conscience Flashcards
1
Q
Aquinas’ theological approach of conscience
A
- the act of applying the universal principles (Eternal/Divine law) to actual real life situ
- role of conscience is to apply the primary precepts through the use of syneresis (an inner principle that directs us towards good and away from evil) and conscientia (the actual decisions we make on the basis of moral principles that we arrived through via synderesis.
- ratio, syneresis and conscientia are all gifts from God, which allows us to make links with the eternal law that God est., but note: this isn’t God telling us what is right or wrong, but God giving us the tools to work it out ourselves.
2
Q
Aquinas and ratio (reason)
A
- it is our ability to reason and make moral judgements
–> ratio distinguishes us from animals
–> ability to reason is a divine gift from God– we are made “in the image of God” - reason is comprised of theoretical/speculative reason (thinking of scientific hypothesis) and practical reason (practica ratio) + how this should be applied to a situ
3
Q
Aquinas and ratio (reason)
- virtues
A
- reason identifies ‘nature’ or ‘cardinal’ virtues
–> the cardinal virtues are 4 principle moral virtues:prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, which all other virtues ‘hinge’ on
–> cardinal virtues need to be kept to develop the moral law
–> prudence needs to be developed so practical reason, and conscientia, are used right
–> prudence is: “right reason applied to practice”- allows us to judge what is right/wrong
4
Q
Aquinas and synderesis
A
- natural inclination that we are all born with which makes us want to do good rather than evil – to fulfil our purpose/telos
- humans can use ratio to cultivate the habit of syneresis – this needs to constantly happen to become a habit bc syneresis can be blinded so we are tempted towards evil (e.g. what happened to Adam and Eve in the garden of evil)
- syneresis doesnt tell us the actions which are actually good- need ratio and conscientia
5
Q
Aquinas: is synderesis and conscience fallible?
A
- synderesis is never mistaken, it is infallible- not the same as conscience
- BUT just because we desire to do good and avoid evil is infallible, it doesnt mean this will lead to the right action
- the way we apply moral knowledge and make practical judgements may be wrong- we may act out of ignorance if we don’t have full knowledge of the situ
- therefore conscience is fallible- its is the “application of knowledge to activity” (Summa Theologica)
6
Q
Aquinas: conscientia
A
- “the mind of man making moral judgements”
- comprised of (1) knowing what is right or wrong (2) knowledge of how to apply this in a particular situation
- central part of conscientia is the use of ratio
- conscientia applies the primary principles of syneresis to a situation (the secondary precepts to particular circumstances)
7
Q
Aquinas: why do we have a duty to follow our conscience
A
- its wrong to go against reason, but we have a duty to make sure our reason is well-informed to make moral decisions
- even if what our conscience is telling us to do is objectively wrong, we must follow it otherwise we would be acting irrationally which is a sin (a sin because Aquinas believes God gave us the means to discover what is right - reasoning excellently)
–> St Paul: “everything that does not come from faith is a sin” - BUT although we must always follow what we have reasoned we can be resposinble in some cases if what we do is wrong (vincible + invincible)
8
Q
Aquinas: how can conscience be mistaken
A
- syneresis is infallible but we can make mistakes in applying this knowledge :
- vincible ignorance
- invincible ignorance
9
Q
Aquinas:vincible ignorance
A
- lack of knowledge where a person can be held responsible because they should have known better
- blameworthy bc ignorance couldve been avoided
- “we punish those who are ignorant of…the laws they ought to know”
10
Q
Aquinas: invincible ignorance
A
- not responsible: ignorance is beyond their control
- God will not condemn a person for II but will give them mercy through his grace
- might have done wrong bc they are insane or too young. e.g. a man who has no criminal record, mental illness… wants to buy a gun. a lady gives him the gun. he goes on a killing rampage. the lad isn’t at fault bc she couldn’t have known better.
11
Q
+ve of Aquinas: 1. provides a complete expl of conscience
A
- explains how conscience comes about (how we gain moral knowledge +how we apply this to moral dilemmas)
- how our conscience acquires moral content
- how conscience can go wrong
- provides a compl expl of what role ‘the divine’ plays in conscience
- this provides an alternative to other Christian theories (such as Newman- conscience is a voice from God) which see it simply as a voice from God . it is widely accepted in the Catholic Church
12
Q
-ve of Aquinas: 1. relies on existence of God
A
- relies on God which is difficult to prove
–> if naturalism is true (belief that everything arises from natural properties + supernatural/spiritual beliefs are discounted) then his theory is false bc God is ruled out - there are vastly different moral beliefs across cultures; this is called descriptive moral relativism.
