Humanists declare conscience to be founded upon 'moral beliefs,' which your author refers to as a sort of short hand term. This is based on the rational conclusions one could draw from finding one's own well being to be of worth and concluding therefore that others have worth and that both matter and transcend as a self interest. And so conscience should never be ignored.
Children have a social conscience which is not sophisticated in a knowledgeable sort of way; and yet they can often cut through the sophisticated complex crap of more mature persons to see the wrong in some action or situation. This fact suggests, the voice of conscientiousness is more subtly founded upon simple principles such as 'play nice' or 'treat others as you would want to be treated.'
Again, the good of all transcends to being in the self interest of one. This can be and is explained rationally by humanists but there is a 'so what?' question that nags when an individual sees how, by taking advantage of certain mechanisms, they may prosper; mechanisms that are seen as some sort of violation by others. The mechanisms I am referring too are labeled corruptions. So what? If he can live in a quite well off situation, surrounded by friends and family who adore him, knowing that in some detached, distant circumstance harm may be resulting, a harm that will never touch the wealthy person's life. Why should he not take advantage of that opportunity? A theist would answer the 'so what?' question by saying their soul would suffer in this life according to the feelings generated by a guilty conscience, and even if it didn't, an eternal consequence awaits. How would the humanist answer the 'so what?' question? |
