The riddle of human conscience

[Yuujin]

Hello. This is my first post. (I hope I'm posting in the right section.)

I grew up agnostic, but became a theist when I started questioning how our conscience works ... and I just wanted to know other people's thoughts on my thinking ...

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 ?

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.

[bergie15]

I think that we are in awe of the choices made in scenario 1 because we think that it is right to help other people in need. This choice to put the other persons' life before our own says that we are not only selfish beings. Our conscience here is at work saying- "You can't leave this person to die; it isn't right".

[jackles]

yes survival is a local consideration in consciousness.it is my opinion that consciousness its self is not local or is nonlocal to the event and therefor dosnt move in event terms.so in effect there is only one sizeless consciousness.its aquestion of identity to which one you are the local or the nonlocal self.the nonlocal self is selfless.the local self is selfish.like jeus said you have to loose your life to save your life cos if you save your life in a nonlocal sence you loose it.

[bergie15]

How can the self be both selfish and selfless at the same time? This seems like a contradiction to me. Of course, people can be both selfish at times and selfless at other times. Does anyone have any ideas?

[Ginkgo]

How can the self be both selfish and selfless at the same time? This seems like a contradiction to me. Of course, people can be both selfish at times and selfless at other times. Does anyone have any ideas?

There are lots of different ways to explain this problem. Here is a good starting point.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

[Arising_uk]

...
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
...

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 ??

...

Who says ethical behaviour is about species survival?

[jackles]

arising the voice of love(unselfishness and nonlocal) is the voice of god in the event which sometimes overides the selfish inclanations of the local brain.but your brain and all brains are just event machines.

[Arising_uk]

arising the voice of love(unselfishness and nonlocal) is the voice of god in the event which sometimes overides the selfish inclanations of the local brain.but your brain and all brains are just event machines.

Just sounds all over-complicated nonsense and wishful thinking to me.

[jackles]

well in my veiw all consciousness is indistinguishably the same and not individualy manifactured by nature.nature manufactures brains which source one indistinguishable and limitless consciousness .the type of brain limiting consciousness to the needs of that form.but mans brain is consciouse to the level of understanding its selfconsciousness in terms of good and evil in the event.

[Yuujin]

Who says ethical behaviour is about species survival?

Contemporary scientists in ethology and evolutionary psychology seek to explain conscience as a function of the brain that evolved to facilitate altruism within societies. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins states that he agrees with Robert Hinde's Why Good is Good, Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? and Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, that our sense of right and wrong can be derived from our Darwinian past. (from Wikipedia; Conscience)

But I think our sense of humanity fights against the idea of "only the strong should live on, and the weak should die out", of which "natural selection" is basically about. Darwin himself was puzzled by a phenomenon that seemed to contradict his most basic thesis, that natural selection should favor the ruthless . . . So, is the virtue of humanity really a product of evolution?

[Ginkgo]

Who says ethical behaviour is about species survival?

Contemporary scientists in ethology and evolutionary psychology seek to explain conscience as a function of the brain that evolved to facilitate altruism within societies. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins states that he agrees with Robert Hinde's Why Good is Good, Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? and Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, that our sense of right and wrong can be derived from our Darwinian past. (from Wikipedia; Conscience)

But I think our sense of humanity fights against the idea of "only the strong should live on, and the weak should die out", of which "natural selection" is basically about. Darwin himself was puzzled by a phenomenon that seemed to contradict his most basic thesis, that natural selection should favor the ruthless . . . So, is the virtue of humanity really a product of evolution?

Yes, I think it can be a product of evolution.

If we are a product of natural selection this doesn't necessary mean that hard determinism is the only ethical possibility for humans.

[Yuujin]

Yes, I think it can be a product of evolution.
If we are a product of natural selection this doesn't necessary mean that hard determinism is the only ethical possibility for humans.

If we developed the virtue of humanity (being humane) thru evolution, to better facilitate the survival of the species (do you agree that's what evolution is for?), what do you think of the case below?

*********

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?

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

I kinda think . . . the voice of god . . .

[HexHammer]

We developed neurons millions years ago, when we were but microbes, with more neurons we can do more complex stuff.

We didn't just develope conciousness when we were humans, it's a very bad anology.

[Arising_uk]

But I think our sense of humanity fights against the idea of "only the strong should live on, and the weak should die out", of which "natural selection" is basically about. ...

I think this the Christian thought as it's the 'fit' not the 'strong' or the 'weak'. What is fit depends upon what the environment is.

Darwin himself was puzzled by a phenomenon that seemed to contradict his most basic thesis, that natural selection should favor the ruthless . . . So, is the virtue of humanity really a product of evolution?

Again, I think 'ruthless' from the Christian mindset. Evolution is about the sieve of Natural Selection favouring those that reproduce and there is no reason why virtue would not assist in reproduction.

[Skip]

[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.

Scenario 3. He stops just long enough to shoot the old man
3. a. out of compassion 3b. to silence a witness to his desertion
3.c and never tells anyone 3d. confesses to a priest after his conversion, brought about by guilt
4. He stops for a minute and they're both hit by an artillery shell.
5. He doesn't stop and is captured anyway.
6. He carries the old man to safety,
6a. only to discover that he's bled to death along the way. 6b. and they both survive.

Whatever makes you think there are only two possibilities in any given situation?

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?

Sublime is an overloaded word. Socially responsible is more nearly accurate, but "noble" will do.
What we see in altruistic acts is what we hope for in our fellow citizens, in case we ever need their help. We also imagine ourselves acting in that way, because we would like to be good people, but don't always follow through. In fact, the more we suspect we ourselves would chicken out in a crisis, the more we tend to admire heroism in others.

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 ?

Yes, if "god" is a sock-puppet for social hierarchy. All societies require their individual members to put the collective before personal interest. This is taught to the young in instructive stories, reward-punishment mechanism and by setting up role-models who demonstrate the society's values. EG Giving a medal to Forest Gump.

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?

We should have done it already.

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.

The correlation of global population growth with "helping" underdeveloped countries is way simplistic - not to mention inaccurate. You need to look at birth-rate statistics in more inclusive historical, economic and geo-political contexts.

For one thing, the present state of underdevelopment in some countries and overdevelopment in others is not a result of natural processes, but of imperialism, war, exploitation and religion. More specifically, the lack of birth control in all but the most advanced [least religious] western nations is largely due to the power of churches over a long period. When Godless China finally took drastic action against its runaway population increase, the Christian nations were aghast.

So, again, what is our conscience responding to, if not to the biological necessity of the betterment for future mankind?

Guilt and fear, mostly. But foreign aid is not a product of conscience, anyway - it's political, and most of us don't even know how much of it is delivered in the form of military ordnance, rather than food and medicine.

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.

Partly because we no longer have a frickin clue what it is we're supposed to get fitted for. We have changed the environment so much that we don't know what future humans will need for survival.... assuming that's even possible.

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?

Sure. Except "most able" now means "richest" - but that can change in a day. So, who is in a position to make the choices? Reproductive decisions should fall within the purview of the child-bearing population [fertile females], but the civilized power-structure [old land-owning males] and organized religion [old preaching males] have co-opted and perverted it. (They wanted, and still want, a large surplus of unemployed to keep wages low and army recruitment high.)

think . . . the voice of god . . .

Sock-puppet for old powerful males.