–> Fletcher: there is no innate God-given ability to reason bc if this was the case there would be more moral agreement
–> Freud: society conditions our moral views. There either is no natural moral law or human reason is unable to discover it. - So, what Aquinas thought was human nature was really just his culture.
13
Q
+ve of Aquinas: 2: provides a reason WHY we may fail to do good our conscience can be mistaken
A
- he explains our conscience can be mistaken
–> explains whether we are morally blameworthy or not
–> if we act despite vincible ignorance, we hold a degree of accountability for our actions - he acknowledges why we may do bad things- mistakes in conscientia^, original sin (supported by Calvin: conscience is wounded due to the fall so we need Christ’s mercy and God’s grace- we are more likely to make errors of judgement), lacking virtue and a corrupt culture.
- means this is better than other religous theories like Augustine or Newman because although they are simple, arguing conscience is just a voicde from God, they do not explain why our conscience is mistaken and why we do wrong- if it is a voice from God, surely we cannot do wrong.
14
Q
-ve of Aquinas:2: does not take into account emotions and feelings AND too optimistic about human nature
A
- makes this less realistic that we will always think rationally and make unbiased reasoned judgements (esp in issue of medical ethics)
- terrible things humans have done and that entire cultures have embraced, e.g. slavery and Nazism, it starts to look like human nature is not as positive as Aquinas thought.
- If we really had an orientation towards the good and the primary precepts accurately described our nature’s orientation, then we should not expect to find the extent of human evil we do.
–> instead we should consider that conscience is a product of living in society- something we have created: philo Adam smith: conscience is a “mirror of social feeling” - unconnected to the divine
–> Freud also argues conscience is a construct of the mind which responds to an externally imposed authority by internalising the disapproval of others
15
Q
+ve of Aquinas: 3: his views on conscience highlight the challenges of moral decision making
A
- he was a relativist and argued we should approach moral situations differently (no right way to act- we must use our reason to determine this)
- he accepts its not where we are told what is right/wrong
- he notes that you can cultivate synderesis yourself, but that this is a habit which will take time.
- as he highlights the difficulty, this is relatable to humans as we do often find it difficult, so a more relatable thoery, and this is better than other theories(dont use this if already mentioned in essay but) such as Augustine’s which says it is a voice from God telling us good/bad and such as Newman’s’s theory that conscience is just a voice from God telling us what to do- which would be easy, as we would be told the good and bad - he said it was the “aboriginal vicor of Christ” whcih tells us what to do
16
Q
+ve of Aquinas: 3: we can cultivate synderesis and conscientia ourselves
A
- we can do this so they become a habitual part of moral decision making
- argued w need to keep following process of using ratio, synderesis and conscientia to apply our moral knowledge to activity in every moral dilemma we face.
- supported by Piaget’s idea: conscience is not intuitive but is developed through experiences and conditioning, as Aq argued children don’t have a full formed conscience. Piaget says that there are 2 types of conscience: immature conscience (ages 5-10) and mature conscience (11+)
17
Q
-ve of Aquinas: 3: too much reliance on human reason
A
- Aquinas is a proponent of natural theology through reason which he claimed could support faith in God. Human reason can gain knowledge of God’s natural moral law through the ability of human reason to know the synderesis rule and primary precepts.
–> Karl Barth argued that Aquinas’ natural law theory was a false natural theology which placed a dangerous overreliance on human reason. Barth argued that if humans were able to know God or God’s morality through their own efforts, then revelation would be unnecessary. Yet, God clearly thought revelation necessary as he sent Jesus.
–> Barth: “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”; our finite minds cannot grasp God’s infinite being. Whatever humans discover through reason is therefore not divine so to think it is must then amount to idolatry – the worship of earthly things. Barth argued idolatry can lead to worship of nations and then even to movements like the Nazis. It follows for Barth that after the corruption of the fall, human reason cannot reach God or figure out right and wrong by itself. Only faith in God’s revelation in the bible is valid.
- CA: Aquinas is only suggesting that reason can understand the natural law God created within our nature. If reason only has this goal of supporting faith in such ways, then it cannot make revealed theology unnecessary.
–> Tillich defends Aquinas to a degree, arguing that Barth was too negative in denying the possibility of reason discovering anything whatsoever of the natural law.
