innateness; that gets sticky. Yes, I'd say that having a conscience (acted on or not, dominant, prevalent or suppressed) is *probably* an essential element of the human animal. But I gotta be careful here; if I say it's innate, the implication is that it should always be present. If I say it's not, then it's not much of a defining characteristic. But if I had to choose "it is or it's not", I'd say that it is; and, like I said above, try to account for it's prevalence.

Much like you said about it being "buried"; this seems to not only makes sense, it can play a large role in accounting for the large variation in, what appears to be, folks not acting at all with any conscience.

Sidenote: I believe that aspect of self-assessment, that we're calling Conscience, comes from a genetically-learned behavior that's allowed our species (flimsy, weak animals whose physical stoutness can be equated to a zip lock filled with tooth picks and jello) to survive. It's our cooperation - our ability to gather together - that's brought us to the point we are now. Over time, those who didn't cooperate didn't last; natural selection kicked in and those people were left alone. I don't think the lone human being, over the long run, does very well.

This conscience (the consideration of the 'goodness' or 'badness' of our actions, in whatever context happens to apply), I don't think, is tied to precisely-defined behaviors, nor do I think it's an absolute. Like any attribute of human behavior, it tides and ebbs based on trillions of factors and is but a genetically-learned propensity or characteristic whose genesis stems from a lack of natural abilities (I've no claws, I don't blend in with the scenery, my horns aren't very big or sharp, nor do my poison glands work very well).

In any case, hope this doesn't derail or otherwise lessen the exchange.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil,
Good response and I agree. For discussion purposes let's assume the conscience is a finely tune innate part of our program. Not so much as it is tied to those interpersonal thoughts that sometimes pervade our consciousness that can be deemed "sinful". That, in my thinking, is guilt imposed by religious doctrine, and in and of itself, can do a lot of damage, but not that of which a lack of conscience can.

Like I said, it would be nice if pangs of conscience never occurred. Not because it is buried and non existence, but because it is alive and well but content. If that is a proper way to describe it. Granted Ted Bundy is an extreme case but what I think is crucial here is the fact that this man "did" exist which says the conscience is vulnerable and can be completely silenced. That's the scary part.

Which brings me to what I really think. I think the conscience is a manifestation of the soul and any time we have to resort to rationalization, we chip away at it. Rationalization is a mechanism of the ego that is not concerned whether what is being rationalized is wrong only if it feeds the ego and what it perceives the self needs. That's were the conscience comes in and stems that "greed", another mechanism of ego.
Philosophically what concerns me is we live in a reality that forces us to resort to rationalization that is chipping away at the conscience until eventually it becomes completely silenced and all the drugs in the world will not help us in that situation. I am of the opinion that is why we are hooked on drugs, to help us cope with the wrong decisions we make in order to survive that go against that innate self we are born with.

You see I have some what selfish motives. I have this conscience the size of the Grand Canyon. Ha. Seriously. If I were to be in a situation that would force me to knowingly cause harm or distress of another to appease self, my conscience would slam me against a brick wall. Even a slip of the tongue that would cause embarrassment to another bothers me for weeks.

Let me give you a "for instance". In a casual conversation with an apartment manager he told me he was in the process of evicting a tenant for non payment of rent. After further discussion it seems this individual had become ill and was unable to work and had no one to come to his aid. I looked at the manager and asked point blank how he could do such a thing. Kick someone out of their home, pile their belongings on the street and sleep at night. He said that's the job.

Now how I think, there is no way I could do that. No way in hell. Yet, some have no problem with it. That' the job? The manager's livelihood was dependent on causing pure hell for another. I can only imagine being tossed out on the street to be a "hell" of a situation.

Now for the real tragedy of this story. This manager actually found a morbid satisfaction in this power he had. He rationalized it by blaming the evicted person for not having contingencies for such a situation and in that rationalization had no problem in kicking this man out on the street. This man's job was ripping his conscience to shreds, IMO. He couldn't help it, it's part of the job. Hmmm?

So if indeed the conscience is an "illness", if we ever do cure it and eliminate it, what kind of future do we have to look forward to? Khethil, I know you didn't say that, but someone did and I just wanted to know the "rationale" behind such a statement. The reason for the thread to see in anyone else thought the same.
William

1 Reply

@William,

Hey,

William wrote:

For discussion purposes let's assume the conscience is a finely tune innate part of our program. Not so much as it is tied to those interpersonal thoughts that sometimes pervade our consciousness that can be deemed "sinful". That, in my thinking, is guilt imposed by religious doctrine, and in and of itself, can do a lot of damage, but not that of which a lack of conscience can.

