Philosophy Now Forum

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 12:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 2:04 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 12:22 am

Those who have no shame, have no conscience.

Or, do they actually have a Conscience, but they just choose to ignore It?

No.

Is this an absolute fact? Or, just your view on this?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am

treesforlife242 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:15 am Currently, there is no way to define if actions are moral. Current day morality originate from the Bible’s basic rules, such as no killing and being kind. This is not based of logic, so how are we able to define good and bad.

For example take hanging and quartering, why do we define that as bad? My opinion is that the 18th Century people felt it wrong not out of sympathy as they were criminals. Rather they were looking out their own health. They felt, if they were in that situation they would want a quick death. For example if they were caught in a criminal act they would want their suffering to be as little as possible, or they shouldn’t kill as it means someone might kill you. Therefore, the definition of bad, is anything which would make your life quality worse.

Theistic morality from God is pseudo-morality, not morality-proper.

Define 'morality-proper'?

Does 'morality-proper' just by "sheer coincidence" just happen to align perfectly with the way you think about what is moral?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am How does one know truth from falsehood?
To do so, one need to know what is the truth, knowledge and fact of reality.
To get to knowledge, one set up a system to cognize Justified True Beliefs. [JTB -Gettier noted].

You write this as though you already know what is the truth, knowledge and fact of reality. But, from what you write, you are so far from knowing this.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am How does one know right from wrong in terms of Morality?
To do so, one need to know what is the moral truth, knowledge and fact of morality within reality.
To get to moral knowledge/fact, one set up a moral system to cognize Justified True Moral Beliefs. [JTMB -Gettier noted].

The same as what I wrote above this applies here as well.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am Justified True Moral Beliefs can only be used as GUIDEs only and the individuals has to develop their moral competence to strive to act as close as possible to the GUIDEs.

Re the example in the OP.
The moral fact is;
"No human shall kill another human"
which is only to be used as a GUIDE only.

If it is supposedly "only to be used as a GUIDE only", then it is NOT even really worth talking about.

Either some thing is a moral fact or it is not. A moral fact can not, by definition, be a "guide only".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am Being human, there will be humans who will kill other humans [psychopaths, serial genocidal murderers].

Also, suicide, abortion, euthanasia, sentenced to death.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am Because the moral fact,
"No human shall kill another human"

Does this mean that it is, to you, perfectly all right to kill one's self?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am is the imperative objective,
the individuals and humanity will have to find solutions for future generations where are no humans with potential to kill at all, e.g. ensuring no one is born as a potential killer during his whole life even when subjected to vulnerable nurturing factors.

Even you, yourself, are complicit in the killing of human beings. But you would not even look at this, would you?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 3:59 am As for the current generations, it is too late to deal with the inherent potentials of evilness, humanity will have find solutions using foolproof methods to rewire the mind of the evil prone, if not, rely on effective laws to deter or reduce killings from happening to the optimal.

LOL "inherent potentials of evilness", and, "effective laws" to reduce killings. As if laws has ever worked to reduce killings.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:11 pm

Age wrote:
When what is agreed and accepted by ALL then that knowledge which is also absolutely True Right and Correct is KNOWN

But is it not also possible that everyone can agree on something which is not absolutely true or right or correct ?

But that is possible.

For example, everyone might agree on the sentence I wrote is not absolutely true, nor right, nor correct?

It does not matter what EVERY one agrees on. If EVERY one agrees on something being not true, not right, or not correct, then EVERY one is agreeing on that, which would, also, be now KNOWN knowledge that is absolutely True, Right, and Correct.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:11 pm And if it is possible then how can anyone actually differentiate between what is absolutely true and what is not ?

By the very simple and very easy fact that EVERY one is agreement. Very simply and very easily IF EVERY one is in 'agreement', then there is NO one disagreeing.

'Agreement' with one or more people makes that 'agreement' true.
'Agreement' with EVERY one, as One, makes that 'agreement' thee absolute Truth, or absolutely True.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:12 pm

Age wrote:
Experiences produce thoughts so ALL thoughts come from experiences

All thoughts only come from experience if you class imagination as experience

Do you class imagination as experience?

If no, then why mention this?

Also, is 'imagination' thought or imagination?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:12 pm But experience does not pertain to something that has been thought but done

I am not sure what you are saying here. Do you have an example?

Also, I think you might be missing the point that I am making here. That is; absolutely EVERY thought has come about because of a past experience.

And, on top of that, EVERY behavior is a result of a previous thought.

Age wrote:
Do you class imagination as experience ?

I would class it as mental rather than physical but because I also regard the divide between the mental and the
physical as being purely arbitrary then ultimately I would have to accept that imagination is indeed experience

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:17 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 12:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 2:04 am

Or, do they actually have a Conscience, but they just choose to ignore It?

No.

Is this an absolute fact? Or, just your view on this?

It is my view that this is absolutely true because it is impossible to be otherwise. I thought that this was obvious.

To ignore conscience is to defeat the very purpose of the thing. Conscience without its purpose cannot be conscience.

The touchstone for moral behaviour is freedom.

For instance if children are not educated they are less free when they are adults as they are either ill-equipped to make choices or they have fewer choices than their better informed contemporaries. Ill-educated adults will be unable to assess which political leaders are sane and which are insane.

For instance if less able people have no welfare safety net such as free at point of use mental health service they will not be free to develop their potential as their choices will be very limited or non existent.

