Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Don't you think that it's perhaps a teeny bit presumptuous to appoint yourself the sole arbiter of what constitutes the "correct" way to think, and to say that everyone else, throughout history, who has ever held a different opinion, is wrong?
|
Absolutely not. I am only the sole arbiter of what constitutes the "correct" way FOR ME to think. You're free to do the same for yourself. Consequently, we are each free to think the other "wrong" (as we clearly already do). So either we're both being presumptuous, or we're merely having a difference of opinion. You decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
"Good conscience" is normally defined as acting in a manner that is in accordance with your own views of what constitutes good.
|
Then in my opinion, the "normal" definition of "Good Conscience" is pointless. Because every human in the whole of history has acted in accordance with their own views of what constitutes right/wrong. Hence, every human in the whole of history is a person of good conscience under the "normal" definition of "Good Conscience." So what's the point of having such a term if it encompasses every human ever? I prefer to use a definition that actually distinguishes someone being labeled as such, rather than use one that's merely a synonym for "person who breathed air." Even if said definition only works for me.