I find in most or all of the discussions about religion that while willing to go into an issue, the is a general lack of interest to ask the basic questions that would lead to an understanding of what religion IS, that is, what there is in the world that warrants interest in the first place. — Constance

I am not sure if I am allowed to post a poem here, but I wrote this poem and I think it summarizes my view on this probably better than if I simply tried to explain it (I am not sure why) But anyway, here it is.

To All Atheists

An atheist,
With feelings so strong,
Denies there’s a God,
Which is something quite wrong.

For ‘God’ is a word
That people invented,
As that’s how words work,
How meaning’s cemented.

I could call God ‘love’,
The other one ‘hate’.
Just different words
I can fabricate.

But ‘love’ and ‘hate’
Are things that are real.
We know this for sure;
They are things we can feel.

So ‘God’ is inside us,
A force that we own,
Not a man with a beard
In the clouds on a throne.

He’s the urge to show kindness,
Despite lack of gain,
Compassion for others
In hardship and pain.

But if the word ‘God’
Causes aversion,
And gives good reason
For casting aspersion,

Replace it with ‘kindness’
‘Compassion’ or ‘love’,
And forget the man
Looking down from above.

But to me it seems clear,
All this is absurd.
For the only difference
Is just in a word.

Personally when it comes to my dog that I’ve bonded with if I was forced into this choice of eating the animal to survive I doubt I would do it. I’d rather die than cling on to life at such primitive existence. — Deus

This is the exact same conclusion I came to (although I do admit, it is not until placed in such a situation that one can really be certain what they would do. But then again, I don't believe in 100 percent certainty of anything) However, contemplating it now, if i was in such a dire situation that I was considering eating my dog, I think i would be pretty much done for anyway. I also would not want to deal with the trauma afterwards, if I did survive, of knowing what I did. That would be like mental torture. And I may not survive anyway. If this were the case, I would have just eaten arguably the best comfort in my dying hours that I could wish for. Dying cuddling my dog seems a million times more preferable than dying alone with the knowledge that I just ate her!

"Good" is clearly defined by a larger context than the social context. This is evident in principles which relate to respect for other life forms which do not partake in human society, and respect for the planet in general with issues like climate change. "Good" truly transcends the context of human society, because human beings are only a small part of life on earth, and we're all integrated. — Metaphysician Undercover

This makes so much sense to me.

There is, however, a lingering question, which is what is there, then, about animals that make them included in concerns about the Good? — Astrophel

Isn't it as simple as harm/suffering is negative and therefore bad, and hence, causing harm/suffering (for reasons that do not benefit the person/animal/living thing) is also bad? This seems to be a fact which is not reliant on people's beliefs, opinions or social conventions/norms etc

I don't go to priests, so don't worry. I believe you are incorrect about the brain. During cardiac arrest, no signals are sent. The reason that the brain doesn't become brain dead is because it takes that time you mentioned, around 5 minutes, maybe slightly more, for the brain cells to die. This is why people can be resuscitated. However, the brain is not capable of sending signals for body function at this point as it is not receiving oxygen.

I appreciate your point of view, however, when a person is in cardiac arrest, the brain is no longer functioning and hence, no signals are being sent. This means they cannot see. But of course, people could say many things to explain away near death experiences. As you may already know, I believe nothing is 100 percent certain.

Are you saying the brain is part of the body and the mind is not? If so, where does the mind reside? What thinks? — Vera Mont

First of all, I am just playing with ideas here. I do not really know what I believe about this at the moment. I do have lots of ideas streaming in though. Regarding your question, do you think it possible that the mind 'resides' in the brain and grows/develops there, but can also exist outside the brain too when there is no longer a brain? I mean, when the brain has stopped functioning, if people are still seeing/hearing things etc we could say that it is not the brain that is making the 'person' see/hear etc those things, since the brain is no longer working. If it is the mind that is doing that, then the mind does not rely on the brain at that point. Where the mind might go after death, however, is a strange thought, but if we imagine that the mind is a form of energy, then this is perhaps easier to understand. After all, we accept that energy is all around us, and yet it does not seem to 'reside' anywhere specifically since it is not made of matter. These are just ideas though that have just popped into my head. There could be lots of reasons why they are wrong and don't make sense, but i think they kind of make sense... to me at the moment anyway. I am open to hearing other ideas though.

