Quote:





Man needs a higher standard, than what he himself judges to be correct/moral.

Because our human history records, that at every opportunity to do so, man will always corrupt himself.

It is just in our nature.

We cannot help it.

???






While Moses was on the mountain communing with God....

Exodus 32:6
....and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
7  And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:


Exodus 32:15
And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.
16  And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
17  And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.
18  And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.


Reflecting on those verses from Exodus, if there is a God, does God object to men [and women] 'pleasing themselves' ?

Is that what you believe ?

To God [if there is a God], is the 'act' of men [and women] pleasing themselves, 'sin' ?








If we make a poor choice in life [e.g. if we make a choice that has serious and detremental consequence for ourself, or for someone not connected to ourself], are we justified in continuing to make the same poor choice, again and again ?

Or, is it no one else's 'business' ?




Is a conscience merely an inner 'commentary', on the choices we make or witness, in this world ?

If there is a God, and if he guides our 'conscience', how does he achieve that ?



And, what is a 'conscience' ?

Does a conscience take any 'tangible' [quantifiable] form, or is a conscience, just an inner 'voice' ?


+++

'We're only human, we're supposed to make mistakes.'

- - Billy Joel


Ecclesiastes 7:1
A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
2  It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
3  Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
4  The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.


Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.







The OT refers to ancient Israel as the 'hosts', for the spirit of God.

And to the God of Israel, as, the LORD of hosts.

"...the God of the spirits of all flesh."

Exodus 29:45
And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.
46  And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.


1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Annie,

I have been a test [a 'testing' person], to everyone who has ever known me.




And yet, i enjoy a great deal of peace in my life.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 4:37pm:




Do you believe Salem was all the poorer for not having Yadda there to help clean up the witches ... ?

Is our personal conscience really personal, or just forgotten internalised social mores?

Jaqs wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 5:36pm:


It also depends on how we're brought up. Two children from one family can be completely different, but generally if our parents are/were morally honest - we grow up to be the same.

The word sin is a bit heavy though. Maybe immorality or murder can be classified as a sin and a guilty conscience could apply to being knowingly neglectful, irresponsible or not doing your best - all human faults.

I would like to think that we, as individuals, have developed enough personal character to differentiate between what we consider 'conscience' and learned rules/acceptances of personal behaviour.

I'm rather fond of the old Christian more - 'Do unto others ... '. On a personal note, it's interpreted as a message not to do to others what you would not have them do to you. Consequently, it rather neatly ties with the old English code of conduct - behave like a gentleman or you run the risk of having your head shot off.

In reality, what is needed is a more 'humanist' approach in one's dealing with others. It is only the twisted and obscene that enjoy the witnessing of suffering - even of animals, let alone humans.

As cultures, nations, parents and individuals - we have become inured to the sight of suffering, to the sight of the starving, to the pleas of the disadvantaged, the maimed victims of terrorism in whatever cloak it hides. This is the result of the media's saturation of our society and the way it shapes public opinion on many issues, particularly with regard to people who are not connected to us as individuals.

More importantly, the very social construct that requires us to be neighbourly has dislocated us from our neighbours by it's own evolution - and that same evolution varies from society to society.

Man is wolf to man - it has ever been so.

You can, of course, live your life honourably, perhaps even according to your conscience as well - you may have a happy life - but more likely not a successful one.

One's conscience is an entirely arbitrary thing and may not necessarily be good for one. To be sure, there are plenty abroad who possess little or no conscience.

Should we become victims of our own good nature?

You may classify all humankind as Homo Sapiens - but we ain't all the same!

And that's the problem.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:14pm:



Lionel,

I am not having a go at you, but just as a hypothetical scenario;

Suppose, that you were a public figure in Australia, and that YOU had the authority and the power, to stop the export of live sheep, from Australian shores.

you became aware of how live sheep, transported to places like the Gulf states and Pakistan and Egypt have been in the past, and are likely to continue to be treated in the future, on arrival in those places.

Now there is a lot of responsibility resting upon your shoulders.



As a person of conscience, and as a person, in the public eye, who actually has the authority to stop the export of live sheep, from Australian shores, what would you do ?

Would you use your lawful authority to stop the export of live sheep, from Australia, to such places ?

And why [i.e. how would you publicly account for, or justify, your decision. ...assuming that you did.] ?i



Quote:



And that is, the problem.

p.s.
i despise modern humanism [....they always seek to avoid real world accountability for the consequences of their poor choices, imo].








Karl Popper



Thomas Mann

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:


Surely.

The Australian society I grew up in as a child, that, for instance, of a small rural town, has changed dramatically in the last 40 years. Like the town, the country has been subject to such things as population shift, technological advances, job losses and adjustments.

Where once the sons and daughters of the farmers moved to the cities for education/employment, the industries that once absorbed those people have now closed down. Once hives of industry, our cities have become collectives of generational unemployed.

The migrants that were accepted into Australian society after the ravages of the World Wars were willingly accepted because there were vacancies to fill and they brought a work-ethic that was rewarded. They became assimilated into a needy society.

As cities grew, as cities and country towns became places where there were more strangers in the streets, where there were more crimes of opportunity, where people became more distanced from their immediate neighbours - a more callous attitude began to develop. A feeling of disconnection and anonymity.

Sociologists will tell you that power struggles exist between members of clans, that power struggles exist between,and amongst, tribes - but cities will always war internally. But it is Government that runs countries and enslaves its own citizens.

It is also Government that promotes the Utopian ideal of Multiculturalism.

The calls for a global peace have yet to silence the amygdala.

As individuals, all we can do is be polite to each other.


