Argument from Conscience

[Neo-Scholastic]

…what does the word, instinct mean …The word, instinct makes me think of an urge that can't be overruled,…Could you give an example for number three?

Involuntary reactions (like blinking) would not have any moral significance. Instinct here applies to psychological motivators and inhibitors like self-preservation, sexual desire, parental protectiveness, deferring to authority, etc.

1) Obligated by what?

That’s a good question. I think the answer is one of the choices in premise 2. A person is obligated by nature OR he is obligated by himself…etc. The point on Premise 1 is to establish that there is an obligation to follow your conscience regardless of why someone has a conscience in the first place.

2) The equivocation of "obligated" (in 1) and "morally obligated" (in 3). That's a big, big jump. Even if premise 1 is true, premise 3 is a non sequitur, and thus the conclusion fails unless we define "moral obligation"

One can only be obliged legally or morally. In the context of the argument, I think only moral obligations count, since everyone knows that legal obligations are established by those in power.

… the argument becomes circular: 6) there is an external source of conscience ONLY IF (additional premise) there is an external source of morality…Essentially, I think this argument is logically equivalent to the question of external morality…

What makes the argument both interesting and different is that the question isn’t “Isn’t from where do people get their morals?”; but rather, “From where do people get their conscience?” The first centers around whether commandments/imperatives are binding even if they go contrary to what we personally want, feel, or believe. The latter question admits that we do have a sense of right and wrong that guides our behavior and informs (or overrides) cultural taboos, self-interest, cultural taboos, laws, and intellectual ethical systems.