You will return to who you were before you were born, bare consciousness. This consciousness is present behind even rocks and trees — Sirius

Ooh, I like that :) Can you tell me more? How do rocks and trees have consciousness? I have had a thought about this, but I just wondered what else has been said about it/what you think.

How do you know that there is no consciousness after brain death?
— Truth Seeker

Isn't that a self-answering question? Brain>consciousness. Dead brain>no consciousness. — Vera Mont

I am not an expert on consciousness by any means, but couldn't there be at least 2 types: consciousness of the body and consciousness of the mind? If the person is near to death, let's say they had a cardiac arrest, then their brain has stopped functioning (I believe after about 20 seconds they lose (body) consciousness and pass out, as their brain cannot function without oxygen) If the person is seeing things at this stage, then I am guessing that must be due to mind consciousness, such as you describe here:

People tell all kinds of stories about things they saw and experienced while other people thought they were dead. My guess is that they were not dead, but hallucinating or dreaming - possibly during the seconds they were regaining consciousness. My reason for that guess is the number of times I've been unconscious due to anesthetic during which I experienced nothing and from which I recall nothing, until I was coming back to awareness. Some of my vivid and bizarre dreams take place just as I'm waking up. These are the dreams one is most likely to remember. — Vera Mont

This would point to evidence for mind consciousness being separate and not dependent on body consciousness because at that stage the brain would not be functioning.

However, there is a difference between brain death and the brain not functioning (body unconsciousness). Brain death is when the brain has died and the person cannot be brought back to life, therefore, of course, we cannot find out if the mind consciousness continues after brain death because we cannot bring them back to ask them.

Have some angel cake tonight, you'll be alright — flannel jesus

Oh my gosh! I am not kidding, I have some angel cakes in my cupboard! How spooky! (I just spent ages trying to figure out how to post a picture ive just taken of them, but I couldn't figure it out, so I put it as my profile picture lol)

Watch out for those deviled eggs!

I hope so too brother. — flannel jesus

I did have a cream cake last night at 10.30pm. That does seem a bit devilish :grimace:

Ok. Well I hope you can find out one way or another if you are. — flannel jesus

LOL I really hope I'm not!!!!

He never wrote anything about that, so I have no idea how he feels about that idea. I think the "I" in "I think therefore I am" is a lot more amorphous than that, it's not referencing any thing in particular. He's not confirming he's a human, or a mammal, or has a brain - he's only confirming 2 things, the existence of his thoughts, and his own existence. — flannel jesus

This is true. But I am pretty sure that he would want to know if he was a demon or not, for example. I think anyone would. (I know i would!)

And without knowing, wouldn't he be living in an illusion like the one he was trying to prove that he wasn't?

I'm not sure how much demons have to do with his thought process for the cogito anyway. Seems unrelated to me. — flannel jesus

It seems related because it is an example of how much i believe he would want to know. I think that when he says, 'I think therefore I am" he imagines himself to be as he perceives himself, and ordinary person. If someone said to him, "How do you know you are not an evil demon?" I think he would want to prove otherwise.

of he's an evil demon, then he IS — flannel jesus

Don't you think he would want to know if he was or wasn't?

He was applying skepticism as deeply as he could. — flannel jesus

Maybe he simply couldn't apply it as deeply as considering the possibility that he himself could be the evil demon (and who could blame him? Who wants to face the thought that they could be an evil demon?)

If you allow the "I" to take a more amorphous form, "I think therefore I am" could be interpreted more like "there is thought, therefore there is something" - and the word "I" fits in there not as a silly defined ego but just as the experiential reason for why the thinker knows "there is thought".

You, whatever "you" might refer to, knows there is thought because you're experiencing thoughts. — flannel jesus

I get what you're saying, but why do you think he did the meditations in the first place? What was he trying to achieve? What was he trying to find out? Do you think he was only trying to find proof that he was just a bunch of thoughts? Or some undefined form with a bunch of thoughts? Would have have minded what that 'form' was? Would have have not wanted to know? For example, if he was an evil demon with a bunch of thoughts, wouldn't he have wanted to know? Or would he have just been happy knowing that he existed in any form, evil demon or grotesque monster included, with a bunch of thoughts?

Before I make another comment, I may have missed some of the new comments (It's hard to keep up with you all! You all have a lot to say about this!) so I hope I am not totally repeating what has been said before.