Ok, Assumption entered

William wrote:

...what I think is crucial here is the fact that this man "did" exist which says the conscience is vulnerable and can be completely silenced. That's the scary part.

Yes it is; actions of people like this say: Whatever goodness we think there exists in humanity, there will always be examples to show us just how bereft some are. Scary indeed

William wrote:

Which brings me to what I really think. I think the conscience is a manifestation of the soul and any time we have to resort to rationalization, we chip away at it. Rationalization is a mechanism of the ego that is not concerned whether what is being rationalized is wrong only if it feeds the ego and what it perceives the self needs.

(emphasis added)

Well put; and I think you're in good company on this basis. Whether by the tragedy of eroding a soul or by ignoring a mechanism for self-governing, it is indeed a tragedy. And I think you're spot on about excuse-making (read: ignoring ones' conscience) being borne of the ego's self-protection.

William wrote:

... resort to rationalization that is chipping away at the conscience until eventually it becomes completely silenced and all the drugs in the world will not help us in that situation. I am of the opinion that is why we are hooked on drugs, to help us cope with the wrong decisions we make in order to survive that go against that innate self we are born with...

Interesting. I wish I knew (or had some basis for knowing the extent of a correlation). It could be - Good example on the confrontation with the apartment manager. It's such a pity that monetary concerns force otherwise well-meaning people into such situations. But that's a broader question.

Whatever one theorizes the conscience to consist of, one common theme remains: That it moderates behavior from one believes is 'wrong'. Any loss of this, for whatever reason, represents "a step back in our progression" (if, indeed, there be any real progression).

Good post, thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

It's such a pity that monetary concerns force otherwise well-meaning people into such situations. But that's a broader question.

No! It is the onlyquestion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many times have those proclaimed atheist, present company excluded, screamed about the suffering in the world when we legally promote it. The minute this man no longer had the price it took for him to live on this planet, he became refuse destined for the gutter. Monetary concerns? Everything is about monetary concerns. That is our demon. Those that have are transformed through rationalization into sadist. Monetary concerns are only concerns to those who do not have the "cost of living" society demands to keep it afloat. There are no well meaning people as long as money is the glue that gives people meaning. It is an illusion. You observe how well meaning people are once that money becomes scarce.

We are using the same unfair bartering system that we were using thousands of years ago. It didn't work then as it cause great civilizations to fall, and it is not going to work now and the results will be the same. The problem is those in power know no better way. The same power that apartment manager had over that unfortunate tenant, is the same identical motivation behind why tyrants destroy those who threaten their authority. This tenant threatened the authority of that manager there by threatening his livelihood forcing the manager to become a tyrant and exile the tenant so he could keep his "title" and his job. Khethil, we need to change the system and we need to change it badly and it has to be done in such away that will provide the least sacrifice. Of course there will be sacrifice, but most of that will come from those who have grossly more than they need. And it is those who will provide the greatest resistence. When it comes to conscience, I doubt you will find one in the lot. The ego has devoured it.

Sorry for the screaming above. Actually, I wasn't yelling, I just did it for emphasis. You see my friend, objective value is our Achilles Heel. There is no value on this planet more vital than what the human being can offer, IMO. The greatest illusion that has every been devised is that which offers a man's worth is determined by how much gold he has. Once that illusion begins to fade, well meaning people become desperate victims or malicious monsters. IMO.

William.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Ted Bundy would be an example of someone with little or no conscience whatsoever.

I think he was a sociopath, which some would consider a type of mental illness. But, in his case, no sympathy can be warranted.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Warning - nothing but an anecdote:

I was playing golf last night. I got to this fun little par 3 where you've got hit over a pond with not much room between the pond & the green. My ball was arcing over the pond and I was wondering whether it would clear it, then it became clear it was going to make it and I began worrying about the bunker. Watching the ball, it came down right between the pond and the bunker hitting a duck clean on the skull (I heard a loud thunk) and blasted the duck back into the pond.

At first I laughed.
Then I wondered 'should I feel bad about this?'
I decided I really didn't care and proceeded to laugh about it some more.

