Conscience...God given or from nature?

Conscience…God given or from nature? It origins and purpose.

V

My first reaction to reading this question was that both options are the same thing.

I think this is kind of a silly question, or at least the first half of it. It really asks whether or not you believe in god, since if you do you likely believe god to be the source of the conscience (or, as inhahe said, there to be not difference), and if you don’t you think it is somehow from nature.

The second half is more interesting. Not believing in god, I would say that the conscience comes from nature, or more rightly from nurture, that it’s purpose is one of social integration, and that it is a product of evolution.

I wonder what a theist would say, though. Why would a god give some people a conscience? Why would it not give others (sociopaths) a conscience? Why does it differ somewhat radically from culture to culture? Are you always right to follow your conscience (the consequences of either answer to this question are devestating for theism)?

I guess I’m considered a Theist so I’ll try and answer.

All humans have conscience if they are functional and have a brain that is not severely damaged, so I guess the answer lies within.

Some people are born severely retarded or defective in many other ways but if your born normal in the sense that most of us recognize Normal, then you have a perfect conscience at one point in life, but you can choose to override this with your will. If your not born normal then there is a natural set of laws in place to quickly remove you from the gene pool and from the living, however as of late with the meddling of medical science some humans have chosen to use unnatural methods to keep these severely defective humans alive instead of letting nature take care of it like it was meant to be. If your born so defective that you have no conscience at any time your should and will die quickly by your dangerous actions against society. I would contend that in nearly every case the so-called sociopaths did in fact have a conscience at one time, they just quenched it with their will to do perverse things.

It doesn’t, very few cultures do not follow the Golden Rule and those that don’t have never been considered civilized by the vast majority of the rest of the world at any time in history. The ones that do differ have simply taught or brainwashed their people into deviant activity that is against nature, these are the extreme minority and always have been.

Yes, however that does not mean it wont cause you pain, hell life is pain no matter what you choose, so six of one and half a dozen of another.

BTW, none of this should be devastating to Theism, certainly isn’t to me.

the idea that conscience is a result of evolution, particularly in the sense that a gene pool that’s cooperative survives, is a lowest common denominator idea. everyone thinks that now, and everyone thinks they’re clever. but it’s bullshit. it completely demeans conscience. people will go to any length to feel they have the power to ‘explain away’ something, even if it means reducing the sacred to the utterly mechanical and mundane.

WE DON’T KNOW WHAT CONSCIENCE IS

IT’S A BEAUTIFUL PART OF WHAT IT IS TO BE INTELLIGENT LIFE, AND WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN.

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN THINK UP A CLEVER AND CONVENIENT EXPLANATION FOR ITS EXISTENCE DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.

Do you mind backing up your claim with evidence that “Conscience” is a “lowest common denominator idea” and what that means exactly?

What is so wrong with reducing what is percieved “sacred” to the mechanical? How is it mundane? Can there not be something sacred in a design by nature?

I think we do know what consience is… its a collection of socially constructed values.

The origin and meaning of values and social construction are the unknowns.

If you examine the fratricidal nature of humanity we could argue the aesthetics of Intelligence lol

-Szpak

it wasnt that “conscience” is a lcd idea, but it doesnt matter anyway, i take it back, that statement was unnecessary.

i suppose there conceivably can be, but it’s a kind of tricky thought isn’t it?
isnt it conceivable, on a purely abstract level, that darwinian design could have produced many things that make us suffer and no things that are sacred? darwinism is such an effective idea that it can be used to explain anything that has any auspicious effect, but since it’s mechanically determiend and mundane, aren’t those effects, in a sense, incidental?

that could be part of it, but i would also call it awareness of when you do something that doesn’t convey the underlying love you have for something/someone, or at least the understanding that ‘well, I can see that if I were that thing/person, i wouldnt want that to happen to me’, which is not a baseless (other than pragmatic) projection onto something not-you, but a partial transcendence of the individual ego, which isnt as amazing as it sounds. parts of us are always transcending individualism. even a feeling of joy transcends the individual aspect.

I disagree I think –
LIFE is the unknown (at least anaylitically unknown)
the meaning of what it is to be ‘social’ is unknown. the meaning of what it is to be a ‘construction’ is rather indeterminate.
basically, what the BLEEP to do we know? what if you suddenly gained a second sight, and saw all human reponses and activity as 3-d patterns of light, which all connected to a single unified substrate (or superstrate)? doesn’t the mere possibility of such a (hypothetical?) viewpoint point to the weakness of an assumption that ‘the only unknowns’ are ‘this and that’?

well… we definitely have our issues… perhaps our intelligence is plagued with something…

