Conscience Flashcards
What is Aquinas’ theological approach to conscience? (Ratio + theological)
- Conscience is based on the principle of reason and entails action of the mind performed in the here and now.
- God created us with RATIO: reason placed in every person as a result of being created in the image of God.
o Our conscience becomes ‘practica ratio’: a practical aspect of reason which supports a moral agent in making decisions (rather than speculative). Developed by development of virtues (e.g prudence), allowing a growth in intellectual skills of understanding, judgement and good deliberation.
o Conscience is thus in the MIND: humanity has an inner faculty, given by God, which supports the comprehension of the eternal law.
o We are the way we are because of the will of God, and God willed that we have the skills of intellect and the potential for good.
§ Thus we have a duty to follow our conscience, even if this leads to an objectively wrong decision.
What are the criticisms of ratio/theological approach?
- God: based on religious belief- relies on God to give us reason and an inclination towards good. Does not provide an atheistic grounding for conscience.
o However, reason is not the voice of God, just God-given, so hypothetically could be used regardless of religion. The ability to do right and avoid evil is God given, but it is up to us to use our reason to bring this about. Our conscience is not the ‘voice of God’, it is reason that ‘speaks’ to us.
o It was the voice of God for Cardinal Newman (19th c): we hear the voice of God speaking to us when when we’re ashamed- this is our conscience. Butler also thinks conscience is a God-given principle of reflection, thus can never be wrong. We might experience a ‘counterfeit’ conscience which is influenced by e.g our own inward desires. True conscience will almost always be in line with official Church teaching. - Not everyone may have the same level of reason he describes, e.g lower/higher levels of reasoning because all humans are unique.
• BUT we all have the basic power of reason in us - basic human function (arguably instilled in us by God). Explains why there is widespread agreement on key elements of morality e.g don’t lie/don’t murder.
• Freud: doesn’t believe our moral thinking comes from ‘orderly human reason’ but from unconscious instincts that have been repressed through childhood experiences. Implies conscience and morality is more instinctive than reasoned.
• Reason can be unreliable: humans are imperfect and can have faulty reasoning which leads to wrong decisions. There is a sensuality within us which tempts is to do evil e.g the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.
• KARL BARTH: Aquinas is dangerous for relying on human reason. Reason is corrupted by original sin and is therefore dangerously unreliable.
• Aquinas would say you have reasoned incorrectly - following apparent goods - vincible and invincible ignorance.
What did Aquinas propose about synderesis and conscientia?
Draws on 2 terms in the Bible and makes a subtle distinction between them:
- SYNDERESIS: inner principle directing a person towards good and away from evil.
o This is part of God’s will, and is natural in all beings. It is infallible: can never be wrong to do good and avoid evil.
o There is also sensuality within us that tempts us to evil e.g Garden of Evil, but humans lean away from this for the most part (although it can sometimes interfere with our use of reason)
- CONSCIENTIA: How we interpret ‘synderesis’: the intellectual process of forming moral judgements in a given circumstance, includes skill of prudence.
o Here errors can be made (not infallible), we might be mistaken or misuse our reason.
SYNDERESIS AND CONSCIENTIA COME TOGETHER TO FORM THE CONSCIENCE.
o Part of Aquinas’ definition of ‘good’ is ‘rationally chosen’, so if we follow our reason we will always do ‘good’, even if it is the ‘wrong’ choice. Thus if we don’t follow reason we are seeking something other than what is ‘good’: this is a sin. ONCE THE CONSCIENCE HAS REASONED, WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW IT.
§ Links to Aquinas’ belief in importance of free will: agents capable of rational decisions. God expects us to use this and be more than creatures that follow irrational urges.
What are the criticisms of synderesis and conscientia?
- Aquinas is overly optimistic about human nature when he claims that it has an orientation towards the good. Look at the terrible things humans have done throughout history, e.g. slavery and Nazism. If synderesis really existed in our nature, we should not expect to find the extent of moral evil that we do.
