Actually, since this thread pertains to nihilism, and I like to call myself – here and now – a “moral nihilist”, let’s keep it here.
My aim is to probe the extent to which someone may well be but an “amateur nihilist” when their moral and political values come into conflict with others.
My “thing” here as it were.
As for the role that my conscience plays in all this, I basically explained that above.
As with everyone else, I came into this world equipped biologically/genetically with a brain able to generate and then to sustain one.
This:
…an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong.
The very dictionary definition of a “conscience”.
Just like you. Just like every other poster on this thread.
But: It is this part that I would like most to explore:
[b]…over the long course of human interaction [going all the way back to the caves], there have been any number actual, extant historical, cultural, experiential narratives regarding that which “here and now” was deemed to be right or wrong.
Now, as philosophers [ethicists] what are we to make of this?
Is the manner in which Jane or Abdul or Ivan or Fung or Kirra or Maria or Aguta exercises his or her conscience in a particular context able to be assessed as the right thing or the wrong thing to do?
Is there a manner in which one behavior or another can be said to be most in sync with nature? Or with a “moral imperative”?
With a “clear conscience”?
Again, focus the beam here on a specific behavior of yours. How is it a reflection of your conscience? What is your reaction when it comes into conflict with the behaviors of others. Whose conscience can be said to be more “reasonable” or more “virtuous”?[/b]
With or without the polemics. On this thread or in creating a new one.
Preferably in the philosophy forum. With the proviso that the polemics there is not meant to be construed as personal attacks, merely a device for debating.