Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I'm curious to know what people think the relationship is between conscience and moral values, and the origin or source of conscience.
Oh, and just one more thing[/columbo], would it be reasonable to say that believers in objective morality think that their own morals necessarily correspond with those objective morals?
OK, so conscience an internalisation and/or contextual representation of one's moral values?I would follow Aquinas in saying that conscience is a sort of intellectual intuition, an automatic application of one's moral knowledge to a specific case one is confronted with. Conscience and moral beliefs are both fallible.
I want to know what you mean when you say that "God is good". I'm sure what you mean is influenced by what they've written, and we have no reason to assume they'll be perfectly in line with one another of course, but surely you must mean something when you state that "God is good", don't you?
Ok. I believe you.I'm not playing games, honestly, I'm just probing for as satisfying of an answer as is possible. I understand we'll hit a brick wall at some point.
Not exactly. I'm saying that God's definition of "the Good" will be some set of values that make up who He is, as aspects inherent within His Being; they're not higher or lower than He is in His Being; they're aspects of His Being. But again, this is according to Him. If He says he's "Holy," I personally don't have a real firm understanding about about what "that quality" is, exactly, apart from His telling me, or His Jewish mediators telling me. It's not something that I come by in my own personal experience growing up, nor was it a concept taught to me by my family. But when I read the Biblical narratives and listen to what the biblical writers have had to say, then I can pick up a few fragments of meaning as to what something like the quality of Holiness might be or could be.You've listed more qualities here like in the last post. Are you saying these qualities are good and God is good because he possesses those qualities?
Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I'm curious to know what people think the relationship is between conscience and moral values, and the origin or source of conscience.
Oh, and just one more thing[/columbo], would it be reasonable to say that believers in objective morality think that their own morals necessarily correspond with those objective morals?
If there are any who don't they would be enough of an oddity that you should be able to point them out instead of just imagining that there might be.The problem is who says that harm equates to a moral wrong. Who said that other cultures use harm as a moral measure.
"Who says that " is the dominant culture--as history demonstrates.It's a funny situation as on the one hand people are told to be tolerant of different cultures' morality because "it is different from ours" and differences should be accepted even if they seem alien to our moral views.
Yet at the same time intuitively feel that somethings are just not right. They want to make a stand against these practices but in doing so are imposing their views on others. Who said that one culture can claim their morality from across the other side of the world is more right and dictate what another culture can and cannot value morally.
Correct. Only the social history of human beings.When it comes to relative morality there is no independent measure.
Sex only enters into morality to the extent that it is a factor in personal relationships.I would disagree and say that many think sex is associated with morality and the fact that it is rationalized as just a custom and tradition shows how morality can be viewed as something other than morality based on personal views.
Sex ed is about the science of human reproduction, not about what is OK and what is not OK. That should be taught somewhere else. At home or in Sunday School, perhaps.That is not the issue. Sex education is not about morality but avoiding situations that can lead to issues about morality. But it is more about the philosophy behind sex education. What is deemed as OK or not which determines what is to be taught in sex education? This is dictated by society's view about what is morally OK.
Imparting knowledge of a particular sexual practice is not the same thing as "saying it's OK"The problem is under a subjective/relative moral system because there is no clear and united position that can be taught in sex education can be undone with society's views in practice which sends the opposite message in saying its OK to do certain things.
OK, so conscience an internalisation and/or contextual representation of one's moral values?
When you say conscience is fallible, do you mean that it is sometimes a mistaken application of one's moral knowledge, or that if your moral beliefs are fallible, it therefore follows that your conscience will be fallible?
What does it mean for your moral beliefs to be fallible?
Are your life needs subjective or objective? Clearly there are objective facts that you have various needs, but are the needs themselves objective? I dislike sprouts, that is an objective fact; but my dislike is subjective.... I would say that my morals correspond to facts pertaining to my life needs and that is what makes them objective. They correspond to the objects of consciousness
OK, that makes sense. So one's conscience can lead one into immoral actions because one's moral beliefs are objectively false.... it would mean that one's morals don't necessarily correspond with objective morals. So to take a current example, one may believe that blacks are inferior to whites, but this would be a false (moral) belief. For Aquinas it seems that moral knowledge runs parallel to intellectual knowledge in this way (i.e. both are fallible in approximately the same way).