• Aquinas’ claim is merely that human nature contains an orientation towards the good, not an actual commitment to do more good than evil, nor to evil acts or cultures occurring infrequently. - FLETCHER - DESCRIPTIVE MORAL RELATIVISM: implies an objective understanding of good and evil, that they are naturally instilled in us (Synderesis). We see that these concepts (of good/evil) are often culture bound, and are not common across all of humanity e.g some societies promote child marriage, but considered abhorrent in many Western countries. Fletcher: evidence that there is not an innate god-given ability to reason, as otherwise we would expect more moral agreement.
- Psychological accounts of human behaviour seem more accurate, such as that our moral views result from our social conditioning. Skinner argued this.
What did Aquinas propose as the reasons why humans commit wrongful acts?
Optimistic about HN: don’t deliberately choose acts that they know are evil, rather we make mistakes and pursue apparent goods.
All wrong acts arise from IGNORANCE:
VINCIBLE IGNORANCE: lack of knowledge for which a person is responsible. These are things a person is expected to know. E.g if somebody commits adultery, they have incorrectly applied their reason and believed that on some level adultery is ‘good’.
However, they should have known the Divine Law e.g. “do not commit adultery”. They are responsible for this lack of knowledge.
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE: lack of knowledge for which a person is not responsible, when we cannot reasonably foresee the consequences of our action. Aquinas gives the example of a man, sleeping with somebody other than his wife but whom he mistakenly believes is his wife (and she believes that he is her husband). This is not something he should be held morally responsible for.
Also includes people who are not fully conscious of their decision making e.g young children, extreme mental illness (though notoriously difficult to measure).
What are the criticisms of vincible/invincible ignorance?
- OPTIMISTIC VIEW OF HN/MISTAKES: explains how conscience can sometimes be incorrect- wrong use of reason, following apparent goods. Sympathetic to cases where the ‘right’ action is unknowable, as is often the case. Shows how we can determine someone’s responsibility.
- KARL BARTH: false natural theology that places too much emphasis on human reason. Aquinas is dangerous for relying on human reason. Reason is corrupted by original sin and is therefore dangerously unreliable.
- TILLICH: defends Aquinas, Barth was too negative in denying the possibility of reason discovering anything whatsoever of the natural law.
- Aquinas would say you have reasoned incorrectly - following apparent goods - vincible and invincible ignorance.
- Cop out?
What is Freud’s critique of religion’s approach to conscience?
- Religion can be praised for advocating repression, causing people to repress their anti-social instincts (e.g for sex/violence).
- Yet Freud thought the Christian belief system had long passed its usefulness as a secular society would be far superior at enabling self-control – better outgrowing religion.
• Religion is constructed out of our own needs and desires, similar to A.J Ayer’s statement that talking about religious experience ‘merely gives us indirect information about the condition of [one’s] own mind’. - Freud: religion does not amount to claims about reality but rather strategies for controlling instincts - belief in and propagation of the idea that human nature is corrupted by original sin is really just a method of dealing with our natural instincts. Viewing humanity as inherently sinful and only God as good, who easily forgives sins, does not provide the proper motivation for following religious social rules, causing frequent “backslidings into sin” and seeking of penance. (Use as critique of KARL BARTH)
- Better approach is AUTONOMY: people can rationally understand that repressing instincts is good for social order – autonomously follow social rules happily.
- The effectiveness of religious rules as tools for social order depends on the notion that a God has decreed them, which inexorably burdens religious social order with the psychology of external imposition and the inflexibility of eternal unchanging ‘laws of God’.
How does Aquinas’ natural law ethics (arguably) get around this critique?
- Aquinas’ natural law ethics arguably gets around Freud’s critique, because Aquinas thought that following of the natural law did involve the engagement of a person’s rationality with God’s eternal law in a way that enabled their virtue and flourishing. It’s not simply externally imposed and there is a degree of flexibility in the application of the primary precepts and use of the double effect.
