How Reliable is Conscience?

[Sunstone]

How reliable is conscience as a guide to moral, skillful, or otherwise appropriate behavior? Can it be relied on at all?

Can two people have very different results when consulting their consciences about some similar behavior? For instance, can one person believe his conscience is telling him it's alright to do something while the second person believes her conscience is telling her it is wrong to do the same thing? And if so, how do we know that conscience is a sure footed guide to moral, skillful, or otherwise appropriate behavior?

Where does the content of conscience reflect? Or what is the content derived from? For instance, when your conscience tells you some behavior is ill advised, is that because you were taught as a child to believe that behavior or similar behaviors to that behavior were ill advised? Or is it because conscience somehow comes preloaded with "opinions" about what is or isn't ill advised, and no learning is involved? Or, is it something else?

Is it possible that one's conscience is, on the most fundamental level, one's assessment of whether other people that one respects and wishes the approval of would think a behavior is right or wrong?

Why does the content of conscience seem to change with the age in which we live? For instance, today, most people might say their conscience tells them that slavery is wrong. But two hundred years ago, many people would probably have said their conscience tells them nothing of the sort or even that slavery is right. Why are there such changes in conscience?

 

[Quintessence]

Reliable? What does that mean in this context? It seems to me that reliability may be the wrong way to go about looking at it. To me, reliable suggests reproducibility. But given the intrinsic variation and lack of repeatability in life events, how would you even measure that? There's no standard; there's no control. It seems to me conscience exists precisely because rigid rules of what to do and what not to do fail to account for the variation of life events. If you didn't operate by intuition - which is kind of what conscience is - you would suffer decision paralysis and never do a thing.

You might as ask instead "do I trust myself?" because it seems to be the same question. Do you trust yourself to do what you feel is right and handle the consequences regardless of outcome? If you don't, then perhaps I would say that your intuition/conscience is not reliable?

 

[Pegg]

The conscience isnt' preloaded with anything. It should be thought of as a 'compass'

When pointing in the right direction, the compass hits north, when you are moving away from the right direction, it moves away from north.

The conscience works the same way....it merely gives us a 'sense' that something is wrong with a particular action. We first judge an action, then our conscience decides which way it will point.

It doesnt say 'why' an action is wrong, it simply makes us 'feel' that it is a wrong action. The 'why' is based on what we've been taught and what we've come to believe. And for that reason, two people can have very different consciences.

 

[apophenia]

Conscience is reliable in its effects on self esteem.

Acting in accordance with one's conscience promotes self-esteem, whereas acting against conscience erodes self-esteem.

 

[Willamena]

How reliable is conscience as a guide to moral, skillful, or otherwise appropriate behavior? Can it be relied on at all?

If it's not reliable for that, it's not conscience we're talking about. Conscience is the dictator of ethical behavior.

Can two people have very different results when consulting their consciences about some similar behavior? For instance, can one person believe his conscience is telling him it's alright to do something while the second person believes her conscience is telling her it is wrong to do the same thing? And if so, how do we know that conscience is a sure footed guide to moral, skillful, or otherwise appropriate behavior?

Conscience is unique case because it is learned, no two people will have the same outcome. Conscience is "a sure footed guide" to appropriate behavior by definition--as I said before, if it's not that guide then it's not conscience we're talking about.

Where does the content of conscience reflect? Or what is the content derived from? For instance, when your conscience tells you some behavior is ill advised, is that because you were taught as a child to believe that behavior or similar behaviors to that behavior were ill advised? Or is it because conscience somehow comes preloaded with "opinions" about what is or isn't ill advised, and no learning is involved? Or, is it something else?

Nothing is "preloaded."

Is it possible that one's conscience is, on the most fundamental level, one's assessment of whether other people that one respects and wishes the approval of would think a behavior is right or wrong?

No. One could have conscience even if no one else exists.

Why does the content of conscience seem to change with the age in which we live? For instance, today, most people might say their conscience tells them that slavery is wrong. But two hundred years ago, many people would probably have said their conscience tells them nothing of the sort or even that slavery is right. Why are there such changes in conscience?

Because nothing is permanent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can two people have very different results when consulting their consciences about some similar behavior? For instance, can one person believe his conscience is telling him it's alright to do something while the second person believes her conscience is telling her it is wrong to do the same thing?

Not sure what a conscience is, but of course, people do routinely reach wildly divergent conclusions about what is acceptable.

And if so, how do we know that conscience is a sure footed guide to moral, skillful, or otherwise appropriate behavior?

We do know that they are not. Whatever constructs are usually named "conscience" are not generally reliable. That is one of the reasons why the lure of authoritarianism is so strong.

Where does the content of conscience reflect? Or what is the content derived from? For instance, when your conscience tells you some behavior is ill advised, is that because you were taught as a child to believe that behavior or similar behaviors to that behavior were ill advised?

Often. Other times it is a rationally-created conclusion. There are probably other possible origins, but none occur to me right now.

Or is it because conscience somehow comes preloaded with "opinions" about what is or isn't ill advised, and no learning is involved? Or, is it something else?

A few may be organic in origin, or even simple retreat towards familiar territory.

Is it possible that one's conscience is, on the most fundamental level, one's assessment of whether other people that one respects and wishes the approval of would think a behavior is right or wrong?

At some level, certainly. I don't know if I would call it the most fundamental one.

