conscience

Conscience is God-given and that through conscience we all have the ability to work out right from wrong. By following our conscience, we are following the Divine Law.

In Romans, the law is referred to as being "Written on the hearts of men" This suggests that law needn't be written down because people know right from wrong naturally.

There is, however, a huge problem here not just with Biblical teachings but many religious teachings in general when it comes to conscience. Whose conscience should be followed? A conflict of conscience can be a huge issue in the real world, suggesting that perhaps it should not always be followed.

For example, if the child of two Jehovah's Witnesses was in desperate need of a blood transfusion and a doctor was able to override the decision of the parents, whose conscience should be followed? Who is right?

Conscience = "The faculty of reason making moral decisions"

Natural ability to see the difference between good and bad. He said that everyone aims to be good and to avoid evil.

Automatically there are two huge weaknesses:

·                     how do we define 'good'? Is it really objective?

·                     do all people really aim to be good? 

Aquinas states that we're not born inherently knowing the difference between right and wrong. He describes conscience as a device that allows us to do such a thing. The device comes from God.
Aquinas said that we aim to do good by using our reasoning - if we use our reasoning correctly, we will gradually come to know what is good. He then introduced the concept of synderesis. He defined synderesis as our constant repetition of the use of right reason.
Synderesis, Aquinas says, is just one part of what conscience is. The other is conscientia, which is basically the application of synderesis to ethical issues. 

Conscience = "The faculty of reason making moral decisions"

Natural ability to see the difference between good and bad. He said that everyone aims to be good and to avoid evil.

Automatically there are two huge weaknesses:

·                     how do we define 'good'? Is it really objective?

·                     do all people really aim to be good? 

Aquinas states that we're not born inherently knowing the difference between right and wrong. He describes conscience as a device that allows us to do such a thing. The device comes from God.
Aquinas said that we aim to do good by using our reasoning - if we use our reasoning correctly, we will gradually come to know what is good. He then introduced the concept of synderesis. He defined synderesis as our constant repetition of the use of right reason.
Synderesis, Aquinas says, is just one part of what conscience is. The other is conscientia, which is basically the application of synderesis to ethical issues. 

Aquinas acknowledges that people do make mistakes. Some people may make mistakes intentionally (explained later) but Aquinas also accepted that people will make mistakes accidentally, such as: making a mistake on the path from synderesis to conscientia or incorrect use of synderesis

With 2, Aquinas argues that even if people do the wrong thing, they are still sort of following their conscience. Their conscience is wrong, yes, but they are following what it tells them.

Aquinas uses this to explain why people do bad things; many of them appear to be following their conscience and that is because their conscience has made a mistake. Or that person may be deliberately ignoring their conscience, which is going against the Divine Law and basically ignoring God - which Aquinas obviously wouldn't be happy about.

However, "it is always right to follow your conscience."

This is because the conscience is the best thing we've got when it comes to making moral decisions. It isn't flawless but it is far superior to anything else we could use, so we should always utilise it despite the small risk of something going a bit wrong. 

conscience = "our natural guide" and a "principle of reflection."

Like Aquinas, he states that conscience is the final moral decision maker and comes from God. He also agrees with Aquinas that it should always be followed.
Butler also refers to conscience manifesting itself as "approval and disapproval of actions... this principle in man is conscience."

The fact we reflect on our own behaviour shows the existence of conscience. This is arguably strength of Butler's argument because it's concurrent with humanity - we do reflect on our decisions, and so Butler's point may appeal to many people.

Butler states that the conscience is automatic and unconscious, saying it "Magisterially exerts itself without being consulted." - It is powerful and happens without our permission.

Like Aquinas, Butler said that following your conscience is following the Divine Law. Conscience is the perfect balance between benevolence and self-love (which are inherent in all humans). Beneath benevolence and self-love lie our drives: our passions and desires which we can't control but can hold off.

Butler states that the conscience is so powerful that if it could, it would "Absolutely govern the world"

He said that conscience judges the rightness and wrongness of an action or thought irrespective of what we want to think. Because it comes from God, it doesn't consider our desires and seeks only what is good. It can only tell us what to do, though - it doesn't have the power to force us to act in one way or another otherwise free will would be out of the question.

The biggest difference between Butler and Aquinas is that Butler argues our conscience doesn't make mistakes and is completely flawless.  Because there is no human input (unlike Aquinas's definition, whereby by take the tool of reason and chisel it to form a conscience), the conscience cannot be wrong in any way.

The only way evil is done is if people actively choose to ignore the conscience. Butler said this was a wicked act, and even said that disobeying conscience is morally worse than the act in which conscience is ignored.

To rephrase that with an example, if a ********** abused a child, Butler would argue that the ********** disobeying his conscience is a worse crime than him/her abusing the child. From the perspective of a human in the 21st century, this can of course be heavily criticised.

Freud said that the conscience is socially/psychologically created in order to stop ourselves from carrying out our base desires. Because society restricts us from doing certain things, the conscience is created to control any weird desires people may have.

Freud rejected the idea of a soul and said we can feel the conscience through guilt.

"Dreams are the road to the unconscious mind." The unconscious mind, Freud states, is where our desires are.

He splits the conscience up into three parts:

1.Super Ego - a blank slate at birth which has moral commands and restrictions written upon it by others as we grow up and learn to understand the world. Influences include parents and peers

2. Id/physical needs - the place in our minds that deals with passions and desires

3.  Ego - the balance of the two, a moral moderator, the messenger between two extremes. The ego aims to satisfy the id in a way which appeals to the social norms as dictated by the super ego

Unlike Aquinas, Freud rejects reason and accepts that using the conscience isn't rational by any means. This is a good point to attack if asked whether we should trust our conscience; if Freud says the conscience isn't rational, surely there must be a better option.

Freud argues that consciences are subjective and individual, which accounts for the cultural problem that Aquinas and Butler face. 

Similar to Butler in many ways, Newman describes the conscience as a "messenger from God"

Newman argues that the conscience is literally God's word. He says that it detects but does not invent (whereas Aquinas says the conscience invents).

Newman took influence from Augustine. Augustine said the conscience was like God whispering to us - not shouting or ordering, just whispering and guiding. Augustine said

"Return to your conscience (...), see God as your witness."

Newman, like Butler, gave an example of how the conscience manifests itself:

"If we are frightened at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies there is One to whom we are responsible."

He also said this memorable quote:

"I salute the Pope, but I salute conscience first."

Piaget says that there are two types of conscience:

1.                   Immature conscience (ages 5-10)

2.                   Mature conscience (ages 11+)

The immature conscience, he says, is to do with the guilty feelings which come with discipline when we are children. It has little to do with the rational importance of an action, for all we do is seek the approval of others. It is consequentialist and Piaget refers to it as heteronomous morality.

The mature conscience, though, is outward-looking. It challenges and questions things and we form our own rules. This, Piaget says, is a more autonomous morality. 

Fromm had two ideas concerning conscience. Firstly, he spoke of the authoritarian conscience. This refers to consciences ruled by external authorities which, if you disobey, will punish you and result in a guilty conscience.

Fromm says that God may be the example of an authoritarian figure - if we disobey Him, we feel guilty. He gives the example of Nazi Germany, whereby consciences were manipulated to make many Germans feel guilty if they helped the Jews.

Later, Fromm took on a more humanistic approach, whereby he said the conscience assesses our success and leads us to realise our full potential. He said that experience gives us moral honesty.