The "ARGUMENT from CONSCIENCE" and ATHEIST HYPOCRISY

Most atheists claim that there are no moral absolutes. At the same time, many of these same atheists accuse Christians of hypocrisy. This reveals an inconsistency on their part. If being hypocritical is not a moral absolute then those atheists cannot justify the accusation. On the other hand, if they stand by their accusation then they tacitly admit to at least one moral absolute. Now if hypocrisy is defined as doing what you profess to be unjust, unethical and blameworthy, then  it follows that in order to not be hypocritical people are obliged to follow their consciences. This is a problem for atheists. What is the source of the conscience’s moral authority?

Let us suppose that people have, as part of their being, something that serves as an internal guide to what is just, ethical, and praiseworthy. This something is commonly called conscience. It would seem that neither the variable nature of conscience between individuals nor the lack of its development would negate anyone’s moral obligation. Anyone can see that people vary with respect to many other traits like physical stature, dexterity, and intelligence. There is no reason to suppose otherwise for conscience. Yet this in no way affects someone’s obligation to do what he believes he should do as best as he understands it. Thus the question is not what conscience is or what it tell us; but rather, why it is authoritative. Stated in other words, to whom are people obliged.

So with that understanding, let’s look at an apologetic called the “Argument from Conscience.”

Premise 1: The obligation to obey the conscience must come from either Nature, the Individual, the Collective (family, tribe, or state), or something external to the first three.

Premise 2: Nature does not oblige anyone to follow their conscience, since the conscience often prompts us to overcome the reflexive innate behaviors Nature provides.

Premise 3: The individual does not have to authority to oblige himself to follow his conscience since the individual could then countermand his obligation by his own authority. As such, self-obligation is meaningless.

Premise 4: No collective of individuals has the authority to oblige someone to follow a collective conscience unless the individual consents to that authority and as per Premise 3 the individual has no such authority. Comment on Premise 4 - The collective (family, tribe, state, etc.) may have the power to impose duties on individuals, but that is not the same as having the right to do so.

ONLY 1 of 2 MUTUALLY CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW:

Conclusion 1: Conscience comes from a Source that transcends Nature, the individual, or the collective. Thus people are morally obligated to follow their consciences and apply their moral reasoning to better understand that Source.

-or-

Conclusion 2: No one’s conscience has no moral authority. Thus people have no obligation to follow their own instincts, personal conscience or that of another person or collective. As such, no one can justifiably accuse another of hypocrisy.

I say that people can accept either conclusion but that doing so is an existential choice, not a rational one. However, these choices lead to very different logical conclusions. Anyone can see that unless a culture accepts and appeals to a transcendent moral authority, however imperfectly understood, then raw power, “might makes right”, is alone that culture’s moral compass.