I have a question: for Descartes, what do you think he thought 'existing' meant exactly?

For me, and people may disagree with this (if so, id be interested to know your views and why) I would say that Descartes wanted proof that the world, and he himself, were as he perceived them. (basically, the usual, everyday world we know and... love-- unless we are having a bad day)

As an aside here, I'd like to point out that I don't think it is such a wild thing to assume that most people, including myself, do actually believe that the world is as we perceive it.

I don't NEED to be 100% certain of cogito. I would be content being 99.99...% certain of cogito (or less, if there was a reason to be less) — flannel jesus

My point here is I think that this is no different to most, if not all, of us... excluding the 'strangest' of people who believe the world is being secretly run by aliens with glowing eyes and antennas on their heads! Most people do not need to be 100 percent sure because most of us are fairly certain things are as we know them to be. (I am not having a go at you here by the way, flannel jesus. From what I can tell--and it can sometimes be hard to tell when you only have messages on a forum to go by-- you seem like a fair and reasonable person. I try to be so too.)

However, the whole point, I believe, was that Descartes wanted absolute certainty that the world was not totally different than how he perceived it, such as, he wanted to be sure that he was not living an illusion and the world was not really like The Matrix, or something like that. (My imagination could make up hundreds of different weird and wonderful scenarios of what the world 'could' be like without us knowing it. I do not believe them, but still, it 'could' be like that.) But because I believe Descartes would not have been satisfied with discovering what the world/he 'may' be like--because he wanted to know FOR SURE--and the fact that he thought the cogito was enough to give him that certainty, because of this, I think that is why people are contesting it-- at least those who believe that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. However, the problem that seems to occur from his point of view is that, while a skeptic has at their disposal pretty much anything they can imagine to throw doubt on him, he has limited himself to absolute certainty because he wanted to find something to rely on absolutely that skepticism couldn't throw doubt on. (Okay, so I know some people believe the Cogito did this, and some do not, but anyway...)

Therefore, the 'I am' part of the cogito, in my view, relates to him existing, but specifically in the form that he perceives of himself (like a 'normal' every day person) I'm probably going to regret asking this but... does anyone else disagree with this? Oh and also, it would be good to hear from those who agree with it too.

It's very simple. I agree with him. You don't. I don't have a problem at all with that. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions. I always say that the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything :)

Yes, I am bowing out from this thread after this message. I was going to do that about 10 pages ago. But I was getting frustrated to see the continuing confusions and groundless claims. It seems it better not to waste any more time, if the confusions going to continue, then let them get on with it. I don't see their views ever changing with no matter what rational explanations were given judging by their continuous circulatory posts.

Will get on with some other topics and readings. Thanks for your input on the point. :pray: :up: — Corvus

I do not blame you at all. I would have bowed out much sooner! You lasted for pages without agreement from anyone but didn't give in. I am really impressed!

So would you mind trying to establish with me if its generally true to say "if P-> Q, then Not P -> Not Q must hold."? I would love to have this basic logic established, as it has so far been a fundamental part of Corvus reasoning to this point. — flannel jesus

As far as logic goes, the problem with Cogito is that the original premise is not a logical or valid statement. This means that you can say anything you like about it, and it still will not make sense logically. Since the original premise is not logical or valid, we are not playing by the rules of logic, so we can do or say what we like, but nothing about it will be logical. To apply modus ponens or modus tollens, or any other type of modus lol the original premise must be logical and valid...I believe. BUT I am new to all of this, so I could be wrong. There may be some 'modus' out there where the original premise doesn't need to be logical. I may not be totally read up on all my moduses!

Hold on, I should have added, IF you are playing by the rules of logic, and the original premise was valid and logical, then, if what I have read is correct, the 'not P, not Q' reasoning would not hold.

You are back! Yay! You are not collapsed in an exhausted heap trying to explain over and over why the cogito is not valid ... since page 14! Considering we are now on page 28, I'd say you have a whole lot of stamina!

He based his logic on the premise that you can jump from "p implies q" to "not p implies not q" in general. You can see him present the argument here. — flannel jesus

I see what you are saying, but I also see what he is saying too. I have never studied logic before, but I spent a fair few hours last night reading up on it. (So, thanks to you all, I think I may know a bit more than I did before now... I think.) I also read every one of the links you posted about modus tollens, modus ponens, affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, hence, the position I took on, 'I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking.'

