[jayceeii]

No, this isn’t how it is with human beings. Every one of them always conceives his cause to be righteous. Every one. Evil only appears when other humans decide to disagree. To see the evil is to avoid the evil, since one recognizes then one would become unlovable.

The operation of conscience is actually the fall of man. As the Eden story declares, man will decide for himself what good and evil are, although God could have guided him from a higher perspective that would not only preserve the Earth, but hasten human progress.

If man has an inbuilt objective morality it is far too deeply buried to have daily influence. The choices people make are generally between lesser and greater evils, none rising to the objective goodness of authentic love for the neighbor and heartfelt support of his joys.

[Lelouch]

Objection 1: “No, this isn’t how it is with human beings. Every one of them always conceives his cause to be righteous. Every one. Evil only appears when other humans decide to disagree.”

This objection is based on a subjective observation of human behavior and lacks empirical evidence to support its claim. It is not true that every person always conceives their cause to be righteous or that evil only appears when others disagree. There are many instances where people knowingly engage in actions that they believe to be wrong or immoral, such as lying, cheating, or stealing. Additionally, moral disagreements can arise even when both parties are acting in good faith and believe their actions to be right.

Objection 2: “If man has an inbuilt objective morality, it is far too deeply buried to have daily influence. The choices people make are generally between lesser and greater evils, none rising to the objective goodness of authentic love for the neighbor and heartfelt support of his joys.”

This objection again seems to be based on a subjective assessment of human behavior and lacks empirical evidence to support its claim. While it is true that people often face difficult moral choices and may make decisions that are not ideal, this does not necessarily imply that there is no objective morality or that it is “deeply buried” and has no daily influence. In fact, many people make moral choices on a daily basis that reflect a commitment to objective moral values, such as honesty, fairness, and compassion.

[jayceeii]

In every instance of lying, cheating or stealing, while the individual may admit society will call him wrong, he feels himself to be righteous according to his rational principles. They will always tell you, “I felt I had to do it, because…” It was right for them at that moment.

This sentence builds my case, not yours:

“Additionally, moral disagreements can arise even when both parties are acting in good faith and believe their actions to be right.”

This is the case for all moral disagreements. To make the sentence useful it could be written like this:

“Additionally, moral disagreements can arise even when both parties are acting in good faith and believe their actions to be right according to the principles of the majority.”

The full truth of objection 2 isn’t seen until true divine standards of love for the neighbor and such are brought in. No one can do that alone, so all I can say is humans are not up to what I’d call basic standards of a good society. Whatever conscience they have is not enough.

[Lelouch]

You raise some valid points, but they do not necessarily refute the argument. Let’s examine each of your objections in turn.

Objection 1: The existence of moral disagreement suggests that conscience is not a reliable guide to objective morality.

It is true that people often disagree about what actions are morally right or wrong. However, this does not necessarily mean that conscience is an unreliable guide to objective morality. It is possible that people’s consciences are not perfectly informed or that they are influenced by cultural or personal biases. However, the fact that people have a sense of right and wrong suggests that there is some objective moral standard that people are trying to adhere to. Furthermore, the fact that people can sometimes recognize that they acted wrongly after the fact suggests that their conscience is capable of being corrected and refined.

Objection 2: People may believe that their actions are morally right even when they are not.

It is true that people can rationalize their behavior and believe that it is morally right even when it is not. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is no objective moral standard. It is possible that people’s rationalizations are based on faulty reasoning or a lack of information. Furthermore, the fact that people can recognize that they acted wrongly after the fact suggests that there is some objective standard by which their behavior can be judged.

Objection 3: Humans are not up to basic standards of a good society.

It depends on what is meant by “basic standards of a good society.” However, it is important to note that the argument is not necessarily based on the idea that humans are perfect or always act in accordance with objective morality. Rather, it is based on the idea that there must be some objective moral standard that people are trying to adhere to, and that this standard must be established by a moral lawgiver. The fact that people often fall short of this standard does not necessarily mean that the standard does not exist.

So while the objections raised to the argument are valid concerns, they do not necessarily refute the argument. The existence of moral disagreement, rationalization of behavior, or societal shortcomings does not necessarily mean that there is no objective moral standard or that there is no moral lawgiver.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Lelouch.

[Johan]

How does the fact that everyone’s conscious leads them to mutually exclusive results effect this argument? If everyone’s conscious came from the same place then they should be consistent. They are not, so therefore they didn’t all come from the same being, right ?

