The riddle of human conscience

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I grew up agnostic, but became a theist when I started questioning how our conscience works …

Some biologists say we developed a conscience for the survival benefit, enabling us to cooperate, helping to create a community where we can better survive. Having a conscience is ultimately for our survival as a species. To some extent, it seems to be the case, however . . .

Let’s examine these cases.

[Case 1]

A soldier is hurrying to move away from the area he knows is about to be bombarded by his army since they think none of their soldiers survived. Unable to communicate with the base (radio is malfunctioning), he is running as fast as he can. Once he crosses the river a half mile ahead, he’s safe. But he encounters a local old man bleeding profusely from a stray bullet, begging for help.

Scenario-1
He carries the old man on his back. This significantly delays him and both die in the bombardment.

Scenario-2
He doesn’t stop for the old man and makes it to the safe area in time.

[Case 2]

In a shipwreck, only two survive. A 30 year-old(A) and an 80 year-old(B). They are floating on a small boat with a limited amount of water and no food. Several days have passed, yet no sign of rescue. B is extremely emaciated and says “I’m not gonna survive this, I should die sooner than later so you can have water all to yourself and also use my body as bait to fish so you can eat.” B takes a knife and tries to slit his throat.

Scenario-1
A stops B, takes the knife away, and continues to share water with B . . . both die in three days after the water had run out.

Scenario-2
A lets B kill himself and lives on another week until finally rescued.

I am not trying to discuss about which action (S-1 or S-2) we must take.

My question is, why are we in awe of the actions displayed in S-1?? We see something sublime about them — but not about the actions in S-2 — don’t we?

Speaking strictly from the survival point of view, S-2 shows the right action — isn’t saving at least one, instead of risking two lives, better? In particular, the young dying for the old is wrong in terms of species-preservation. So, why do we consider the actions in S-1 “noble”, but not the actions in S-2 which in reality better serve the survival of the species ??

Isn’t it because our conscience makes us feel that’s what we’re supposed to do? But, what is our conscience responding to in these cases, if not to the biological demand to better facilitate our survival?

Can it be . . . the voice of god ?

2

I’d like to add another example, from a more macro point of view …

The world population is exponentially increasing at the speed that’s concerning to the well-being of the future mankind. The greater population would contribute to more green-house gases, thus global-warming, etc …

Shouldn’t we try to slow down population growth before it becomes unsustainable? Why would it be an abomination to suggest that we stop helping underdeveloped countries where the people can’t survive without our help. Why not let nature purge the unproductive portion of the species . . . that’s the natural system of controlling the population in the wild.

But our conscience would not let us employ this idea. So, again, what is our conscience responding to, if not to the biological necessity of the betterment for future mankind?

Why should we not go back to the mentality of “the survival of the fittest”, that supposedly made us the most advanced form of primates. Now that having fewer people seems more desirable for our overall survivability in the future, let’s keep the able ones and not the ones who can’t survive on their own. Isn’t that how things worked in evolution?

If our conscience did not come from something higher than us, it’s right for us to ignore it depending on a situation however it works to better our species’ future … but, many of us won’t be successful in ignoring it, as if it has power over us.

Our conscience tells us it’s wrong not to care for the weak … If being humane becomes more important than the overall benefit for the species itself, then wouldn’t it be the reverse of the intention of what our conscience was set up to achieve? Then, is our conscience really a product of evolution?

If we decide what’s right, not necessarily based on what’s best for the human race, then, what really dictates our conscience?

Can it be . . . the voice of god?

+++++++

In conclusion, I see “survival” as a self-centered animalistic instinct that we’re all saddled with, “conscience” as a divine instinct that keeps reminding us of our true nature, the part that’s made in the image of god. There always is a tug-of-war between these different types of instincts. In some occasions, animalistic instinct wins, in other times, divine instinct wins.

It all depends on how receptive one is to the divine voice. And the reception can be completely subliminal, that one doesn’t have to be a believer, doesn’t have to know he is following the voice of god, in the same way homing pigeons follow the earth’s magnetic field without knowing that’s what they’re doing.

3

It sounds like you’re talking about survival guilt.