0 Replies

@William,

Okay, here's my take. Conscience is a 'virtual' judgement by and of oneself but as two entities, hence the 'virtual' element of it. In a social group, judgement of behaviour between members of that group is necessary to suppress deviants and freeloaders. It is important, for the health of the society, to make judgements of the behaviours of others, hence sense of justice, punishment, discipline, etc. Further, it is important to be able to predict which of our actions will provoke the judgements of others purely out of self-protection: we associate actions of our own with the fearful repurcussions it has. Nurture would play a huge part in this, but the capacity must be innate. Now throw in awareness of others as other selves (i.e. equivilent to us) and awareness of self as object and other self to other selves (that we are judged by others and judged to be equivilent to them as we judge them to be to us).

Then... when we do something that we know to be behaviour that is judged negatively by others, we are both judge of and judged by ourselves, and we have reactions that apply: persecutory reactions (self-loathing, low self-worth) and fearful ones (fear of being judged). An admixture of reactions: shame, embarrassment, guilt. This is the 'conscience'.

I'd say the capacity is innate and we are born into a world that promotes it. I don't think it an illness, though. The ability to judge our own actions deters us from behaviour that may have grave repurcussions.

William wrote:

How many times have those proclaimed atheist, present company excluded, screamed about the suffering in the world when we legally promote it.

What are you saying here? That atheists should not aim to reduce suffering in the world, or that they are particularly more to blame for it?

William wrote:

... The greatest illusion that has every been devised is that which offers a man's worth is determined by how much gold he has. Once that illusion begins to fade, well meaning people become desperate victims or malicious monsters.

I would suggest that the 'victims' and 'monsters' suffer still the pursuit of money and its measure of value but simply have none, i.e. the illusion is alive and well. If and when the illusion fades, this would come with a realisation that the perpetual pursuit of money is a desire we've inherited rather than chosen. This makes you neither a victim nor a monster; on the contrary when you realise money is not where it's at, it frees you up to find the real value in life.

0 Replies

@William,

William,

We are by nature social creatures, and one cannot have community without conscience, and/or compassion. The psychopath, now called sociopathy, does not have conscience and is largely unable to feel true compassion, this to the psychopath is undoubtedly seen as his superior nature, however in fact, the condition is the result of disfunction rather than higher function. In the correlation of developmental growth this conscience/compassion as a human quality, does not develop in the psychopath.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

William,

We are by nature social creatures, and one cannot have community without conscience, and/or compassion. The psychopath, now called sociopathy, does not have conscience and is largely unable to feel true compassion, this to the psychopath is undoubtedly seen as his superior nature, however in fact, the condition is the result of disfunction rather than higher function. In the correlation of developmental growth this conscience/compassion as a human quality, does not develop in the psychopath.

A psychopath is someone who cannot discern between right and wrong moral behaviour. A sociopath is someone who cannot discern between correct and incorrect social behaviour. This does not mean they are without conscience, merely that they are impolite. Of course, stabbing someone to death with a toothpick might also be deemed impolite.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O,

I just looked it up in my computer dictionary and accordding to that you are quite right. I have known however a psychologist who worked with psychopaths for a number of years, she stated to me she had to pack it in because they creeped she out. I have personally known a few people over the years whom fit the bill, and they indeed did creep me out. So, there must be then a proper term for said people who do not feel compassion and have little to nothing in the way of conscience. I know many of these said psychopaths are not vilolent, and indeed may be ones boss. I know too these people over time learn to act the part the situation calls for, but that pretense sometimes can be seen through.

If you are a doctor, which your handle might imply, then what is the term you use for such people. Actually I watched too a medical discussion on the tube about the psychopath, apparenty it is a stage one goes through in growing up, but as the child develops so does their capacity for empathy, according to said program, for some reason this does not occur with the psychopath, and it is a matter of development not occuring. Perhaps we do have in this philosophy forum a psychologist and/or medical doctor whom could straighten this out, for if the terms used are not appropriate, then we must have other terms with which to classify.

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

In another post it was mentioned by a member of this forum that in his opinion conscience was an "illness". I have since given this a lot of thought and wanted to toss out something for you consideration. Do you think conscience is innate in man, or an acquired weakness? What do you think it is?

Thank you for your thoughts,
William

The capacity for conscience is innate in man, but, for instance, sociopaths never acquire it. Just as the capacity to play chess is innate in man, but some people never learn to play chess.

There is no reason to think it is a weakness. In fact, on the contrary. Sociopaths have the weakness of having no conscience. And they are considered defective.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

If you have a person who has wicked thoughts, and another person who can't tell the difference between a wicked thought and a 'good' thought, which person is more sane?

If insanity is amoralism?

Is conscience not just that bit of self-restraint? If we say lack of conscience what are we supposing here? That there is an ideal? Or are we stipulating a lack of empathy?

1 Reply

Conscience

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know