For instance if police officers are made to obey inefficient and cruel orders the officers themselves will become brutalised which is an unfree condition to be in.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:16 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:17 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 12:50 pm

No.

Is this an absolute fact? Or, just your view on this?

It is my view that this is absolutely true because it is impossible to be otherwise. I thought that this was obvious.

To ignore conscience is to defeat the very purpose of the thing. Conscience without its purpose cannot be conscience.

Did you know that words mean different things to different people?

What is the purpose of conscience, to you?

Also, if the word 'conscience' refers to some thing that tells us what the right thing to do in Life is, then by looking at the way adult human beings behave, in the days when this is being written, then there is not much actual evidence regarding them listening to AND following Conscience, Itself.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:09 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:16 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:17 am

Is this an absolute fact? Or, just your view on this?

It is my view that this is absolutely true because it is impossible to be otherwise. I thought that this was obvious.

To ignore conscience is to defeat the very purpose of the thing. Conscience without its purpose cannot be conscience.

Did you know that words mean different things to different people?

What is the purpose of conscience, to you?

Also, if the word 'conscience' refers to some thing that tells us what the right thing to do in Life is, then by looking at the way adult human beings behave, in the days when this is being written, then there is not much actual evidence regarding them listening to AND following Conscience, Itself.

Bazinga! I have been conflating conscience with functioning conscience. Better would have been: conscience without its purpose cannot be a functioning conscience.

Functional or not, the purpose of conscience is to guide humans to do the right thing. Certainly, not everyone follows their conscience.

Lack of accountability is a factor in indifference to the callings of conscience. Its formalization began for the States with a policy called No Child Left Behind.

There was no longer any shame in failing. There was no reason to try your best or to take pride in your efforts. After all, everyone receives the same praise just for participating.

Parents of less than stellar pupils endorsed the new system of (non-) grading. Children grew up to feel guilt-free under the direst of circumstances.

Conscience became something to harsh your mellow rather than a positive force in human behavior. Conscience was to be ignored or unheeded if not entirely dormant.

If conscience is the small voice within us, we lose a portion of our civility when we don’t listen. We lose a portion of our humaneness.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:32 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:09 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:16 pm

It is my view that this is absolutely true because it is impossible to be otherwise. I thought that this was obvious.

To ignore conscience is to defeat the very purpose of the thing. Conscience without its purpose cannot be conscience.

Did you know that words mean different things to different people?

What is the purpose of conscience, to you?

Also, if the word 'conscience' refers to some thing that tells us what the right thing to do in Life is, then by looking at the way adult human beings behave, in the days when this is being written, then there is not much actual evidence regarding them listening to AND following Conscience, Itself.

Bazinga! I have been conflating conscience with functioning conscience. Better would have been: conscience without its purpose cannot be a functioning conscience.

Functional or not, the purpose of conscience is to guide humans to do the right thing. Certainly, not everyone follows their conscience.

I do not know an adult human being who always follows the(ir) Conscience.

So, we agree that (the) Conscience guides human beings to do the right thing, and that that is Its actual purpose.

Do we also agree that there is just one Conscience? Or do you say that every human being has their very own individual different conscience?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:05 am I do not know an adult human being who always follows the(ir) Conscience.

So, we agree that (the) Conscience guides human beings to do the right thing, and that that is Its actual purpose.

Do we also agree that there is just one Conscience? Or do you say that every human being has their very own individual different conscience?

I’m left wondering how you surmise that all the adults you know are sometimes not following their consciences. How do you know their consciences? Do you base this knowledge on a claim that there is a single, universal conscience?

As for me, I believe that while there may be many similarities, consciences are individual. As for the fact that there are many people who have identical consciences, that doesn’t make them universal.

Consider this: there are Muslims and Jews who avoid eating pork because their religion says so and their conscience dictates that they adhere to religious rules. An atheist’s conscience wouldn’t require observance of such rules.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:05 am I do not know an adult human being who always follows the(ir) Conscience.

So, we agree that (the) Conscience guides human beings to do the right thing, and that that is Its actual purpose.

Do we also agree that there is just one Conscience? Or do you say that every human being has their very own individual different conscience?

I’m left wondering how you surmise that all the adults you know are sometimes not following their consciences. How do you know their consciences?

Because unlike you I do not see that everyone has their own individual consciences. If they did, then there would not be A right and A wrong, and if there is no right nor wrong, then there is no way of discovering 'How I can know right from wrong'.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:03 pm Do you base this knowledge on a claim that there is a single, universal conscience?

Yes.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:03 pm As for me, I believe that while there may be many similarities, consciences are individual.

And whilst you hold this belief, then it 'has to' be true, right, and correct, for you?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:03 pm As for the fact that there are many people who have identical consciences, that doesn’t make them universal.

Okay.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:58 pm Consider this: there are Muslims and Jews who avoid eating pork because their religion says so and their conscience dictates that they adhere to religious rules.

Does not every religious follower's "conscience" dictate that they adhere to religious rules?

In fact does not Conscience, Itself, dictate that everyone adhere to the rules, which they see are the right rules?

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 6:58 pm An atheist’s conscience wouldn’t require observance of such rules.

But a so called "atheist's" "conscience" would require observance of rules, correct?

By the way, to me there are NO rules in Life, and as such there are NO laws. Obviously, of course, other than those human being made up rules and laws. There is, however, one Lore, which Conscience, Itself, dictates, and which if followed, then we would all already be live in peace and harmony together. But this is for another discussion.