04 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI mean no offense but huh? This doesn't seem to make sense.
And why would you ignore your conscience?
If you say there is a reason as to why a person would ignore their conscience then you preclude that this person could have done otherwise. I do not wish to become embroiled in a debate on free will but I fail to see why a conscience implies free will.
Also, I did not say that we are controlled by our conscienc ...[text shortened]... r both questions, which would be an interesting comment to make on people such as pedophiles).
Yes it does.
I have a question, what about people with no conscience?
According to Christian theology, that is an oxymoron. You cannot be a person and not have a conscience. This is one of the defining attributes placing humanity above the rest of the animal world.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KTo say that there is always a reason why one person chooses one choice over another does not mean that free will does not exist. I think that I have been beating about the bush with this one. True freedom is freedom from 'sin' (or carnal nature) . We can be slaves to sin or become more free from it (if we allow God to tamper with us). Free will exists in the tension between our 'lower' natural drives and our Spirituality.
And why would you ignore your conscience?
If you say there is a reason as to why a person would ignore their conscience then you preclude that this person could have done otherwise. I do not wish to become embroiled in a debate on free will but I fail to see why a conscience implies free will.
Also, I did not say that we are controlled by our conscienc ...[text shortened]... r both questions, which would be an interesting comment to make on people such as pedophiles).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by Vladamir no1For society to function we need to abide by morality. Thus there exists morality. However, I believe that whether we obey this morality is not of our own free will (since it doesn't exist). Thus moral responsibility does not exist. See the difference?
Can you expand on that please?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseChristian theology does not say any such thing.
According to Christian theology, that is an oxymoron. You cannot be a person and not have a conscience. This is one of the defining attributes placing humanity above the rest of the animal world.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou've missed my point. Sorry I can't re-elaborate in detail but i have fallen ill at the moment.
To say that there is always a reason why one person chooses one choice over another does not mean that free will does not exist. I think that I have been beating about the bush with this one. True freedom is freedom from 'sin' (or carnal nature) . We can be slaves to sin or become more free from it (if we allow God to tamper with us). Free will exists in the tension between our 'lower' natural drives and our Spirituality.
I am not talking about freedom (you might be free if you avoid sin but that does not imply free will). I am talking about free will. If my actions are determined by the events before I existed and I cannot be responsible for those events (obviously since I didn't exist) then I cannot be responsible for my actions. That is the crux of my arguments.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSo you are stating two things here:
According to Christian theology, that is an oxymoron. You cannot be a person and not have a conscience. This is one of the defining attributes placing humanity above the rest of the animal world.
Having no conscience means you are not a person and that animals do not have a conscience.
I hope you realise that this is good news for the pro-abortion crowd as there is no way that a 10 cell fetus can have a conscience and is therefore not a person.
Personally I have absolutely no doubt that at least some animals have a conscience. Either that or deny the existence of such a thing altogether.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI used person in the general sense: a member of the species Homo Sapien.
So you are stating two things here:
Having no conscience means you are not a person and that animals do not have a conscience.
I hope you realise that this is good news for the pro-abortion crowd as there is no way that a 10 cell fetus can have a conscience and is therefore not a person.
Personally I have absolutely no doubt that at least some animals have a conscience. Either that or deny the existence of such a thing altogether.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThats the point I was getting at previously in the thread....maybe I didn't explain myself properly, but it was words to the effect that morality is not an intrinsic possession but a social one...And if your saying you dont believe in free will, I concur....
For society to function we need to abide by morality. Thus there exists morality. However, I believe that whether we obey this morality is not of our own free will (since it doesn't exist). Thus moral responsibility does not exist. See the difference?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseNot that catholicism is representative of all christinianity but in recent standard editions of Catholic help books- I guess there not the best words, they are like condensed catechisms commissioned by bishops. Anyway, my book tells me that there are examples of people who have no conscience. The example I was poiting out was in the case of psycopaths but I might readily apply it to people who suffer from depression who commit suicide. These people do not have a conscience. There is also a new term called sociopath which describes people who can live normally but in varying degrees have no consience.
I'll concede the floor to the expert. Why don't you tell me what Christianity has to say about humans having the moral discernment between good and evil.
You fail to successfuly argue how the conscience (or intelligence for that mater) implies free will.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Vladamir no1My question is that if we have no free will, should a society expect us to abide by these moralities?
Thats the point I was getting at previously in the thread....maybe I didn't explain myself properly, but it was words to the effect that morality is not an intrinsic possession but a social one...And if your saying you dont believe in free will, I concur....
EDIT: I dont know what you mean by morality as a "social possession".
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KQuotation followed by citation if you please.
Not that catholicism is representative of all christinianity but in recent standard editions of Catholic help books- I guess there not the best words, they are like condensed catechisms commissioned by bishops. Anyway, my book tells me that there are examples of people who have no conscience. The example I was poiting out was in the case of psycopaths but I ...[text shortened]... fail to successfuly argue how the conscience (or intelligence for that mater) implies free will.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWell morality per se, does not exist, it is not intrinsic. Morality is a cultural fabrication, a quite necessary one granted, but never the less a fabrication. Therefore it is a social possession rather than an intrinsic one, make sense ? 🙂
My question is that if we have no free will, should a society expect us to abide by these moralities?
EDIT: I dont know what you mean by morality as a "social possession".
And in answer to your question:
"My question is that if we have no free will, should a society expect us to abide by these moralities?"
Society does expect, in fact it insists on us abiding by these moralities, or shall we call these moraliies, law? if we don't there are repercussions to pay. Now I agree, we do not have free will in the sense that Christians and existentialists believe we do, but we have 'partial' free will. This partiality allows us to freely choose to obey the moralities of our respective culture/society or not to obey.
To be truthful I think the boundaries of morality are too small to encapsulate 'free will'.