As I said, I think he was trying to show that 'I think therefore I am' does not make logical sense. I think this was his main argument there. And, for the reasons I mentioned, I agree with him. It does not make logical sense. The main premise 'I think therefore I am' is not reliable or logical in the first place to prove certainty, and therefore, pretty much anything that is said about it makes no logical sense either. (Although, of course, I cannot speak for Corvus; I can only say what I think he was trying to show. He is probably exhausted right now; he has been putting forward arguments against the cogito since page 14!) Also, I'd like to point out that this was not the only argument he gave; there are indeed other sound arguments, such as this:

Moreover, it is a circular statement. How the hell does he know that he exists? He was supposed to doubt everything. — Corvus

Descartes is indeed begging the question, or using a circular reasoning, which is invalid. Descartes assumes that he exists and then uses this to prove that he exists through 'I think therefore i am' because to think, he must exist.

This is why the logic is not working. You cannot doubt everything and then suddenly, magically be certain of something. That is not too hard to understand, in my view. It is impossible to beat the skeptics at their own game. The only way to 'beat' them is to NOT PLAY THE GAME.

Do you believe you can jump from "p implies q" to "not p implies not q" in general? — flannel jesus

I believe that the following is the correct logic:

I think what he is trying to show here is that we cannot successfully use logic on the cogito in a way that it makes sense. From this, we can conclude that there is something wrong with the cogito. For example, it would obviously make no sense to say, "I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking" because you cannot be thinking about not thinking unless you exist. Or, you cannot say 'I do not exist' if you do not exist. Now, you may reply, "Oh, that was Descartes's exact point: if you are thinking, then you must exist." However, since 'I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking" DOES NOT make sense, then logically, the cogito also does not make sense. As has been pointed out many times, the 'I' is not logical here. To make it logical at a stretch (whilst having to make assumptions) we would have to change it to: 'He thinks therefore he exists.' Then, we can more logically say: 'He does not exist, therefore he is not thinking.' But, as I am sure we are all aware, the cogito ONLY works from the first person perspective. Therefore, it fails; it all fails — Beverley

If this persons truth-discovering tools like reason and logic are compromised in such a way, how could this person *discover the truth* that his truth-discovering (or filtering instead of discovering, if you prefer) tools are compromised and unrelaible? — flannel jesus

The person realizes that they are human and make mistakes like all of us do.

And then, suppose he does come to understand that he's bad at reasoning - what then? If he still cares about the truth, but he has come to accept that his tools for discovering or filtering truths are compromised, what should he do? — flannel jesus

He should consider ALL possibilities and be aware that he will STILL make mistakes, as we all continue to do. But by realizing this, he may be more respectful of other people's views, even if he does not agree with them, since he knows that he too could be wrong. He might also conclude that he has been living and surviving like this for all his days, like us all, and all he can do is 'try' to be openminded and get closer to the truth... whatever that is.

The inference is invalid. logic does not show that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. — Banno

I think what he is trying to show here is that we cannot successfully use logic on the cogito in a way that it makes sense. From this, we can conclude that there is something wrong with the cogito. For example, it would obviously make no sense to say, "I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking" because you cannot be thinking about not thinking unless you exist. Or, you cannot say 'I do not exist' if you do not exist. Now, you may reply, "Oh, that was Descartes's exact point: if you are thinking, then you must exist." However, since 'I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking" DOES NOT make sense, then logically, the cogito also does not make sense. As has been pointed out many times, the 'I' is not logical here. To make it logical at a stretch (whilst having to make assumptions) we would have to change it to: 'He thinks therefore he exists.' Then, we can more logically say: 'He does not exist, therefore he is not thinking.' But, as I am sure we are all aware, the cogito ONLY works from the first person perspective. Therefore, it fails; it all fails.

Now, I may have this wrong. Maybe there is a hole in my reasoning somewhere. (Considering it is past 1am, I wouldn't be surprised, but to me, this makes sense.)

Does this make sense? I am just checking. Please do point out if I have made a mistake somewhere.

