Conscience

Determines What’s
Right

Group 4

Mary Grace Oprecio

Marc Lenray Magdaraog Shiela Mae Reodique

Kimberly Lovendino Lorraine Abache

1. Does Winslow make a “category mistake” by supposing that the two
psychological elements of conscience, feeling and perceiving, are presented as
one to consciousness? Can a perception be a feeling or vice versa?

We think that the two psychological element of conscience - the feeling and
perceiving, are presented as one to consciousness because conscience includes
both the power of perception and susceptibility to a peculiar feeling. Yes, a
perception can be a feeling and vise versa because our mind is so powerful that the
way we perceive things can influence the way we feel.
2. Do moral feelings differ in kind and not just degree from other kinds of
feelings? Discuss how this difference in kind might be characterized from
Winslow’s point of view. ‌

Moral feelings are an ubiquitous feature of life both in our impulses to act and in
our response to moral actions. ‌"It has nothing to do with the actions of others, nor
yet those of one’s self, except as they are related to his personal duty."
--- No other feeling is like that of moral obligation
--- No other pain is like that which arises from a consciousness of having done
wrong
--- No other pleasure is like that which arises from a consciousness of having done
right.
-Hubbard Winslow
3. Why do you think that Hubbard Winslow believes the conscience is
eternal? How is it different from soul? If a person had no conscience, would
that person have no soul?

Winslow stated that the soul is imperishable. The souls is united with conscience
thus they are eternal. Winslow thinks the connection of conscience to stay even
after a persons death. How is it different from the soul? Soul and conscience is
united although different for it's sense for conscience is the sense of what is right
and wrong and soul is a big factor in which conscience is driving for. If a person had
no conscience would that person have no soul? It would vary differently from
person to person. because even a person who murders people which has little to
no conscience has a soul . Because soul consist of thoughts and personality that
lives on after a person's death. This will lead us to a conclusion that even if that
person doesn't want to do what is ethically right. that person still has a soul but we
can call his soul corrupted because soul is a factor in which conscience is driven for.
4. The judgement, "If I can do it, anyone can do it" is sometimes used to rationalize criticism of
another person's actions. Is Winslow's evidence for existence of the unique associated feelings
of pleasure and pain attending to conscience of the same sort of rationalization? In what ways
are both arguments flawed?

First, the feelings of pleasure and pain attending to conscience is the same sort of
rationalization. In a way that, a person does not always feel delighted in responding to his
conscience. Sometimes what we do or what we decide to do doesn't always give us the
feeling of self-approval, but the opposite of it. The same goes for not doing the right thing
(not following conscience), there will be that one moment in your life that you will disobey
your conscience but you will not feel wronged about it, rather make you feel comfortable.
Second, the judgement 'If I can do it, anyone can do it' is also inaccurate. Because in this
society, we always say that every one of us has their own wits, talents, skills, and
capabilities, yet we often use this to rationalize someone's action which is actually wrong.
We cannot force someone to do a thing that in the first place she isn't able and/or willing
to do so. We do not control other people's lives because they're not a robot.
5. Explain how Winslow’s argument and characterization of “conscience”
relies on fallacy of equivocation involving the term “feeling”. Use an
unabridged dictionary or a dictionary of psychology to support your
explanation
①Fallacy of Equivocation - Equivocation is when a word shifts meaning in an argument.

Winslow’s argument “Conscience determines what’s right” and characterization of conscience which is
the cognitive and motive, does rely on ①fallacy of equivocation which means fallacy of ambiguity
according LucidPhilosophy.com. In layman’s term, it mean that his argument can shift meaning or have
more meanings. Starting with “Conscience determines what’s right”, it can be considered ambiguous
since what we perceive as “right” can be “wrong” to others or have a different meaning and might have
different outcomes. Winslow’s characterization of conscience also relies on fallacy of equivocation. It is
ambiguous in a sense that “feelings” are defined through perception wherein outcomes can have more
meanings than intended. Feelings are ambiguous itself when defining conscience. The logic from the
equivocation can be flawed but understandable at the same time. An example of conscience that
involves feelings using the fallacy of equivocation is: “Cursing/Cussing is bad. Killing is also bad. Cursing
is just as bad as Killing”. It is an equivocation involving feelings in a way that we know that cursing is bad
and killing is also bad. Both are wrong but have a different level of intensity on how wrong it is, but both
is just defined as bad. Again, it is understandable and flawed at the same time.