Rejecting Conscience

There is no shortage of non-rationalists who will very likely try to force or convince you to bow to their personal preferences about morality: political figures, church leaders, acquaintances, significant others, parents, strangers, and more are lost in the delusions of irrationalism if they have not forsaken assumptions here and elsewhere.  They all share this in common.  One key assumption that could be devastating for them to give up is that, inside or outside of the Christian worldview, conscience or personal pragmatism have anything to do with how people should live, if there is such a thing.

In itself, it is logically necessary that emotion or preference reflects only one's personal perceptions or wishes.  They do not have any relevance to the most ultimate truths other than the importance of how utterly unimportant they are in this sense.  Even if Christianity is true, feelings mean nothing here by default, and the stupidity and darkness of emotionalism is on grand display in how so many people confuse Biblical commands for options within the Christian worldview and nonsinful, permissible things for moral duties.  Such non-rationalists try to appease others or themselves while thinking themselves justified in betraying reason.  A rationalist can on the contrary do as they want as long as they do not believe or do anything irrational or immoral.

This is not an emotionalistic individualism, or, in other words, just another form of false subjectivism.  It is how one is free to act and should react, short of totally voluntary submission or a very gratuitous mercy, to anyone at all who wants one to abstain from what is not irrational/evil or do what is not obligatory.  The fact that there is nothing anyone's conscience or desires have to do with what is good, amoral, or evil one way or another could be terrifying, but it can be liberating for those who truly embrace that they have no reason to care about being offensive or even incidentally hurtful towards others when pushing back against irrationality.

As long as a person is rational, he or she is in the right; as long as they are right, anyone who opposes them in any way must by necessity be wrong in the same way that a truth renders all that contradicts it false.  The one who genuinely thinks that their beliefs are validated by intense emotional reactions towards whatever arbitrary thing triggers them is objectively in the wrong.  The person who does not care if they are in the wrong has reality against them and is thus intellectually and, if morality exists, morally inferior to the rationalist.

Logical axioms are true no matter what else is and are true in themselves, all recognition or approval being intrinsically irrelevant.  Any moral obligations that exist are neither true by inherent necessity nor epistemologically self-evident like axioms, but they do not depend on desire.  Someone who allows themself to be lost in assumptions, even if what they assume is true and also demonstrable through reason, has no authority to the extent they do not grasp logical necessities.  Seeing through their errors means one has the right, or at least could not be in the wrong, to forcefully resist their demands and openly taunt them.