- Perhaps Freud’s critique only really works against approaches to the conscience like Augustine’s where it simply involves an external imposition of God’s law.
What is Freud’s approach to the conscience? (Intro + psychic apparatus)
Freud suggests the conscience is a product of psychological factors. Primarily an emotional imprint, formed by early childhood development.
• Unlike Aquinas, who asked what conscience is and how we should use it, Freud asks why we feel guilt and culpability.
• The clash between the id, ego and super-ego is what leads to the phenomena of guilt and conscience. (Note ‘phenomena’).
• Conscience is the process of internalising parental prohibitions and demands, so that they seem to come from within ourselves. This is what creates the ‘super-ego’.
The human personality is formed in the unconscious and consists of 3 aspects – calls it the ‘psychic apparatus’.
- Id. the unconscious self, contains basic desires and drives, driven by the pleasure principle and seeks immediate gratification. One driver is libido (sexual desires).
- Ego. the conscious self, seen by the outside world and the thinking we are most conscious of; driven by the reality principle. As it is not socially acceptable to always seek the desires of the id, we learn to keep them in check. The ego mediates between the id and superego.
- Superego (ego-ideal). something within the ego which represses desires - a reaction to the id. The superego is a set of moral controls and ideas given by authority and often opposed by the id, typically developed by socialisation. When rules are fulfilled, a sense of pride, accomplishment and affirmation occurs. Yet, when rules are not fulfilled, a sense of criticism, punishment and guilt occurs. Freud was particularly interested in the superego.
- Freud suggests: “it has long been our contention that dread of society is the essence of what is called the conscience.
- For Freud, the conscience is the superego and can be explained psychologically. It is formed by society, particularly by parents. It essentially gives an inhabitation to a moral agent against breaking ‘taboo’ - an external or societal prohibition.
What are the critique’s of Freud’s approach to the conscience? (Intro + psychic apparatus)
- Plausible: suggests that we get our moral sense and guilt from upbringing or authority figures. No doubt that our early experiences shape our world picture, even if there is doubt about how this shaping takes place.
- Offers an explanation for differences in moral thinking. By suggesting conscience is linked to upbringing and culture, it seems logical that differences may arise.
- Not falsifiable: Karl Popper, Freud is ‘pseudo-scientific’ - much of psychology is not scientific because it discusses what happens in the mind e.g if I say I do not feel an overwhelming sense of guilt, then a Freudian might reply that my ego had repressed this sense and that my denial was evidence for its existence.
- Moral responsibility: if our behaviours/judgements are a result of conflict in our subconscious (which we all have due to collective unconscious), could we ever hold someone accountable for their actions (especially since the act of judging is a consequence of repressing similarly dark urges)? Freud fails to adequately answer this.
What is Freud’s approach to the conscience? (Psychosexual development, oedipus complex + guilt)
Humans go through a process of psychosexual development (different stages at which we become aware of our libido).
• Babies are ‘all id’, for which libido (sex-drive) is a fundamental part.
• For Freud, we are all innately sexual beings who go through ‘stages’ of psychosexual development: oral (based on love of being nursed at the breast), anal (ability to control own bowels), phallic (fascination with sexual organs)- then a period of latency where a child ignores their sexual urges before puberty.
• Sexual nature re-emerges at puberty but along with subconscious recollections of parental and societal warnings to ignore sexual feelings: child is no longer ‘all id’. Time of sexual experimentation: ‘genital’ stage.
Another aspect = Oedipus complex - in a male’s pre-sexual development, the child develops a fixation for his mother and views his father as an obstacle to the fulfilment of these sexual desires.
(Jung later develops the Elektra complex. This is where a girl desires her father and wishes to kill, her mother. Another aspect is a realisation that she does not have a penis. Thus, she develops penis envy and a desire to a boy.)
The child is both fearful and jealous. These feelings are repressed and cause guilt and shame.