Quote:


True.

Money, power, sex or love.

Give me a little of each every day, with a beer or two, and I'd be happier than the proverbial pig.

But .........

Lionel Edriess wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:29pm:




Lionel,

Thank you for your considered reply.

Again, i was not having a go at you.

I just wanted to highlight the the influence of 'social imperatives', which we all face, and, which act upon us all.


+++

'It is a matter of conscience.'

A social imperative which we all face in society [in this modern world], is that where we can choose to either make money, OR, we can choose do what is ethical, the widely accepted social imperative [i.e. 'ethical' choice] is that it is always socially acceptable, to choose to make money [...as the 1st imperative].

Another social imperative which we are all confronted with in society [in this modern world], is that the accepted social imperative [i.e. 'ethical' choice], is that we should remain silent, when, to say [to expose] publicly what is true, may be judged to be socially offensive [i.e. 'politically incorrect'] to someone, or, to some group of people.




And i am no saint.

We all face ethical [moral] choices in this modern world, but we all often fail to make a 'good' [the 'best'] choice.

Often we fail to make a 'good' choice because, imo, invariably, instead of making the choice which will cause 'least harm', we will choose to do, what will bring us [personally!] worldly pleasure [i.e. money, sex, social position, physical pleasure, etc].

[And some people object to their conscience even being reminded of that circumstance.]





p.s.
My diet is 70%-90% vegan [i eat fish occasionally].
And i understand that 'needs must' for omnivores, so i do not object to meat eaters using a knife to slaughter the food [the animal] that they will eat.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:


Okay. Do you think that there's some other influence than introjected social mores?

Yadda wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:



I'd like to play chess with you Annie, coz you would concede, the moment that you recognised that you had previously made some 'bad' moves.

That is correct, isn't it ?

That you are just a 'runner', 'away from' ?

[you can bite my head off,     tis OK.]

Yadda wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:


No. I am thinking of biological inheritance.

Personal conscience = introjected social mores + biological inheritance.

Yadda wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:



I'm more of a Scrabble girl and I don't lose when I play. I'm a hopeless strategist, though, so chess isn't my forte. My boyfriend tried to teach me, but it was all in vain, I'm afraid - I can never think further than my next move.

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 5:36pm:



Ie - are we free or not?

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:


I think that just about sums of the general mindset of the cheerleading squad of the political right.

Social Darwinist, pseudo-scientific, apologistic smokescreens for ignorance, bullying and greed.

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:57pm:


They will stoop to anything in the defence of the indefensible. It's more about confusing issues while allowing 'business' to go on as usual. Social conservatism is about the idea that in the end might makes right, so it doesn't matter what you think. Human society is barely out of the animal kingdom.

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:


No argument.

I would argue that it is also a good 'strategy', to apply to perceived merit.

i.e.
That is, if we desire/want a meritocracy ?

Can you fault a system of living that is [really] based upon meritocracy ?



p.s.
I would hope to see a 'meritocracy' that is based [graded] upon outcomes, not just based upon 'qualifications'.

Yadda wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:


I think 'meritocracy' is a complex human concept that has no real meaning in the physical or biological world. Some people might be good at doing stuff, others might be good at keeping them as slaves.

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:


B.F.Skinner leaps to mind.

Enjoy...

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:


Do you believe that there is no biological motivation for behaviour?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:


this may be true, but it is an incomplete and simplistic picture

Your Darwinian distortion is a misinterpretation of not only what Darwin theorised about, but also how important collective behaviour and cooperation between and within species works to keep life as a whole vibrant and strong.

In fact, cooperation is more critical to life than Darwinian natural selective drivers (a notion that Darwin himself understood and recognised)

Unfortunately many modern economists and political tyrants often adopt this narrow Darwinian approach so as to justify their racist or other socio-political ideologies (see NAZIs and the current militaristic imperial Corporate USA - an elite form of fascism)

Reducing it solely to procreation doesn't account for some phenomena. While the sex drive can account for a lot of behaviour, what about behaviour that goes out of its way to destroy life? What about idle contemplation?

War, child abuse, murder, self harm.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:


War: 1. Expanding lebensraum for ones progeny. 2. Defending one's 'turf' against invaders who have no investment in seeing your progeny survive and prosper.

Child Abuse: Often there's a step-father involved. Lions do the same thing, only they outright kill the cubs born of the previous male. It's clearing the way for ones own genetic offspring.

Murder: Often undertaken to advantage oneself, and increases the material security of ones family against poverty and want.

Self harm: Attention-seeking behaviour aimed at eliminating oneself as breeding stock from Darwinian Natural Selection.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:



although there are many who live in an immoral vacuum

I am sure that you can think of such a person Herbert

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Jan 1^st, 1970 at 10:00am:


Au contraire.

Self-harm tells your tribe that you are a liability where the security of the group's offspring are concerned, and therefore you are either killed or chased out of the tribe's territorial stamping ground.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:


Mass murder? Take the recent government shutdown in the US. This had the potntial to wipe trillions of dollars off stocks. Whenever that happens, far down the tree of consequences, people die en masse as a result.

Harm minimisation has become complex in this modern world. In the past it was easier - Thou shalt not kill. 

The American philosopher John Searle, who has died aged 93, first made his name in philosophy of language, then in philosophy of mind, and finally in “philosophy of society”.

His overall question, posed in Making the Social World (2010), was: “How is it possible in a universe consisting entirely of physical particles in fields of force that there can be such things as consciousness, intentionality [the “aboutness” of thinking], free will, language, society, ethics, aesthetics and political reality.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/05/john-searle-obituary