Kingdaddy, I can’t claim to know that sociopaths do not have a conscience, and I don’t imagine you can claim to know otherwise. That’s unfortunate, because it really hinders progression in this conversation.
It is a fact, however, that these people do not empathize, that they do not feel emothions such as remorse, and that signs of the disorder can be manifest in early childhood. I find these to be fairly good indication that these individuals lack a conscience from a very young age.
As to the probability of their death at a young age, it is hardly the natural way for a parent not to nurture their child or protect it from danger. It is hardly a natural tendency for the crimes of youth to be reprimanded as harshly as they would be when committed by an adult. There is no reason these people would be removed from the gene before adulthood, before they have the opportunity to excercise a lack of conscience, should it exist.
I suppose it is very difficult to define culture across cultures, because the concept most likely does not exist in all cultures. But right and wrong do vary to extremes. In some cultures, murder is sanctioned, rape is sanctioned, theft is sanctioned (albeit only against certain peoples or classes). These are not necessarily uncivilized societies, but even if they are that should not matter: they are human societies, and if conscience is a divine production, the differences present warrant explanation.
And again, I misspoke regarding theism: I meant dogmatic theism when I said “the consequences of either answer to this question are devestating for theism”. You seem to be a pretty liberal theist, and if you do not have any dogma otherwise, then you will avoid that conflict.

Inhahe, if we do not know what conscience is, how can you say that it is sacred, beautiful, or anything else. Clearly you have some concept of what we’re talking about, and if you’d like to claim that you should assume that others do too.
As to it being ‘demeaning’ to explain humanity in terms of mechanics and evolution, I think it can be said with equal truth that theism demeans everything by saying that only consciousness could bring it about. How arrogant of a human to presume that what is necessary for the state of the world is something that humans have.
Demeaning is a subjective term, and what you find demeaning I find empowering and beautifying.

Well I meant to open eyes on the matter. not to say we know nothing about it to the degree that we cant even discuss it. just to defy closed thoughts on the matter. i dont think that level of denial of knowledge precludes some very general characterizations or hints about what conscience is. or maybe you mean it is insulting to tell people conscience is beautiful, as if they didnt already know – but i felt i was affirming something – something obvious – that this popular theory on conscience is trying to underplay/deny/ignore/trample on.

it may be arrogant but thats not the same as demeaning. it’s not necessarily arrogant either, because its not saying its something -only- humans have. isnt it reasonable that whatever force brought stuff about, humans have, as its a part of the universe and humans are a part of the universe? :smiley:
but im not really claiming that only consciousness brought everything about. i believe in darwinian evolution, but i dont think it’s the whole story. i would say something like, organic evolution happens as a confluence of darwinian mechanics and (some type of) consciousness, but a) that’s too dualistic, and b) i think at some level even mechanical processes are a result of consciousness (of some form).

[/quote]

It seems to me that calling conscience purely a darwinian construct puts it on a level playing field with the appendix, tonsils, etc. have your tonsils taken out and the next day become hannibal lechter.

If they don’t then they are simply defective (mentally or physically) and have no place in society, a person without a conscience is a danger and threat to all he is around. As far as I have read there is no evidence that conscience is a physical attribute, it seems to be strictly in the mind and there is evidence that any mental condition can be overridden by will with choice. So what’s more likely, nature causing some defect that affects the mind or that person choosing to serve his desires and quench the natural conscience that tells him he is wrong. We already know the ladder can be done and there is no evidence to the former. So I must pick the one with the most evidence.

That’s not the issue however, the issue is why and when someone stops the process of caring about what others feel. As I said, any of us can do this in smaller degrees for certin situations so we already know that will with choice can override this, I can disconnect, can you?. To extend this to the idea that it is somehow an inherent birth defect or taught is a bit of a wild leap considering the evidence that shows other paths of getting the same result.

I think you misunderstood what I meant about dieing early on. I did not mean a child, I meant a young adult, as I said, children do develop this conscience right away, awareness and conscience and consequences for actions usually comes at or around puberty or a bit later. A young adult with no conscience in society is bound to cross somebody with his harmful actions and either be severely wounded or killed depending on his crime, at least that was how it used to be before we started protecting criminals more then victims.

Inhahe, Is a pile of shit as beautiful as a flower? Is a decaying carcass as beautiful as the ocean? Infected wounds are hideous, but they are the result of so much life striving for a place on earth. A pattern in a rock is as dead as can be, but is certainly a thing of beauty. Beauty and life are not intimately tied. And just because two things arise in the same way (in this case, evolution) does not mean that they are equally beautiful. It is in no way demeaning, in my opinion, to say that my brain and its products are the result of the same process as my gallbladder. And what a beautiful universe that unwittingly creates both by its very nature.

But all this is beside the point. Should you believe something simply because the alternative is somewhat distasteful? If my mother dies, should I go on believing that she is alive because it is a more beautiful reality?

