Forum Navigation
You need to register and login to create and read (some) posts

Bad Conscience

There seem to exist two "types" of bad conscience.

Some years ago, I tried to argue for the existence of two "types" of moralilty. One that is fluent, and one that is rigid.
The rigid one is the morality that is being taught and adopted by the PU. When something occurs that contradicts the taught set of beliefs, the PU generates a bad conscience. It is a corrective meassure for the behavior of the human with respect to the expectations of a society.

The fluent one is the "morality" that comes directly from our RMC. This morality is fluent, in the sense that it is case-dependent. It adapts to the situation and finds the optimal, most sustainable, integer way. The fluent "morality" is not so much a morality, but rather an advice of the RMC how to proceed. If the advice is not heeded and some action is being carried out that has some bad consequences, then the RMC uses steering emotions, like bad conscience, in an attempt to correct the behavior of that human with respect to the expectations of the RMC.

Bad conscience generated due to an intention stemms from the RMC. Bad conscience generated due to a state of matter, stemms from the learned morality. In philosophical terms, we might categorize as follows: Deontologic ethics is (mainly) based on the RMC-morality, for it is the action/intent that is morally relevant and not the outcome. Consequentialist ethics is purely based on PU-morality for it is only the outcome of a set of actions that determines its morality. Virtue ethics might have been initially very close to RMC-morality. While the "set" virtues are anathema to the RMC-morality, their exceedingly vague character allows for lots of interpretation, which in turn allows for a variety of action. Pragmatist ethics combine elements from RMC-morality and PU-morality.

Interestingly, from a phenomenological perspective, both experiences feel pretty much the same. The bad conscience generated by the PU feels (at least) very similar to the bad conscience prompted by the RMC. Why? I assume because ultimately, it is the body that needs to generate the feeling in order for us to experience it, whether its cause lies within the body or outside of it.

During our socialization process we have been sensitivized to the bad conscience generated by the PU, and desensitivized to the bad consciousness generated by the RMC. This is problematic, to say the least, for we will readily abide by rules made by humans (read elites) and not by "rules"/ suggestions from our own souls.

Or, to put it more precisely, those indoctrinated mainly by the book of slavery will have been sensitivized strongly with respect to the morality generated within the PU. Simultaneously, they are desentivized with respect to morality stemming from the RMC.

On the other hand, those indoctrinated mainly by the book of power will have been desensitivized to morality stemming from both, the PU (which is important in order to keep the system going; for those who are on the highest positions of society need to be those who are the most insensitive and uncaring.) and also the RMC. Thus, since their actions regularly inflict pain/damage on others, they are also prone to be desensitivized with respect to morality stemming from the RMC.

I believe this distinction - if correct - could be quite useful in multiple regards, or study subjects: Philosophy, Jurisdiction, Ethics, Anthropology, Mythology, Sociology, Psychology.

Recent forum posts

Simple breathing exercise could a …
Study Group
Study Group
Plateau Experiences
Bhagavad Gita Study Group
Bhagavad Gita Study Group
Bhagavad Gita Study Group
LPP 1.5 What are archetypes?
Skip to toolbar