Are there multiple gods who hand out different consciences to different people, or are our consciouses simply not given from any of them?

[Lelouch]

The argument does not depend on the idea that everyone’s conscience leads them to the same conclusions about morality. Rather, the argument is based on the existence of conscience as an inner sense of right and wrong, and the logical inference that the existence of a conscience implies the existence of a moral lawgiver. The fact that people have different beliefs about morality does not necessarily imply that there is no moral law or that God does not exist. In fact, it is possible that people’s moral beliefs are influenced by a variety of factors, such as cultural and societal norms, personal experiences, and individual reasoning processes.

The argument does not require that the moral lawgiver is the source of every individual’s conscience. It is possible that the moral lawgiver establishes a universal moral law that is accessible to all individuals through their conscience, but that individuals may interpret and apply this moral law differently based on their personal beliefs and experiences. Furthermore, it is possible that the moral lawgiver allows for individual differences in moral beliefs as a way of encouraging individuals to engage in moral reasoning and reflection.

[Johan]

I think you might have misunderstood my objection. There is no inference to a law giver if everyone has their own internal subjective sense of right and wrong. You can’t make the connection to some outside source if every internal sense is different.

Also, you need to do more than simply say that it isn’t logically impossible, you need to show that it is not only likely, but show a strong link. The fact that it is so varied is actually strong evidence to the contrary.

You haven’t shown that a link exists between God and a subjective personal moral sense, nor have you shown that anything about our moral senses is universal.

I could also make a case that evolution provides a better explanation for our moral senses. We are a social species that needs to work in groups for our survival. Because of this fact, members of our species that follow societal rules will be favored and that behavior would be more selected for than anti-social behavior. I could go on and on expounding on this, but that is a general idea. It has more explanatory power and scope than the God hypothesis does here, so I would say it is a better IBE.

[Lelouch]

Your objection raised to the argument is a common one, and it raises some valid points.

You suggest that if everyone has their own internal subjective sense of right and wrong, then there can be no inference to an external moral lawgiver. However, it’s important to note that the argument is not based on subjective moral relativism but rather on the existence of a sense of morality that is present in all individuals. This sense of morality is not based on personal preferences or opinions but is grounded in objective moral truths that transcend individual perspectives. Therefore, your objection’s premise is not applicable to the argument.

You suggest that the fact that moral senses are so varied is strong evidence against the existence of an external moral lawgiver. However, this is not necessarily the case. While it is true that there is a wide variety of moral beliefs and practices across different cultures and individuals, this does not necessarily imply that there is no objective moral truth. It could be the case that different cultures and individuals have different understandings of the same underlying moral principles, or that some moral beliefs are more accurate than others. The existence of moral diversity does not necessarily imply the absence of an objective moral law.

You suggest that evolution provides a better explanation for our moral senses. While it is certainly true that evolutionary theory can provide some insights into the origins of our moral beliefs and practices, it is important to note that evolutionary explanations are not mutually exclusive with the existence of an objective moral law or the existence of God. Furthermore, evolutionary theory does not provide a complete explanation for all aspects of morality, such as the existence of moral duties and obligations.

[Johan]

“However, it’s important to note that the argument is not based on subjective moral relativism but rather on the existence of a sense of morality that is present in all individuals.”

But it isn’t present in all individuals, that is my point.

“While it is true that there is a wide variety of moral beliefs and practices across different cultures and individuals, this does not necessarily imply that there is no objective moral truth.”

It doesn’t conclude that, but it certainly implies it.

“Furthermore, evolutionary theory does not provide a complete explanation for all aspects of morality, such as the existence of moral duties and obligations.”

Actually it does, those duties and obligations are social constructs that are created by the society that we exist within. They change and vary depending on where and when in history we find ourselves. These are exactly the things that would be selected for or against. I guess technically you might be more into the realm of bio-anthropology by that time rather than just evolution, but the point still stands.

[Jabberwock]

Your justification for the third premise negates the justification for the second one. Human laws are subjective, so existence of moral law does not entail that it is objective. In fact, it draws your argument into a dilemma not unlike Euthyphro – if a law must be made by someone, then it is dependent on a mind, therefore arbitrary and not objective (God could make the moral law different). Moreover, if moral norms can be made, they could be as well made by societies, not unlike other laws.

[Gary]

Try to write this argument out in symbolic logic to prove that it has a valid form.