Kingdaddy, people are born with defects that affect their minds all the time. Some people are born deaf or dumb or blind. Some are born without crucial brain systems, and no force of will can make them overcome the deficiency. There is plenty of evidence that the sort of deformity required to produce someone without a conscience is possible, and not all that uncommon.
Let’s reframe your question: : “what’s more likely, nature causing some defect that affects the mind or that person choosing to serve his desires and quench the natural conscience that tells him he is wrong?”
We can ask the same thing about depression: what’s more likely, nature causing some defect that affects the mind or that person choosing to be cripplingly unhappy for his or her entire existence to the point of suicide?"
The answer is clear.

And yet there are many stories of these people overcoming these disabilities and having a relatively normal and productive life, this is the evidence that the will can remove conscience or recover conscience of a damaged brain.

I will agree that it is possible, but according to the evidence I see it is not probable for the majority of these cases. There seems to always be a few exceptions in everything however and these cases I would call a true defect and these people have no quality of life and are dangerous so they need to be separated forever.

The answer is clear to me that choice was responsible, however I’m not so sure this was your answer, as you didn’t make it clear where you stand. Rather you know it or not people choose things that make them miserable all the time, everyone has done it and some do it to the extreme until it causes death, can you disagree with this? I can write a book of examples to support this.

Right, like when people choose to have Down Syndrome. And I totally forgot about all the cases where people will themselves out of having severe mental retardation. How silly of me.
You’re talking about brain plasticity, and it is not a choice, it is a gradual process whereby intact brain systems pick up the slack for damaged brain systems. It is limited in its scope, and it never produces individuals who function to the same level of proficiency as they did beforehand.
These are not evidence of choice, because 1) they do not distinguish choice as a better explantion than rival theories, and 2) rival theories do a more complete job of explaning the empirical data and of predicting future outcomes.

I did not mean to imply that you choose to be physically defective. I meant that there is evidence that you can choose to overcome some mental disorders and work around physical ones, which is basically what you wrote below, so I guess we somewhat agree on this.

Why so exasperated and condescending?

I find it amusing how humans automatically think they’re the only species to have consciousness. I guess that shows our arrogance. How do we know other animals aren’t conscious? We can’t talk to them. We don’t know specifically what they’re feeling or thinking. Maybe their looking at our species and thinking what a bunch of dumbasses.

I don’t think we can know exactly, but we can definitely make some educated guesses by comparing the human brain with those of animals…

I think a lot of animals have limited consciousness…obviously nothing like ours.

Apologies, Kingdaddy. I get in one exasperating argument on these boards and it semms to flavor all my other posts.

Have you ever read ‘The Art of Happiness’ by the Dalai Lama? It touches on what you’re talking about, specifically the choice to be happy, or willing oneself to be happy. And the way the DL understands it meshes very well with my position, the neuroscientific understanding of emotions; he justifies the position by referring to the phenomenon of brain plasticity and the ability to re-wire and re-train the brain actively.

Whether this is possible for more severe disorders, and more importantly how severe a disorder the lack of conscience should be considered, is a difficult question, but one worth considering. For instance, is a conscience required in order to act in a ‘good’ way, especially considering your point of the social dangers of acting without a conscience. Wouldn’t a selfish person who is well informed and perfectly logical choose to act in the same way as someone with a conscience most of the time? It might be more difficult, as it would come less naturally, but there are many benefits to the self of acting conscienably (which is probably why the instinctual conscience evolved in the first place).

Thanks for everyone’s replies, I appreciate all your thoughts on this subject.

we need to make a distinction between conscience and consciousness.

consciousness is our capacity for awareness, conscience is a feeling of moral obligation or regret for certain actions.

Conscience is a product of attempting to put yourself in the other persons shoes so to speak. If Blah Blah Blah happend to me, how would i feel, conscience is the mother of sympathy.

Consciousness is relatively innate,we are born aware to a certain degree, and we augment this awareness with knowledge .

Conscience is something we develop through language and reasoning. I dislike pain, joe is human like me, joe must dislike pain. As we age we develop a sense of what is socially acceptable to others by examining our own reactions or imagined reactions to specific stimuli. This self-reflection and projection of ones own assumed preferances onto others is our way of trying to understand how someone would feel during particular instances and we try to generalize the reactions as either good , bad, benefitial, destructive, ect.

The fact that alot of sociopaths were abused as children(read somwhere not sure)could be a contributing factor as to why they consider abusive behaviour more acceptable. Some would torcher animals or bully other kids when they wer young and this pattern of behaviour can just escalate to more drastic forms of violence.

I also read somewhere that sociopaths have a slightly altered brain chemistry and they’re emotions are suppressed as a result. Similar instances can be found in schizophrenics. Which could explain a sociopaths or schizophrenics lack of ability to asssociate with other people emotional states .

so, what was the topic supposed to concern? consciousness or conciense?

Do you experience that conscience sometimes knows better than your brain does?