Argument from Conscience

[Neo-Scholastic]

I've already read ahead and seen the bits you've deleted from my post…the dishonest censorship of my response you've done before you deigned to answer it.

When editing, I always try to preserve the intent of the author and only strive for brevity. If you feel I have deleted something essential to your point then you should know that I did so by mistake, not malice.

What I'm saying is that one of the problems with the argument- because I'm pointing out the issues I have with it and not casually dismissing it, as you baselessly accuse…

Please accept my apology. What I said was not accurate.

... it …is setting a list of criteria without demonstrating that they're the only available ones, [one] that only reduces possibilities from a prepared list,...

That is not universally true. Sometimes a person make a list that exhausts all possibilities, like A and not-A. As it relates specifically to the argument in the OP, I acknowledged other possibilities but could not readily identify them. For the revamped argument I simply put those in the category of whatever is outside of Nature, the Individual, and the Collective. To my mind that covers all known secular sources of moral authority.

Do I seriously need to point out to you that people can be mistaken in what they believe they should do…

You have made the point before. I acknowledged it as something to be explained. And I did. The argument, as I have revised it, does not hinge on the accuracy of the moral sentiments made by someone’s conscience. For example, the well water may come from a clear aquifer (source of authority) but some people may choose to add flavors to the water or drink from a dirt cup. Or someone in power, like a tyrant, could poison the well for everyone.

Most people acknowledge that it means something to be human, even though many differ on the specifics. War-mongers and torturers demonize their enemies. Abortionists and those who advocate euthanasia dehumanize the weak and vulnerable. Here is what I said in the commentary to Given 1 of the revamped argument:

Esquilax, Redbeard and others, have repeated my earlier stated concern about the variable nature of conscience between individuals and the lack of development in others. Neither TRJF (apparently) or I see this as a flaw in the argument itself. Anyone can see that people vary with respect to many other traits like physical stature, dexterity, and intelligence. There is no reason to suppose otherwise for conscience.

The point is that all things found in the natural world reflect to varying degrees the essential form of that which makes it the thing that it is, i.e. some kind of realism. For this reason, nominalists and conceptualists will not find the Argument from Conscience 2.0 compelling. Within a realist framework, adding the qualifiers ‘healthy and normative’ is necessary to distinguish between those of us who adequately satisfy the criteria of ‘rational animal’ to the exclusion of the insane and incapable.

As I said before, there were people in the past who felt obligated to follow their consciences by "uplifting" Aboriginal children … also have examples wherein one could feel obligated to their conscience, not follow it, and indeed actively fight against it, and achieve a virtuous result.

Indeed, you have said it before. Your response presupposes the existence of some reliable external reference. Your conscience tells you that the Western education of the aboriginal children was wrong. Starting with some innate kernel of conscience, like empathy, people build their conscience with reason applied to experience. Their reasoning may be flawed and their experiences desensitizing. The fact is that each person must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. For this reason, I call the following of conscience uniformly virtuous, not because the end results are good; but rather, because when people following their conscience they cultivate the virtues that make people better exemplars of what it means to be human, e.g. more courageous, more rational, greater temperance, just, etc.

You say that the checking of conscience is something people should constantly check and re-verify. I couldn’t agree more. I say that it is your conscience tells you that it is right and proper to do so, because that is what a healthy and fully functioning conscience does. It tells you what you should do even with respect to itself.

Which makes the conscience itself completely irrelevant, since the argument is predicated on it working in a certain way, toward a certain pre-existing definition of good.

Yes, the argument works it’s way to a certain idea of good: The Good to be precise. But I disagree that that make the conscience irrelevant, since its function is to work towards better conformity with The Good.

It's circular.

I consider it feedback loop that strives toward a desired end – think Aristotle’s Nichomacean Ethics.

So it's special pleading, then?

The charge of special pleading only sticks when someone applies different standards to things in the same category. I listed three qualities in which God differs from human beings. They are not comparable.[/quote]

Again, please accept my apologies for inaccurate editing. Hopefully I did better this time.