Lately, I’ve been thinking that symbolic logic should be a mandatory course for anyone studying philosophy at the college level or above.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Gary.

[Charles]

I couldn’t agree more, Gary.

Let me take a stab at it:

Cx=x has a conscience

Mx=x is a moral law

Lx=x is a moral law giver

1. (x)Cx (Pr)

2. (x)Cx→(∃x)Mx (Pr)

3. (∃x)Mx→(∃x)Lx (Pr)

4. (∃x)Mx (1,2 Modus Ponens)

5. (∃x)Lx Q.E.D. (3, 4 Modus Ponens)

I’m glad to meet another person on this forum who knows and appreciates symbolic logic. Are you familiar with modal logic? If so, please check out my thread: A Fruitful Pathway for the Gap Problem? I’d love your input.

[Charles]

Or perhaps even more fully:

1. (x)(Hx→Cx) (Premise)

2. (x)(Hx→Cx)→(∃x)Mx (Premise)

3. (∃x)Mx→(∃x)Lx (Premise)

4. (∃x)Mx (1,2 Modus Ponens)

5. (∃x)Lx Q.E.D. (3, 4 Modus Ponens)

Where Hx=x is a human being

[Lincoln]

Premise 2 does not follow. It could merely be a social convention by which our conscience determines if our actions are morally right or not.

[jayceeii]

Good point. The argument relies on conscience being universal and objective, for instance as if God had given all men a conscience. But that never plays out practically.

[Johan]

That is the rub though, isn’t it? If God gave us our conscience, then we ought to all have reasonably similar consciences. We also ought never conflict with God, nor have our conscious tell us that God is wrong, and unfortunately, my conscience tells me that God in the old testament is often immoral.

My conscience tells me that love is love and there is nothing wrong with a man loving a man, but God, according to the Bible has a different opinion on the matter. Clearly my conscience deviates from God’s, so how is that explainable if mine was given to me by God?

[jayceeii]

So we’re agreed conscience is human-derived, likely in relation to maintaining social status. Then, importantly, when a man says he did something he knew at the time to be wrong, what he really means is that he knew others would condemn it but at that moment for him it appeared to be right. Conscience flip-flops for humans, as their desire dictates.

My issue is more with God finding no human to be lovable, that is, worthy of friendship.

[Johan]

I kind of agree, but sometimes it isn’t that someone feels that the wrong thing they are doing is right, it is that they have other overiding reasons that get them to do the wrong thing even knowing it is wrong.

I know piracy is wrong, but I have still streamed a tv show, because it was cheaper.

[jayceeii]

You state my case but paint it a different color. What you really mean is that the laws prohibit this behavior but at that moment it appeared to you to be right. Your feeling of morality is not fully objective, but rises and falls with what you desire, in this case some entertainment while preserving your monetary funds. Now, you wouldn’t go and steal electricity from the grid because you know in America they would come after you. In India they sometimes do since enforcement of these laws is lax. In this case you judged the risk was worth the benefit, perhaps telling yourself those collecting these dues are fat cats who work little and don’t deserve it anyway despite the laws. But if your morality were keyed into universal joy you’d consider every effect of your actions and do no harm. You’d worry about the families you might be inconveniencing, in case some of the employees of these organizations are not fat cats but regular wage earners who deserve it.

[Johan]

No, I meant what I said. I know it was wrong, but choose to do it anyway despite knowing it was wrong. I wasn’t fooling myself and telling myself it was the right thing to do (although I am sure that I do that sometimes). I fully accept that I knowingly did what I knew was wrong and immoral. I am not perfect, and I will admit that. I try to do it as little as possible, if at all though, but I recognize that I am not perfect.

I don’t disagree with much of what you are saying, I am only adding to it. I am saying that yes, some people do, as you say, convince themselves that they are in the right. I am not denying that, merely saying that I (and likely many others) do, and have done things that we knew were wrong according to our own moral code, yet choose to do them anyway.

In my streaming example, if everyone stole the show, then the show wouldn’t have any revenue and the studio wouldn’t have the funds to keep making more of the show. By stealing it I could be depriving myself of future enjoyment of the show. Stealing a chocolate bar from the store only causes the store to have losses and forces them to raise other prices to make up for it. Stealing is ultimately bad for everyone. However, were I starving to death, I would steal food to survive if I had no other option. The lesser of two evils is still an evil after all. Just because it is the preferable choice doesn’t suddenly make it a good.

