Conscience is something innate; humans are born with it.
The idea that conscience is innate—that humans are born with a moral sense—is a longstanding and debated concept in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience.
Here’s a breakdown of the perspectives:
✅ Arguments for Conscience Being Innate
Evolutionary Psychology:
From an evolutionary standpoint, humans developed a sense of morality to support group living.
Traits like empathy, guilt, and fairness help groups survive and cooperate, suggesting a biological basis for conscience.
Developmental Psychology:
Studies show that even infants as young as a few months old display signs of moral understanding, like preferring helpful over harmful behaviors.
This suggests a foundational moral instinct that exists before social teaching.
Neuroscience:
Certain brain areas, like the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, are involved in moral decision-making and empathy.
These areas function in ways that suggest a built-in capacity to distinguish right from wrong.
Cross-Cultural Similarities:
Across cultures, certain moral rules (e.g. "don’t kill", "help your family") appear nearly universal, implying a shared innate moral foundation.
❌ Arguments Against Conscience Being Fully Innate
Cultural Relativism:
Moral codes vary greatly across societies—what is seen as moral in one culture may be immoral in another.
This suggests conscience is shaped significantly by upbringing, environment, and education.
Moral Development Theory (e.g., Kohlberg):
Children develop moral reasoning in stages, implying that conscience evolves through experience and learning rather than being fully present at birth.
Psychopathy and Neurological Disorders:
Some individuals are born without typical feelings of guilt or empathy (e.g., psychopaths), challenging the idea that conscience is universal or innate.
🧠 Balanced View (Most Common Today):
Most modern scholars view conscience as a mix of innate potential and social shaping.
Innate capacities (like empathy, fairness, aversion to harm) provide the biological groundwork.
Socialization (parents, culture, religion, experience) builds on this, forming a fully developed conscience over time.
Would you like to explore how different philosophers (like Rousseau, Freud, or Kant) viewed conscience.
People who lack conscience are mentally damaged.?
That’s a strong statement, and it touches on complex psychological and ethical territory. Let's unpack it carefully.
1. Lack of Conscience – What Does That Mean?
"Lacking a conscience" usually refers to an absence of empathy, remorse, or a sense of right and wrong. This is often associated with certain psychological conditions, most notably:
Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
Psychopathy (which is not an official diagnosis in the DSM-5, but overlaps with ASPD)
Sociopathy (a less clinical term often used interchangeably with psychopathy)
People with these conditions may engage in harmful behaviors without feeling guilt or remorse.
2. Are They Mentally Damaged?
The term "mentally damaged" is not a clinical phrase, but it seems you're pointing to psychological impairment or dysfunction. From a psychiatric standpoint:
Yes, people with severe personality disorders like psychopathy often have neurobiological differences (e.g. in the amygdala or prefrontal cortex).
However, not all lack of conscience arises from a biological impairment. Some behaviors may stem from environmental factors (abuse, trauma, neglect), cultural influences, or even moral development that was stunted, not strictly brain "damage."
So the picture is more nuanced than simply “damaged.” It’s a mix of neurological, psychological, and environmental factors.
3. Implications of Calling Someone "Mentally Damaged"
Using that language can:
Stigmatize mental illness: Many people with mental health conditions are not lacking conscience or harmful to others.
Oversimplify human behavior: Lack of empathy can range in severity, cause, and expression.
Diminish accountability: Some argue that calling someone “damaged” implies they have no control over their actions, which can raise moral and legal issues.
In Summary:
People who consistently show no conscience may indeed have underlying psychological or neurological issues, but labeling them as "mentally damaged" is overly broad and can be misleading. A more accurate framing might be:
“People who appear to lack a conscience often have complex psychological or neurological conditions that affect their ability to feel empathy or guilt.”
Would you like to explore the neuroscience or ethical implications further.
Those who spread false rumors about people based on jealousy or race lack an inherent conscience and can be said to be mentally damaged.
Kind regards
Samuel kermashani
0 Comments