Hallelujah! I was doubting myself for a moment! I am not going mad then :)

I just wanted to check, is your argument here that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then logic dictates that 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. But since the latter makes no sense, then something is terribly wrong with it all?? Or am I totally wrong to assume that? I could have misunderstood. — Beverley

Yes, correct. You have got it spot on. — Corvus

Does this make more sense to you now?

That is a completely different objection than your "how do you know?" to something that is self-evident — Russell's objection being, by the way, mostly semantic. — Lionino

When he goes on to say “I am a thing which thinks,” he is already using uncritically the apparatus of categories handed down by scholasticism. He nowhere proves that thoughts need a thinker,nor is there reason to believe this except in a grammatical sense. — Russell, Bertrand. 1945. A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 567.

I was doubting your statement that nothing can think if it does not exist. Russell is saying that Descartes does not prove that thoughts need a thinker.

His central argument in this thread has been, if "I think therefore I am" is true, then it must also be true that not thinking implies not existing. — flannel jesus

I just wanted to check, is your argument here that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then logic dictates that 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. But since the latter makes no sense, then something is terribly wrong with it all?? Or am I totally wrong to assume that? I could have misunderstood.

You too, seems not knowing the difference between validity and truth. Something is valid doesn't mean it is also true.
— Corvus

What a clown. Goodbye.
— Lionino

Suppose this is a typical response when the hidden ignorance was revealed. :nerd: — Corvus

People often resort to name calling if they are unable to find a way to respond to someone's comments.

I have to say, your patience at trying to get your point across is admirable. I don't think I would have so much patience. I would more likely think, "Let them just believe what they want."

What you are saying always seemed so clear to me, even before I researched how other philosophers criticized Descartes's cogito, I had already come up with similar ideas.

Nothing can think if it doesn't exist. — Lionino

The thought that immediately sprang to my mind was, "How do you know?"

(Before someone points out that I had a thought, so I must exist, just take it that I am not really here typing this, and you are not really there reading it, just to humour me ;) )

Descartes’s indubitable facts are his own thoughts—using “thought” in the widest possible sense. “I think” is his ultimate premiss. Here the word “I” is really illegitimate; he ought to state his ultimate premiss in the form “there are thoughts.” The word “I” is grammatically convenient, but does not describe a datum. When he goes on to say “I am a thing which thinks,” he is already using uncritically the apparatus of categories handed down by scholasticism. He nowhere proves that thoughts need a thinker, nor is there reason to believe this except in a grammatical sense. — Russell, Bertrand. 1945. A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 567.

I wonder if he was 100 percent certain that animals lack souls and minds and that it was not unethical to abuse them? This is, perhaps, one example of how being 100 percent certain might be dangerous.

They don't own much, do share their scarce material resources, don't make war unless they're attacked, know far too much about the inhospitable land on which they subsist, and are too willing to share that knowledge. Savages! — Vera Mont

That is the kind of thing I suspected. I also believe they make decisions via consensus and women are treated as equals. I think there are many examples of so called civilized societies today that act in very uncivilized ways. I don't think this whole matter is so black and white.

Thanks for the videos. I'm interested to see these tribes. I'll take a look and get back to you (although I'm sensing a reluctance from you to discuss it. It's okay if you don't want to.) I guess I was intrigued to know what your interpretation of 'civilized' was. We may differ in this respect, but I'm not sure. Anyway, have a nice evening (if and when it's evening where you are)

I don't know of any. I assume you do because you quoted them as being uncivilized, so I was just wondering what made you think that.

Vivisection was a very common form of experimentation and demonstration in medical colleges of the time - and in various forms, up to the present. Whether Descates himself conducted any such lectures using dogs has been the subject of debate, but he was a practicing physician, so he must have at least attended those lectures. He certainly didn't invent or initiate them, but he was famous, and his apologetics did help to legitimize vivisection as sound scientific practice.
Descartes famously thought that animals were merely ‘mechanisms’ or ‘automata’ – basically, complex physical machines without experiences – and that as a result, they were the same type of thing as less complex machines like cuckoo clocks or watches. He believed this because he thought that thoughts and minds are properties of an immaterial soul; thus, humans have subjective experience only because they have immaterial souls inhering in their physical bodies. However animals, reasoned Descartes, show no signs of being inhabited by rational souls: they don’t speak or philosophise, and so (as far as we can tell) they lack souls, and minds.
He bent some little way to accord animals sensation and emotion, but still considered it legitimate for humans to use them like objects. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure what to believe regarding the accuracy of this. Of course, I know what I think about it if it is true, and for some reason, it would not surprise me if it was. However, I also believe that nothing in life is 100 percent certain, (ironically, something that Descartes refused to accept) and so, I will probably never know for sure.