[jayceeii]

Ha, I feel like I’m explaining crime to the criminal! When you chose to do it anyway, this equates to a decision that for you in that moment it was right, given whatever reasons. You can at least contemplate people with a sterner morality, who would never break a law recognizing that this can bring social decay. If it’s against the law they make no excuse. In your case it is clear you will only break some laws, weighing risk against the reward. That fact you are picking and choosing which laws to obey and which to ignore shows you are choosing what you feel to be right in your case, though you know it breaks laws.

You must take responsibility for your actions, your choices. To choose to act is always a choice that it was the right act for you. Were things as you say, that you knew fully it was wrong but did it anyway, then why don’t you break all of the laws? Why do some hold you back? It’s because you know there is a greater consequence, things you can’t get away with in America. You obey the will of the majority in those instances of great risk. If you knew that stealing a show is wrong in the same way you know murder is wrong, you would commit neither action. You call it overriding reasons, but I’d call this desire.

[Johan]

You can keep repeating it as much as you want but that still won’t make it true. In the moment it was the thing that I choose to do despite knowing it was wrong. I was not under the delusion that I was somehow morally justified in my actions. The fact that I am picking and choosing which laws to obey and which to ignore does not say anything about what I feel to be right. You were actually much closer in your cost / benefit analysis part. At the time, the risk was worth the reward, so I opted to do the wrong thing because I desired the outcome and it was a risk I was willing to take. Like I’ve said over and over, doing that mental math doesn’t suddenly make the action preformed right in my mind.

Who said anything about not taking responsibility? I am outright admitting responsibility directly and not trying to escape it by claiming that I was somehow morally justified. I am doing the exact of opposite of what you are accusing me of here.

“then why don’t you break all of the laws? Why do some hold you back?”

Because I don’t want to. Do I need anything more? Like I said, there is a risk vs reward, and like you’ve agreed to, actions have consequences. If I ever choose to knowingly do the wrong thing, it is usually because I am either not thinking at all, or I have decided it is worth the risk in my mind. If only I were more dishonest, I could likely make a bunch of money writing books and speaking at churches about how I was once an atheist for years and I’ve seen the light and now believe. I could con people out of money and have it easy living off their losses like all of the internet and phone scams lately. The truth is though, that I don’t want to do those things. While the rewards would great, the costs are also astronomical.

I know that stealing a show is wrong and that murder is wrong, but to try to put both actions on the same playing field is laughable. They aren’t in the same solar system. Murder is the ultimate irreversible violation of autonomy, but theft is a minor inconvenience. That is why I can do it, even though I know it is wrong. It isn’t such a gross violation of my moral and personal character. Murder, on the other hand, is something that would be virtually impossible for me to perform given the significance of it. (that’s not to say that I couldn’t kill should the situation warrant it like self defense, but murder is defined as unjustified, so….)

[jayceeii]

I see. What you mean by saying you know something is wrong is that you are able to present some reasoning about why it is wrong. What I mean by you deciding it is right for you is finding reasons to ignore your “major moral reasoning,” which is to say excuses. This is important because there is a higher objective morality based in the support of universal joy, and people who follow this never make excuses. Their moral reasoning is eternally the same and always holds. One can see the angels must have this, if Heaven is to exist in eternal harmony. In practice it means a keen awareness that one’s actions either contribute to joy or exacerbate sorrow, and from a strong desire all should remain in joy never to consciously stumble. One can also argue there is an imperative to preserve the integrity of the class, which is another form of Kant’s categorical imperative. If you commit a crime it shows members of the class of entities to which you belong can commit crimes, meaning others may commit crimes that will impact you negatively. If you never commit a crime it preserves the integrity of the class, so you can always rest assured that there are no persons committing crimes, leading to trust and the greatest joys.

This is why I gave the example of stealing electricity first. This is an act very close to that of stealing shows, the difference only a matter of small degree. In India and other Third World countries it is easy to steal electricity and get away with it, especially in big cities. So there the people who are found doing this will counter with your same excuses, that they know it is wrong and do it anyway. Like you they will fail to take responsibility for their actions and choices, saying they really know it is wrong but find overriding reasons. Now the question becomes why they stop their immorality at stealing electricity, but you stop at stealing shows. The answer is obvious, you know you’d be caught doing that here. This exposes the fact you are deciding stealing shows is right for you, but not electricity, since the overriding reasons are very similar, a minor change in degree that some follow.