They are objective. Is my need for food just a matter of preference? If I want to live, I need food, regardless of anyone thinking to the contrary. Now I might prefer the flavor of one food over another but my need for food is objective. Similarly my need for shelter, clothing, water to drink, work, tools, etc., is objective, i.e., is a fact of reality independent of anyone's thoughts to the contrary. Wouldn't you agree with me that all humans share some needs that are not merely a matter of opinion or preferrence?Are your life needs subjective or objective? Clearly there are objective facts that you have various needs, but are the needs themselves objective? I dislike sprouts, that is an objective fact; but my dislike is subjective.
Wanting to live is a preference over being dead.They are objective. Is my need for food just a matter of preference? If I want to live, I need food, regardless of anyone thinking to the contrary. Now I might prefer the flavor of one food over another but my need for food is objective. Similarly my need for shelter, clothing, water to drink, work, tools, etc., is objective, i.e., is a fact of reality independent of anyone's thoughts to the contrary. Wouldn't you agree with me that all humans share some needs that are not merely a matter of opinion or preferrence?
Yes, it is. The choice to live or die is also pre-moral. Morality does not come into play until one makes the choice to live. It's only in the context of life that morality has any meaning because it is only to a living organism that things are good or bad. It's the fundamental choice we all face every minute of every day: life or death. That's why your life is the standard of morality. Once you make the choice to live you had better discover the facts that make your life possible.Wanting to live is a preference over being dead.
OK, that makes sense. So one's conscience can lead one into immoral actions because one's moral beliefs are objectively false.
So if one knows an objective moral which runs counter to one's conscience in some context, one is morally obliged to act against one's own conscience.
And if we can't trust our consciences to be morally correct, we need to be certain of objective morals despite our consciences (we wouldn't want to act against our conscience immorally).
How can one be certain of objective morals?
What about people that prefer to be dead?Yes, it is. The choice to live or die is also pre-moral. Morality does not come into play until one makes the choice to live. It's only in the context of life that morality has any meaning because it is only to a living organism that things are good or bad. It's the fundamental choice we all face every minute of every day: life or death. That's why your life is the standard of morality. Once you make the choice to live you had better discover the facts that make your life possible.
What would they need with a code of values? Just do nothing and let nature take its course.What about people that prefer to be dead?
What would they need with a code of values? Just do nothing and let nature take its course.
Why should they do nothing and let nature take its course?What would they need with a code of values? Just do nothing and let nature take its course.
Because you said they prefer to die. They could also jump off a cliff, shoot themselves in the head, take poison or drive drunk.Why should they do nothing and let nature take its course?
Yes. It all starts with the choice to live. I don't think there is any such thing as a categorical imperative. There are no unchosen obligations. There is no duty to live or be good. The moral is the chosen. It's only because we must choose to live, that we must choose to discover the values our life requires, and we must choose to practice the virtues need to get them, that we need a code of values.If there is no moral obligation to live then it would seem that your whole moral system is based on a hypothetical rather than categorical imperative.
My moral system is a code of values to guide my choices and actions, the choices and actions that determine the course of my life. Because how I act matters. It makes a difference to my life whether I stay on the trail or walk off a cliff and whether I eat healthy food or poison. Man's life is conditional and we aren't born knowing what's good for us and what's bad. We learn this from identifying and integrating the facts of reality, particularly those that pertain to our needs as living organisms. Or we could act without thinking, on the whim of the moment. which course do you think will bring more success at the project of living.Your moral system would seem to merely be a behavioral road map rather than any particular prescription about how to use it.
Okay, so they should act in a way that leads to death because being dead is their preference, and we should act in a way that prolongs life because being alive is our preference. Seems to me like morality is based on personal preferences. Would you agree?Because you said they prefer to die. They could also jump off a cliff, shoot themselves in the head, take poison or drive drunk.
No, I would not. The choice to live, yes, but not the values one needs. Those are objective. They are not a matter of preference. They are determined by our nature as Human beings. Values are a type of fact. Value=something in reality as judged against the standard of man's life and its requirements. You can't get any more objective than that.Okay, so they should act in a way that leads to death because being dead is their preference, and we should act in a way that prolongs life because being alive is our preference. Seems to me like morality is based on personal preferences. Would you agree?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?