San tribes today, yes, they are not civilised by any metric. — Lionino

I was just wondering, in what way are San tribes not civilized?

One of the marking characteristics of a society evolving into a civilisation is the specialisation of the workforce, aka roles/jobs. It is only in tribal settings (non-civilised societies) where everybody does a little bit of this and a little bit of that. — Lionino

Does the fact that people live in a tribe necessarily mean that they can be classed as 'uncivilized'? I find this train of thought troubling. I imagine that tribes these days may view modern societies as 'uncivilized'. I fear that, in many ways (and I am not saying all) they may be correct.

I point-blank quoted several instances where this was not the case. — AmadeusD

I am not entirely sure now which exchange and instances you are referring to, but if I think someone is giving their opinion on something, but making it sound like a fact, I tend to look for another viewpoint. I do this to myself too, just to see if I am assuming too much or missing another way of viewing things. This may be frustrating for others who have set ideas on things. But, as I said before, I appreciate that others have different views to me, I just get a little argumentative when people write opinions as facts. Actually, considering my viewpoint on this very question-- that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty-- strictly speaking, I think all points made are opinion. But I get the feeling we will disagree on this. It is perhaps prudent for me to leave this alone before I totally get on your nerves!

I think any religion loses merit of it is not allowed to be practiced by choice and free will, but by fear and coercion.

After all if you cannot choose to identify with a group, but are instead forced to, how can one be said to have faith in it? To actively believe it despite the option not to. — Benj96

I absolutely agree with this. To me, threats of death and coercion cause harm to others and are, in my view, morally wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such people are not behaving like that for religious reasons, but because of the desire for power over others. Justifying actions like this by saying that they are for religious reasons is a very powerful, but manipulative, way of controlling others.

According to Islam, leaving Islam is punishable by the death penalty. Most Muslims think this is morally right. Ex-Muslims and non-Muslims think this is morally wrong. Which group is correct? How can we know for sure? — Truth Seeker

I think that most people are in agreement that hurting others is morally wrong. For me, anything else, such as the choice whether to fast or not, is up to the belief and opinion of the individual and only becomes morally wrong if someone else gets significantly hurt in the process. (but again, I am open to hearing other viewpoints)

Scrupulosity is a somewhat relevant mental health issue. — wonderer1

I thought there may be something like that. It must be terrible :(

In cases of psychopathy I don't get the impression that there is any conscience there to suppress — wonderer1

I also had this thought myself, but concluded that I wasn't sure.

For example, fasting during Ramadan is considered mandatory by Muslims but non-Muslims think fasting during Ramadan is not necessary. — Truth Seeker

Are we confusing (or it may be just me) conscience with remorse, if conscience is KNOWING what is right or wrong, and remorse is the feeling people get when they ignore doing the right thing (of course, that in itself can be interpreted in many different ways) But if people can have a conscience, but do not feel remorse, then it would make doing the wrong thing far easier and more likely. But then that makes me wonder if people can chose to do the right thing simply because they feel remorse and not because they care about hurting others. This is getting complicated. I haven't studied ethics, so I may well be blundering through all of this. Also, is there a way of distinguishing between what is considered ‘right’ by some people, but that does not significantly affect others, and what is considered right by some people and does affect others? I would say that the latter is much more important. From what I can tell, fasting would fall under the former.

But would it be possible for someone to literally have no conscience, meaning they cannot distinguish between right and wrong? If so, that would be worrying because then they would not even be able to make a choice. Are there such people I wonder?

The problem with having a conscience is not that it exists but that different people have different values — Truth Seeker

There does appear to be differing levels for different people I suppose, whether it be conscience or remorse. However, I am not sure if this is a problem if we consider the individual because if we, as individuals, are happy with our own consciences, and at least accept that we are trying to do our best (nobody is perfect) then from the point of view of our conscience, does it matter what other people are doing/thinking etc?

I recommend that you read the following books:

"Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky

"Free Will" by Sam Harris — Truth Seeker

Thanks for the suggestions. :)