Argument from Conscience

[TheRealJoeFish]

So, using these definitions, we get:
1) Each person has some sense of whether a certain course of action is morally correct or not, and each person feels compelled, whether morally or otherwise, to not act in a way that they believe is moral. (Barring actual psychopaths and such, I think this is true.)
2) A person's sense of right and wrong is the product of something. (Seems reasonable; I don't think anyone's proposed "the human conscience as the first cause" ;-))

Let's look at 3, 4 and 5 together:

3) No one is morally obligated to follow instincts, because instincts fail upon rational consideration.
4) No individual's conscience is absolute and morally binding on others.
5) Individual consciences cannot be added unless each person relies on their own conscience to feel morally obliged to the group. (I think this means A's conscience cannot "oblige" B unless B'a conscience already says "it is immoral for me to not follow A's conscience.) This it is functionally equivalent to individual consience as a source. (I admit, I do not know what this means, because I don't understand what "it" refers to.)

Here's the framework I propose:

As each person grows and improves in capacity to reason, each person learns a set of norms from those around her. A subset of these are labelled by those around her with an attached value judgment of "good" or "bad". These value judgments are learned at least in part by rote, before the person has internalized what "good" or "bad" means. (What I mean by this is, if you ask a child at various stages of development why stealing's wrong, you'll get answers of: 1) goo goo gah gah, 2) because if I steal I get spanked, 3) because mommy says it's wrong, 4) because it's not mine, 5) because it's someone else's, 6) because it's against the law, 7) because if I steal from someone, their life is worse, 8) it's *not* wrong if it's life-saving medicine.) Experiences, be they rational, instinctual, or emotional, challenge and reinforce these notions, adding nuance and force until a person has a complex (but internalized) moral framework. This is not a list of whether any given action is right or wrong, but a detailed process for *determining* by analogy, consequence, empathy, and all sorts of other emotional and rational tools what is right or wrong. Those who profess an exterior source of absolute morality take that source and its dicta into account as one of these factors; those who do not believe in such a source manage all right without.

And this is where the "obligation" comes in. When one "feels morally obligated" to follow one's conscience, this is simply a relabeling of the process that has already occurred, one level removed: not only does the conscience decide that Action A = Good, it decides (based on all the usual factors) that being good is good.

Other forms of obligation are similar processes with different emphases. Legal obligation is a process in which a person reasons that Action A will lead to negative consequences for me, which will be administered by others (all informed, of course, by an additional perception that following the law = good). Personal obligation is similar, but the negative consequences are administered by the self (I am obligated not to put this task off, because I will feel unpleasant if I have to hurry an rush at the deadline) or nature (I am obligated to myself not to eat 10 cheeseburgers, because I "owe it to myself" not to become obese or clog my intestines). Relational obligation is the trickiest, but is essentially "if I perform action A, person B will be sad." This can be explained emotionally, empathetically, or even on the level of mirror neurons and hormones (if I cause person B to frown/break their leg, my brain will also recall what it is like to frown/experience pain).

I believe, actually, that this framework I propose here attacks the third of the 6 points in the original argument, but not for the reason I proposed earlier.

I await reasoned criticisms/responses/kudos+reps