CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If someone does something wrong it's because of a number of possible reasons. 1. They didn't realise it was wrong so proceeded to do it.
2. They know they are doing wrong, but believe a greater good will come from doing so.
3. They realise they are doing wrong but carry on regardless due to their own selfishness.
4. They are blackmailed in to doing wrong, and have to pick a lesser of two evils.
I am sure you can add more, but these are the ones that came to mind. Oh and insanity. You do wrong which others would obviously see as being wrong, but are insane, so carry on. Everyone from Stalin to some loony guy living behind Tesco (you could argue that Stalin was not entirely insane, but there must be something 'different' with ones mind to do something like what he did :)
I was going to say that either from selfishness combined with indifference or mistaken to think otherwise but someone beat me to that with a bigger variety of reasons. Dang you jungelson, my one and only enemy, jk. Isn't the blackmailing situation done out selfishness?
Ah chucks. When I said blackmailing, I meant someone was being blackmailed in to having to do something wrong, meaning they knew it was wrong, did not want to do it, was was being forced to.
Hmmm I looked up the definition of blackmailing thinking it only meant of manipulating someone with the threat of revealing a secret of them or ratting them out but I was wrong. I was going to argue that if someone did something in order to keep something secret isn't that in itself a selfish action. I guess you learn something new everyday huh? Lol
Well, to start with the premise of the question is wrong: not all people do have a conscience (albeit a minority) and for those who do the conscience is often divergent between social groups and from person to person. There are basic differences in brain structure and chemistry that influence human behavior, but I would contend that socialization plays a significant role in why people do things that are "wrong" (presuming of course that that notion actually has some non-subjective, meaningful value).
Well I agree with you on morality being subjective, and you have a good point there. However we all want to do what we think is right and not what we think is wrong unless indifferent. Nobody ever TRIES to be evil for the sake of evil, unless It's a reputation sort of ordeal but then even that has more to do with reputation that being "evil" in of itself, however we all want to do what we think is "right", sometimes due to how others see us, sometimes for the sake of itself. Though right and wrong can vary rapidly between person to person. Unless insane most people are either indifferent and selfish, or try to do good for the sake of good. For example nobody (or practically nobody) has tried to murder for the sake of evil, but will for the sake of good. The simplest way to put it, unless someone is completely indifferent, they will feel the need to justify themselves. This is not a higher power or anything, our "concious" is a product of compassion and selfishness. Ironically selfishness can promote "good morality" as well but is usually more compatible with "bad morality".
I am admittedly having some difficulty in following your argument just because words such as "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" have very little substantive value to me on account of their subjective nature. That said, I think the gist of your argument is that each person pursues what it "right" according to their own morality. If that is correct then the question of the debate seems moot since no one would be doing anything "wrong" by that reasoning.
If, however, we consider there to be an over-arching and generally accepted morality (particularly around issues such as homicide) then I think my argument regarding socialization still stands. There are people who deviate from conventional conceptions of right and wrong, and in so doing may come to commit a "wrong" act. I would maintain that their doing so is a consequence of genetic predisposition combined with the social environment to which they have been and currently are exposed.
Well by that reasoning, wrong can be done through indifference. Someone can simply just not care whether they are doing right or wrong, and thus do what is considered wrong by most or generally accepted as wrong. Since morality, usually (though I could be very wrong but it seems as so) driven by our compassion. Most people where you can tell critically think about their morality tend to think morality is the improvement of quality of life, health, and well being; the damage to these things are consider immoral by those who critically think about morality. However I wasn't trying to have a full on argument with you I agree with just about everything you have to say, except that in a sense of "right" and "wrong" defined by how I defined it, our conscience would be the product of compassion and selfishness, but then again morality can mean just about anything. Your argument regarding socialization definitely seems correct to me. Since morality is subjective compassion and selfishness being our conscience is also subjective, however I would argue that what we have been arguing to be our conscience this entire time has merely been our compassion/selfishness and possibly other emotions the whole time.