You seem to be following hidden or barely conscious reasoning, unless you are arguing that desire has no reasoning and is simply a blind grab. If you want to argue that, then your moral reasoning becomes rationalization, that you want to grab first, then excuse it later. You say that you were not under the delusion that you were morally justified in your actions. Then you decided the risk was worth the reward, and did it despite “knowing” that it was wrong. Your hidden reasoning is this: “It is OK to grab what we want if we won’t get caught, if we want it badly enough.” You did the thing, this means you decided it was right for you even if you aren’t consciously aware of the decision. Like Kant I would say you have broken the integrity of your class, and now should realize others in your class can also break their “major moral reasoning,” when desire is strong enough. It is no good framing this as a situation of objective desperate need. It’s just a private desire.

We find that you do not also grab for free electricity like many do in India, who are members of the human class as you are. As they have broken the integrity of their class in this respect, we know you are capable of this too and had you been born in India would likely be doing so. That you do not means you are undergoing other hidden reasoning, that you do not follow desire in this instance knowing you would be caught and punished. You can likely present “major moral reasoning” for why one should not steal electricity, alongside the major moral reasoning you have presented for not stealing shows. Yet you will perform the latter, not the former, despite virtually identical overriding reasons. This makes it appear your major moral reasoning holds little weight in your life over your acts. And you appear to admit this freely, when you state sometimes you aren’t thinking at all.

[Johan]

You really aren’t listening at all, are you? You keep just resting your same point over and over despite me explaining that you are wrong over and over. We are going nowhere with this, and it is getting a little frustrating.

Once again I did not decide that doing the wrong thing was suddenly good, I decided that it was worth doing despite being the wrong thing. Just because something is worth doing at the time, that doesn’t mean that I believed it to be the right or moral thing to do. I don’t steal electricity because it isn’t worth the risk. I know what would be involved in it, and I actually have the skills needed to pull it off, but it would require jumping wires to live 40 amp circuits. One wrong move and you are dead. The stakes are much higher for that than simply clicking watch on a show. Also, watching a show is a one time thing that only lasts 30-60 minutes, whereas stealing electricity is a long term commitment. It is something that needs to be perpetually done, which means I would constantly need to be worried that something could go wrong and I could get caught. This extra stress isn’t worth the expense of just paying the bill.

If you want to make it a better comparison, I think the one about stealing a cheap object from someone or from a store is much more comfortable. I also wouldn’t steal an item from a store or from someone else despite the fact that I would pirate a show.

However none of that ultimately matters. The fact here that is important is that I knowingly performed the action despite knowing it was wrong at the time of performing it. It is that simple. I don’t understand why that is so hard for you to accept.

[jayceeii]

This reminds me of a TFN episode, where a policeman says to SB while writing out a ticket, “Go slowly, I don’t want to miss a single violation.” You have risen to a place whence you can describe the human condition better than most, revealing a disconnect between the moral code and behavior. You define what is wrong as something you will usually not do, instead of what you would not do. And this isn’t in relation to the effects you will have projecting yourself onto the society around you, whence an objective moral code is possible. One could say you have a theoretical morality that isn’t reached by your practical morality, or one could say a major moral reasoning combined with a subversive minor moral reasoning. You strive to have high ideals but don’t always live up to them. You are unable to follow Kant’s categorical imperative, and sacrifice the integrity of your class. You thus highlight a place where humans differ from angels, which always should have been a concern of Christians, for as they express a desire to go to Heaven they should try to imagine the conditions there to be sure they are ready to go. To dwell in everlasting harmony the angels would need to follow the categorical imperative, always preserving the moral integrity of their class. They’d be keenly aware of their effects bringing joy or sorrow to the other citizens of Heaven, thereby continually bestowing a benediction by their presence, never a negative influence. This then helps to define nobility, that the projection upon society is continually positive, supportive, and caring.

As for the question of you deciding something you previously defined as immoral is right for you, it appears that desire is operating first in your mind, with reason chasing after it. You aren’t necessarily making conscious decisions for which you can take responsibility. The act happens and you may not even apologize for it, not integrating it with your code. The code is not therefore being generated to bring benediction to the society around you.

