Philosophy Now Forum

Conscience is the result of all things that we experienced and accepted as right or wrong in our lives and what we really are as a person (our genetic for example). We all sometimes consider conscience when it comes to decide. Our conscience also bother us when we perform a wrong act. We however cannot be sure that conscience is reliable source to validate an act since a careful analyze of situation is necessary sometimes. So the question is when and how we should listen to conscience?

bahman wrote:Conscience is the result of all things that we experienced and accepted as right or wrong in our lives and what we really are as a person (our genetic for example). We all sometimes consider conscience when it comes to decide. Our conscience also bother us when we perform a wrong act. We however cannot be sure that conscience is reliable source to validate an act since a careful analyze of situation is necessary sometimes. So the question is when and how we should listen to conscience?

This seems to be is extension of your other thread. If you are a Kantian you apply the following: "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". For example, if you think that stealing is acceptable then you need to ask yourself if you would be happy living in a society where everyone steals at every opportunity? If the answer is no, then not stealing should become a general rule. A person should always act as if every action they perform should become a universal law. Conscience by itself doesn't constitute an ethical theory.

Even if we analyze the situation carefully, the conscience plays a (major) role in this analysis of a situation. Conscious mind and conscience doesn't have the same word origin by chance.
I think that ultimately person decides or feel (if we actually ever decide about anything) according to their conscience. So we listen to it, even though we may believe that we decided on a basis of some rational analysis...

Conscience like the owl seeks its prey
without the intercourse of light
for what seemed sightless during day
becomes translucent in the night.

Yes, we should always listen to that unquiet presence which only conscience can feel. Those who are exempt are incomplete. Not least, it's an educational tool forcing one to analyze retroactively.

Ginkgo wrote: ..."act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". For example, if you think that stealing is acceptable then you need to ask yourself if you would be happy living in a society where everyone steals at every opportunity? If the answer is no, then not stealing should become a general rule. A person should always act as if every action they perform should become a universal law...

Why happiness is a useful criteria for accepting an act as universal law?

MatejValuch wrote: Even if we analyze the situation carefully, the conscience plays a (major) role in this analysis of a situation. Conscious mind and conscience doesn't have the same word origin by chance.
I think that ultimately person decides or feel (if we actually ever decide about anything) according to their conscience. So we listen to it, even though we may believe that we decided on a basis of some rational analysis...

Well, conscience as it was illustrated is the result of our experiences, etc. Conscience could easily guide us wrongly if a situation needs a careful analyze.

Dubious wrote: Conscience like the owl seeks its prey
without the intercourse of light
for what seemed sightless during day
becomes translucent in the night.

Yes, we should always listen to that unquiet presence which only conscience can feel. Those who are exempt are incomplete. Not least, it's an educational tool forcing one to analyze retroactively.

Conscience doesn't really feel anything. It is an impression rooted in all our experiences, what we were taught, what we learn and what we are. It could simply misguide us.

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: Conscience like the owl seeks its prey
without the intercourse of light
for what seemed sightless during day
becomes translucent in the night.

Yes, we should always listen to that unquiet presence which only conscience can feel. Those who are exempt are incomplete. Not least, it's an educational tool forcing one to analyze retroactively.

Conscience doesn't really feel anything. It is an impression rooted in all our experiences, what we were taught, what we learn and what we are. It could simply misguide us.

In that case there is no need for conscience since it's just part of everyday experience all of which can misguide us and frequently has. For most people conscience is a different entity altogether, a kind of judge and jury on actions and inactions.

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote: Conscience like the owl seeks its prey
without the intercourse of light
for what seemed sightless during day
becomes translucent in the night.

Yes, we should always listen to that unquiet presence which only conscience can feel. Those who are exempt are incomplete. Not least, it's an educational tool forcing one to analyze retroactively.

Conscience doesn't really feel anything. It is an impression rooted in all our experiences, what we were taught, what we learn and what we are. It could simply misguide us.

In that case there is no need for conscience since it's just part of everyday experience all of which can misguide us and frequently has. For most people conscience is a different entity altogether, a kind of judge and jury on actions and inactions.

I think we should be cautious when conscience shows up. We always need to judge the situation carefully.

bahman wrote:

Dubious wrote:

bahman wrote:
Conscience doesn't really feel anything. It is an impression rooted in all our experiences, what we were taught, what we learn and what we are. It could simply misguide us.

In that case there is no need for conscience since it's just part of everyday experience all of which can misguide us and frequently has. For most people conscience is a different entity altogether, a kind of judge and jury on actions and inactions.

I think we should be cautious when conscience shows up. We always need to judge the situation carefully.

I think conscience allows for that. It doesn't automatically pronounce a 'mea culpa' on itself each time it reconsiders an action.

bahman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: ..."act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". For example, if you think that stealing is acceptable then you need to ask yourself if you would be happy living in a society where everyone steals at every opportunity? If the answer is no, then not stealing should become a general rule. A person should always act as if every action they perform should become a universal law...

Why happiness is a useful criteria for accepting an act as universal law?

I just picked that word. Perhaps the word, "accepting" would have been a better choice.