ConScience

This is actually from a few years ago. Given the content of my esteemed colleague's previous blog, it seemed like an appropriate time for a reposting.

Conscience as most people think of it does not exist. Let me run that by you again just in case you didn't get it. Conscience as most people think of it DOES NOT EXIST! Allow me to explain.

The average person thinks of their conscience as some inherent part of their self that somehow provides the hard wiring for determining the difference between right and wrong. Such hardware does not exist. I learned this while interacting with a bloodhound pup. I caught him chewing on a piece of plastic he had plucked out of the recycling bin. After taking it away from him, I gave him the "look of scorn", said "NO", and he proceeded to piddle in the grass and run off to a little hide-away under the steps. One could infer that he "knew better" and had accepted his punishment. But on another day I tried to get him to play with his big rubber chew toy by taking it away from him and trying to entice him into getting excited about the prospect of getting it back. Quite a normal game when playing with dogs. He proceeded to piddle in the grass and run off to his hiding spot in shame. He had imprinted that when I took something away from him, it meant he shouldn't have nabbed it in the first place.

What humans call conscience, we could more accurately call ConScience. Consider this scenario. A child learns to walk and gets rewarded with praise. It more closely resembles a clumsy attempt at running. The better they do, the more praise they get. But one day they gain more control and discover the difference between running and walking. As they run through the house, the parent eventually tells them, "No running in the house." This contradicts the praise they received at an earlier age. When they get caught running through the house again they hear, "You know better than to run through the house." And this phrase, "You know better…", triggers the early stages of ConScience. When scolded, they feel bad even before the words get spoken. Cues have told them that the forth coming words and/or actions mean they will get reprimanded. They already have that "bad" feeling when they hear, "You know better." The young brain assumes that since they felt bad before the reprimand, the superior must speak the truth. In this way they build a basis for some phantom of inherent right and wrong. The science of building a program through the con of signal confusion. ConScience.

Many will find this concept troubling. We have fallen victim to the ConScience and rely on the signals it gives us to determine right from wrong. What really happens to us? Over time a root set of programs has entered our routines. We tend to divide things into right/wrong categories. Someone takes our wallet and we feel that person has done wrong. They give it back and we think they have done the right thing. But the categories can blur if we receive more details of the events. Consider the following chain and after each statement, notice the label you apply to the individuals and their actions.

• A person breaks into a home and steals a computer.
• He then pawns the computer to buy food for his son.
• The pawnbroker finds out the computer was stolen and reports it to the owner.
• The owner tries to retrieve his computer, only to have the pawnbroker insist he cover the amount he loaned to recoup his own expenses.
• The irate owner takes out a hand gun and shoots the pawnbroker.
• The police apprehend the owner/shooter, place him under arrest, and find cocaine on him.
• After hearing details of the story from the owner/shooter, the police track down and arrest the thief.
• The thief confesses to the crime and reveals that he used to work for the owner/shooter and was owed two months back pay which he never received.
• In trial, both owner/shooter and the thief receive prison sentences.
• The child of the thief gets put into foster care with a local minister and his family.
• The minister's daughter gives LSD to the son.
• As a direct result of the LSD trip, the son decides to become a preacher.
• The son/preacher gets his own religious television show.
• The son/preacher gets caught hiring a prostitute while driving the expensive car his television career has allowed him to afford.

The scenario could go on indefinitely. Our ConScience tries to play the game of putting these things into neat categories of right and wrong. Unfortunately, we never have all of the facts on hand. Take any current event, get a person's view on it, and then start the "But…" game. See how many exceptions arise. The ConScience will continue to try to put things into these categories.

Is it right or wrong to kill someone if that person is actively trying to kill you? Is it right or wrong to point a gun at someone wielding a knife? Is it right or wrong to use pepper spray on someone coming at you in a hostile fashion? In these situations, you have no ConScience, just reactions.

Is it right or wrong to steal an individual's money? Is it right or wrong to sell a person snake oil? Is it right or wrong to sell a product known to increase the risk of cancer in the user? Here, the ConScience really takes over. Stealing seems outright wrong to most people. Some will have no problem with selling a worthless product like snake oil since parting a fool from his money seems permissible. Many will have no problems with the increased cancer risk since the consumer can make their own choices. "But…" others will disagree. In fact, the law offers some disagreement. They fall under pretenses such as "false representation" or "health hazard".

Another string to ponder. Should a person have the right to alter their body by getting tattoos or cosmetic surgery? Should a person have the right to alter their intelligence by taking classes? Should a person have the right to alter their consciousness by taking a drug? What does your ConScience tell you?