[jayceeii]

To put all this in another way, a moral code is a guide to behavior, defining what you believe are the right things to do for you. If one is in the moral code solidly through reason, one recognizes a reason is required to break the code, that is to say, that something else is right for you that goes against the code. One can see this plainly in those who can follow the categorical imperative, for they never decide something else is right for them to do but what is in the code, that may be derived in relation to supporting universal joy and diminishing sorrow. As you claim to have done what you know to be wrong without reasoning that it is now right for you in this instance, the implication is that you are not in the code from solid reasoning which would bind you to it by actions. A moral code in your case is thus seen to be following private desire, instead of directing it.

[Johan]

I am not operating under two moral codes, I am recognizing that my action is immoral. I don’t know how many times I need to repeat this.

[jayceeii]

Still another way to put it is that you haven’t really defined the ways of goodness if you can enter ways of evil without changing the definition. Your argument is a bizarre one (to me), that you will do what is wrong while knowing it is wrong, but not admit that every action that you take must be defined as one in which you believe that you are in the right. It appears that you want to defend your moral code as objective while not always upholding it. This leads to chaos in society, where no one can rely on others being good. As I said you are revealing the mind of every man, which not every man is able to do. It seems the actions are taking place without reasons. You build a moral house with reason but don’t use reasons to get out of it, which indicates that the house was not built soundly.

It also strikes me as bizarre that you think we are simply repeating things. Some people looking at a diamond will declare it is a hunk of rock, but a gemologist can turn it in the light, appreciating the different facets. I think the human mind is worthwhile to examine. One can ask about the purpose of your moral code. Perhaps I have been naive to presume you would be a being who would want to define what right is for himself, and then to do that right, including in the ways of self-interest and greed as these are considered right by many. And manifestly this is such a case, where you have chosen a private good of viewing a show for free rather than the public good of supporting the producers of shows. Yet you deny that you have acted from self-interest, that the taint of greed is on you. It is like to you there was no one there to commit the act, a gap where conscience should be. You defend your moral code, but cannot see a real moral code would bind one to actions.

[Johan]

“that you will do what is wrong while knowing it is wrong, but not admit that every action that you take must be defined as one in which you believe that you are in the right.”

Because every action that I take doesn’t have to be right. I don’t pretend to be perfect, nor do I expect others to be.

My moral code represents the perfect ideal that I ought to do. But, like I said, that ideal cannot always be lived up to, no human being can be expected to be perfect.

It seems that you and I have a very different understanding of morality.

[jayceeii]

It seems that Kant, Swedenborg and myself are on the same page. Too bad for me, eh, that there appear to be centuries between us. You’ve helped me to scrutinize this mystery. Eknath Easwaran used to speak of high ideals, in fact he encouraged his students to meditate on such ideals to try to better realize these in their lives. I see now there is a gap between that to which humans aspire, and that which they can attain, where the house of reason they’ve constructed for a moral code offers doors though which they require no reason to pass. To tell the truth I’m a little surprised that you, as an atheist, seem abashed over selfish urges. For some reason you’re not as straightforward as some, who would say, “We do what we want, who cares for a moral code?” You derive such a code for yourself despite having no hope of eternal life or the Creator’s benediction looking down.

[Johan]

I literally just said that I do have a moral code, so why would you say that I deserve such a code? <div>

I will also fully admit that I am not perfect and that I am not ashamed or embarrassed to admit it. I make mistakes, do things wrong and mess things up. But I try to do better when I recognize that.

Also, what I want to do generally falls within my moral code, so I also don’t think it is wrong to say that I do what I want. I agree with Penn Jillette when he said I rape and kill exactly as much as I want to, which is zero (not the actual quote but a paraphrase)

</div>

[Lincoln]

I agree, but there are definitely atheist mind-body dualists, or at least mere property dualists. So consciousness in itself is not evidence to God.

The moral argument is, but that is independent of human consciousness.

[jayceeii]

We sometimes have non-native speakers here, but the discussion is about conscience, not consciousness. Most humans profess that they have a feeling of conscience, of what is morally right or wrong. Yet they are found in constant disagreement with others and God.

Maybe you intended this post to be in reply to something else. That’s happened to me too, sometimes you can’t predict where it will show up on the page. In that case I’d respond that consciousness is very poorly defined and in general it means awareness of the senses.

When people speak about thoughts they generally conceive of these like internal objects, thinking of them in parallel with a house or tree externally. Both worlds appear to be sense worlds, inner and outer, otherwise they’d have questions of what thoughts truly are.