Conscience Can Trigger Vile Actions

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally, I believe 'conscience' is something that is absolutely good, but here is a clue that is otherwise;

ChatGpt [with reservations]:

The relationship between conscience and actions is a complex and debated topic in philosophy, psychology, and ethics.
Conscience is often viewed as an internal moral compass that guides individuals towards right or wrong actions based on their values and beliefs.
However, there are instances where individuals may act in ways that others perceive as vile, even though they may believe they are following their conscience.

One perspective suggests that an individual's conscience can be influenced by various factors, including cultural norms, personal experiences, and social influences. In certain situations, people may rationalize or justify actions that others find morally objectionable. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as "moral disengagement," where individuals can detach their moral standards from their actions.

Albert Bandura, a psychologist known for his work on social learning theory, has explored the concept of moral disengagement in his research. In his book "Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves," Bandura discusses mechanisms through which people can disengage morally and engage in harmful behavior without feeling a sense of guilt or remorse.

It's essential to note that interpretations of conscience and morality can vary among individuals and cultures, and what one person considers a vile action may be seen differently by another. Additionally, research on this topic is ongoing, and scholars continue to investigate the psychological and philosophical aspects of conscience and its relationship to behavior.

References:

Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves. Worth Publishers.

Please keep in mind that discussions around morality and conscience often involve diverse perspectives, and the information provided here is a general overview rather than an exhaustive analysis.

Discuss?? Views??

[Iwannaplato]

We section out one portion of a certain kind of voice or 'voice' in the brain/mind and call it conscience. This voice can certainly harm people themselves. IOW it can be a form of intra-relation self-hate where it demands one 'think of the other person' and 'be kind' while others are abusing said person. This conscience then functions as an excuse-maker for the misbehavior/abuse of others. People often confuse guilt and shame with love or being a good person and what we call conscience can play a role in this.

Then more in line with Chatgpt, that voice, of which conscience is a part, can yes excuse all sort of behavior. IOW it can also justify the abuse of others. We may not think this is conscience but then we are confusing our subcategory conscience with a separate function/portion of the brain/self/mind. That same place can whisper just about anything.

[Janoah]

Generally, I believe 'conscience' is something that is absolutely good, but here is a clue that is otherwise;

ChatGpt [with reservations]:

However, there are instances where individuals may act in ways that others perceive as vile, even though they may believe they are following their conscience.

First of all, a person cannot be ideal, Plato wrote that one cannot be good, one can only strive for it.
You can strive not to lie to yourself, but you cannot completely get rid of self-deception, such is human nature. I would compare self-deception to the force of friction in nature; it can be reduced, but you cannot completely get rid of it.
And in general, heaven on earth is impossible in principle.
For the same person at different periods of life, the prompts of conscience may change, depending on the education and knowledge acquired.
But if you don’t follow your conscience, then what should you follow?

If people have taken following their conscience as a principle, then they will be able to find a peaceful consensus on controversial issues.
Philosophy will help them with this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But if you don’t follow your conscience, then what should you follow?

If people have taken following their conscience as a principle, then they will be able to find a peaceful consensus on controversial issues.
Philosophy will help them with this.

I answered there in your topic.

My point here as I had learned, we cannot equate conscience as related to morality exclusively without reservations.

Conscience is triggered in the case of non-compliance to some 'expectations' rules, standards, etc. which can be moral or whatever.

In your case as a Christian, your supposed expectations of compliance is ALL that is stipulated within the Gospels [not the whole Bible].
If your belief is very strong, your conscience will be triggered when you have any impulse that go against what is stipulated in the Gospels e.g. the impulse to commit adultery [kill].
In this case you will have to follow your conscience else you will be sinning with a threat of hell.

In the extreme case, if a person religion commands or permit genocide in a certain situation and if he did not commit genocide when given the opportunity, it may also trigger his guilty conscience, especially if those he did not kill subsequently went on to kill a large number of his tribe.

For a secular person, his conscience may be triggered when his impulse contravene his intuitions of 'what is moral'.

Conscience is not the critical issue here, rather it is the constitution that dictate the direction of the conscience.

So, what is critical is to ensure the moral constitution is sound [not evil] such that if the conscience is triggered, a person's actions will be directed towards the good and not the evil.

What is most critical is to cultivates one's moral constitution to be as sound and competent as possible such that the person will be spontaneously moral without any bad impulse where there is no need for the conscience to be triggered.

[Janoah]

In your case as a Christian,

No, I'm not a Christian.

I am a Jew and live in a settlement in Israel


***where there is no need for the conscience to be triggered***

Conscience is always on, it is important not to neglect it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In your case as a Christian,

No, I'm not a Christian.