Why does the content of conscience seem to change with the age in which we live? For instance, today, most people might say their conscience tells them that slavery is wrong. But two hundred years ago, many people would probably have said their conscience tells them nothing of the sort or even that slavery is right. Why are there such changes in conscience?

Mostly because a primary goal of pretty much everyone is living in tolerable terms with the people they expect to interact with. While the sensation of having a conscience may appear to be self-originated, it seems to me that it is a delusion, a representation of the expectation of harmony with one's own social environment - perhaps tempered or even fully subverted by particularly strong moral views. In that respect, moral changes arise from what are technically aberrations and take generations to fully consolidate.

 

[Falvlun]

I hope mine works because that's basically how I determine my ethical code. If it feels wrong to do, don't do it. If it doesn't feel wrong to do, then it is permissible.

 

[Titanic]

unless you have depersonliaztion

 

[Penumbra]

Conscience doesn't seem particularly reliable, but perhaps all humans have to work with here are conscience and logic. One without the other likely wouldn't work so well.

I would venture the idea that conscience is more reliable (though still not reliable enough) when it's screaming to you that something is wrong, rather than agreeing that something is right. Like, if something seems logically reasonable but it just feels absolutely wrong to do, then it's really worth giving that feeling more time and to re-assess everything.

 

[idav]

The conscience is fairly reliable if people actually listened to it and didn't create justifications for allowing the self to cross a line that wouldn't be allowable for others. People know how to live with each other in peace but often times that takes more self sacrifice than most of us are willing to give. Then again you can't please everyone, someones always gonna feel like they got the short end.

 

[Willamena]

I hope mine works because that's basically how I determine my ethical code. If it feels wrong to do, don't do it. If it doesn't feel wrong to do, then it is permissible.

Just so.

It is the ethical code working.

 

[apophenia]

Originally Posted by Falvlun
I hope mine works because that's basically how I determine my ethical code. If it feels wrong to do, don't do it. If it doesn't feel wrong to do, then it is permissible.

Just so.

It is the ethical code working.

"Feels wrong' and 'feels right' - somatic awareness trumps logic.

A much better guide too. The whole body (75 trillion cells) rather than a few overrated brain cells.

 

[Alex_G]

How reliable is conscience as a guide to moral, skillful, or otherwise appropriate behavior? Can it be relied on at all?

Can two people have very different results when consulting their consciences about some similar behavior? For instance, can one person believe his conscience is telling him it's alright to do something while the second person believes her conscience is telling her it is wrong to do the same thing? And if so, how do we know that conscience is a sure footed guide to moral, skillful, or otherwise appropriate behavior?

Where does the content of conscience reflect? Or what is the content derived from? For instance, when your conscience tells you some behavior is ill advised, is that because you were taught as a child to believe that behavior or similar behaviors to that behavior were ill advised? Or is it because conscience somehow comes preloaded with "opinions" about what is or isn't ill advised, and no learning is involved? Or, is it something else?

Is it possible that one's conscience is, on the most fundamental level, one's assessment of whether other people that one respects and wishes the approval of would think a behavior is right or wrong?

Why does the content of conscience seem to change with the age in which we live? For instance, today, most people might say their conscience tells them that slavery is wrong. But two hundred years ago, many people would probably have said their conscience tells them nothing of the sort or even that slavery is right. Why are there such changes in conscience?

The conscience to me simply means elicited emotional experiences relating to moral considerations. I think one can have within this definition, variation in the validity of their feelings. As you say, dogma, and strict things learnt as a child may very well manifest later in life as a form of conscience, but is an example of one fuelled by something that does not tie itself to anything inherently good, rather a lot of the time such conscience can lead to many wrong doings. Ideas of duty at all cost spring to mind, and exemplifies the problems of extreme positions.

The better conscience in my mind is that rooted in empathy. It, while not perfect is the right guide to moral intuition. its validated through the evolved ability of projecting ones own self onto others. Mirror neurons fire when you see others in pain and so forth in a fashion that simulates it in yourself. This capacity for empathy connects everyone together, and awakens people to the conscious lives that live around them.

Interestingly young children characteristically learn this sense of other minds existing at a specific age, as part of normal developmental milestones. Often you see it in the way they play, share toys and interact. The lack of this is one of the signs that alerts to autism. I think there is real weight to saying that without this form of emotional sensibility to the lives of others one is quite markedly without capacity when it comes to morality, diminishing the responsibility that they would otherwise have. This does suggest that its quite an integral piece to the moral mind.

The reality is these things don't exist independently in your mind, and your guide to moral action unavoidably involves the interaction of these emotional feelings and intuitions as well as reason and logic. I always think of the emotional side of things being the spark, that sensitizes you to moral considerations, and reason being the way you improve, sharpen and consolidate what you think and do.

One of the obvious failings of the empathetic conscience is that of 'out of sight out of mind' and distance degradation. If we were right in front of starving children, you emotional conscience powered by an ability to empathize would be going crazy, and rightly so, compelling intervention and help. But, there are starving children all over the world, dying right now, but because they are so far removed from ourselves and our present circumstance, its disturbingly easy to forget about. This is a good example where reason and logic can step in, and highlight the limitations of our emotional feelings. Whilst its still the emotive/empathetic part of us that sensitizes us to the good of helping pain in others in the first place, reason can in light of that step in and modulate our thinking and actions when needs be.