Ah, I think I see what you were getting at now. Apologies for my misunderstanding earlier. You are largely trying to delve deeper into what the source of our conscience is, yes? And further that you think it is a product of both our compassion and our selfishness; is that about right?
I suppose I tend to be more cynical about the origins of the human conscience, and am far less likely to view it as something well thought out by most people. I think, by and large, that the majority of people adopt a system of morality without really interrogating it and for that reason I tend to view it as being more arbitrary than anything. I think that people believe in a religion because that is what they were socialized into, and by the same token I believe people adopt a particular morality for the same reason (rather than because they think it is more compassionate or self-serving).
I apologize for not quoting you how it is conventionally done, all I have is my phone to do this, and that makes as such difficult and tedious.
1st paragraph or body of sentences: yes and no, I was arguing that a conscience does exist, but how a conscience is defined to be our sense of right and wrong implies it doesn't since right and wrong are artificial constructs people have invented, thus a conscience doesn't truly exist, at least objectively, making you the winner of our little personal debate here of which I barely call a debate as I don't feel to passionate towards my disagreement or perhaps my previous disagreement with you.
It would probably be a good thing to make clear I am in a bit of a toss up whether I agree or disagree with you on whether the conscience is a real thing or not. I suppose the question to get the answers I want should be:
When we came up with the concept of a conscience was it originally supposed to mean improving the lives of those around us and attempting to prevent the opposite being twisted through socialization of that or whatever we happened to define right and wrong to mean completely subjectively? Of course in the end conscience can mean whatever we want it to mean, as any word but that can annoyingly become an off topic rant on "what does a string of sounds assigned to a bunch of letters really mean?" And I think this has become much more of rant then you want. Even though for the sake of communication it is best to not twist things as much as we can, so the original meaning of a conscience would be ideal.
2nd paragraph: you got a great point there, all sorts of socialization twists our morality, though religion is the most superfluous as government and politics can twist it, it is what we need to be civilized and forces us to be to some extent (unless a shitty government) to not allow our differences of morality get in the way of equal freedoms for all, as government is what keeps unjustified murder from happening by force and I'm glad for that. People definitely need to question their "morals" more I would say that is necessary for our evolution.
Whatever morality really is, is in the long run irrelevant to me as I think it is important to allow as equal and unbiased freedoms as we can and to prevent damage to another's well being and health from happening by another.
Sorry if I have been hard to understand making myself unclear and if I dragged this out too much... Lol.
Ah, cheers, thanks for clarifying. Certainly more of a discussion than a debate which is pleasant really. As far as the original meaning of conscience, I'm not sure that there is one. I consider it just as much an evolutionary byproduct as opposable thumbs or our physical ability for speech. I do not think the notion of a conscience was developed intentionally, although some systems of morality are arguably byproducts of conscious efforts to construct a system of ethics and conduct. For such systems, I would contend that the purposes have been and always will be mixed - political, personal, social, etc. and not exclusively directed towards any single ends such as improving the lives of others. Insofar as I tend to view moral systems as socially constructed and imposed, I also tend to view the primary end of morality to be social control of the individual.
I think that you are partially right regarding the function of government, but I think it can also be said that religion influences government at least as much if not more than government influences religion. Furthermore, I think that to a certain extent government is explicitly about imposing a system of morality and that in so doing it creates and reinforces inequalities within society (no matter how "good" the government is). There has never been any society which achieved equality or truly maximized freedom. Partially, this is down to the inherent divergence in views that exists within any given society; people are biologically predisposed to develop different ideas and identities and to otherize those who are different from them in order to form in-groups.
There are many types of conscience. If you mean a person has a conscience thats why they shouldnt do bad things, then you are wrong. Many people get influenced by these conscience that are lax, thats why in the end, they end up doing something wrong.
Sometimes a man's mind can snap. For instance, he comes home and finds another man in bed with his wife. If he is a gun owner, his mind can snap and he can reach for that gun.