I am a Jew and live in a settlement in Israel


***where there is no need for the conscience to be triggered***

Conscience is always on, it is important not to neglect it.

My point is you cannot use 'conscience' on a blanket basis as a moral element because conscience can also trigger vile actions.
Perhaps you should qualify it as 'moral conscience'.

[Janoah]

Perhaps you should qualify it as 'moral conscience'.

However, even here it is necessary to discern what is the cause and what is the effect.
Among Islamists, it is considered highly moral to cut off the heads of infidels, organizing public festivals in honor of this with the distribution of sweets.

Only conscience can suggest what is moral and what is immoral.
It is clear, and I talked about this, that following conscience cannot be ideal in principle, its prompts depend on a person’s education, adequate philosophical developments, but there is nothing more interesting at a person’s disposal for determining morality, is there?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Perhaps you should qualify it as 'moral conscience'.

However, even here it is necessary to discern what is the cause and what is the effect.
Among Islamists, it is considered highly moral to cut off the heads of infidels, organizing public festivals in honor of this with the distribution of sweets.

Only conscience can suggest what is moral and what is immoral.
It is clear, and I talked about this, that following conscience cannot be ideal in principle, its prompts depend on a person’s education, adequate philosophical developments, but there is nothing more interesting at a person’s disposal for determining morality, is there?

When we defined what is morality-proper, i.e. good over evil, the implied sanctioning of killing infidels within the Quran cannot qualify as moral universally.
Any killing of human is defined as immoral within morality-proper.

An extremist Islamists [compliant believer] may be triggered with a conscience if he resisted or did not kill infidels when faced with the opportunity within the stipulated conditions and terms of his divine contract [covenant].

[Janoah]

the implied sanctioning of killing infidels within the Quran cannot qualify as moral universally.

who qualifies universal morality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

the implied sanctioning of killing infidels within the Quran cannot qualify as moral universally.

who qualifies universal morality?

The theory and principle is, it is Rational beings with critical thinking skills and wisdom who qualify universal morality conditioned upon a human-based moral model.

If you are a rational person,
surely you cannot deny it is universal all humans are 'programmed' to breathe [at least till the inevitability of mortality.
The universal moral principle is, it is immoral in principle to stop a person's natural right from breathing, i.e. killing a human person.

At present humans kill humans as a crime and it is legal to kill humans by law or excusable if done in self-defense. This is related to laws, i.e. the legislations which is political.
Politics is independent of morality.

[Janoah]

the implied sanctioning of killing infidels within the Quran cannot qualify as moral universally.

who qualifies universal morality?

The theory and principle is, it is Rational beings with critical thinking skills and wisdom who qualify universal morality conditioned upon a human-based moral model.

Different peoples have different morals, and even the same people, morality can change throughout history, but who establishes “universal morality”, I don’t see your answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

who qualifies universal morality?

The theory and principle is, it is Rational beings with critical thinking skills and wisdom who qualify universal morality conditioned upon a human-based moral model.

Different peoples have different morals, and even the same people, morality can change throughout history, but who establishes “universal morality”, I don’t see your answer.

There is universality in human nature which is the same for ALL humans.

One of the universal element of human nature is "Nutrition".
For example, there is a normative and universality to eating.
There different ways of consumption of foods, preferences [likes, dislikes, aversity] for food, producing food, preparing, cooking, etc. etc.
But all the above is basically the same for all humans, i.e. the need for proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals necessary for the well-being and survival of a human being.
What is most critical and primary is to understand food from their universal elements, i.e. proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals; the combinations and variations are secondary.

There are many normative and universal elements within human nature.

One very significant universal element of human nature is "Morality"
Just like nutrition, within the diversity of morals, there is a normative element to morality.
Within the manifested ubiquitous variations in morality, there are the universal elements of morality; the majority are ignorant of it.

Relative to the emergence of humans and its history, it is only recently [emergence of science] that humans understood the existence of the basic essential of nutrition.

With the essentials, normative, and universality within morality, it is not easy for the ordinary person at present to understand and grasp their actual existence within human nature.

Just like most people who do not understand the basic universal elements of nutrition, you [seemingly] are in the same state of not understanding the essentials, normative, and universality within morality.

Just as you who must establish your own initiative to understand your own bodily need to be responsible to take a balance diet,
it is not "who" [outsiders and external parties], it has to be YOU who must understand the the moral functions and normative within you yourself and allow them to manifest spontaneously and naturally. Morally, no external party can force you to do that.

If it [to act] is from external parties, then it would be politics [legislative laws] or theology [threat of hell] social, or customs [shunning, etc.].

Morality is a private and personal thing [guided {not enforced} by public].