We are filled with guilt when we go against our superego. Thus, when we are talking about the conscience, we are not talking about the right thing to do’, instead we are talking about guilt because of the super ego. It may have nothing to do with morality, merely just the interplay between the id, ego and super ego.
What are the criticisms of Freud’s approach to the conscience? (Psychosexual development, oedipus complex + guilt)
- God/religion: provides an atheistic, (supposedly) scientific explanation for a conscience without the physical existence of God. One of the first to do so. (Add in separate point on his critique of religion’s approach to the conscience)
- Aquinas natural law ethics getting around this critique? Following of the natural law did involve the engagement of a person’s rationality with God’s eternal law in a way that enabled their virtue and flourishing.
- Not scientific: no empirical evidence for a ‘collective unconscious’ (if it is indeed unconscious then how can we even speak authoritatively about it?), or Oedipus Complex. Scientific basis is widely disputed.
o Goes against Ockham’s Razor: if we found a theory for guilt less based on hypotheses it’s more likely to be correct. - Limited experimental basis: many of the cases upon which he makes his conclusions were largely female, middle-class Viennese patients. Not all families would have the same upbringing as these patients e.g no contact or knowledge of fathers- such children may have a different conception of God from the way they view their fathers e.g look to God for solace.
o More research conducted by recent psychologists with greater empirical evidence: Piaget: contemporary psychologist who developed better, empirical methods than Freud but came to similar conclusions, arguably defending Freud from the accusation he is unscientific. Perhaps Freud was bound by the experimental availabilities of his time?
o belief of the immature (age 5-10 guilty feelings which come with disciplining and seeking approval of others) and mature (11+ outward-looking challenges and questions authority, forms our own rules ) consciences. Like Freud suggesting guilt is a psychological issue to be overcome. - Nonetheless, still sexist and reductionist: male-oriented ideas, Oedipus Complex accounts for men- women here are passive victims. (Freud did suggest an Electra Complex, sleep with fathers etc. but argument for this is thinner). Also ideas of ‘sexual desire’ are always linked to heterosexual intercourse
Does the conscience exist at all or is it instead an umbrella term covering various factors involved in moral decision-making, such as culture, environment, genetic predisposition and education?
CONSCIENCE EXISTS:
CONSCIENCE DOES EXIST:
- Differing opinions on conscience = no commonality (reason vs voice of God vs internalised repressed instincts). If it was real there would be more similarities in the accounts.
- Presupposes belief in God - not reliable. Aquinas, Newman and Augustine. Aquinas- the conscience is a guide, it is the “application of knowledge to activity.” Yet, much of this account was underpinned by a belief in God. Relevant in increasingly secular modern world?
- Even when religion is disregarded, Freud’s evidence is not empirical + convincing. Limited sample, DTG. Popper = pseudo-scientific, claims are unverifiable.
- Appearance of morality/conscience has an evolutionary explanation. Dawkins: humans are nothing more than ‘bytes and bytes of DNA’. Sense of morality may be genetic, but it is not something in and of itself - a ‘conscience’.
Fletcher - ‘verb not a noun’ - not something of substance, but a sum of action. Doing what is most agapeic in each situation.
Does the conscience exist at all or is it instead an umbrella term covering various factors involved in moral decision-making, such as culture, environment, genetic predisposition and education?
CONSCIENCE DOES NOT EXIST:
CONSCIENCE DOESN’T EXIST:
RELIGIOUS EVIDENCE:
- AUGUSTINE + NEWMAN - conscience is as much part of our psychology as memory, reason, and imagination - arguing it would be odd to discount the existence of these, so why the conscience?
- NEWMAN: conscience is intuitive - in following conscience you follow divine law. Evidence for its existence as there is feeling of shame when ignored.
- Deguara’s (2019) research shows that Christians feel shame when ‘living in sin’.
- Many Christians may also turn to Revealed Theology to support their claims that conscience exists, for them this has authority. For example, Romans 2:15.
Freud has merits e.g drawing links between conscience and guilt, empirical evidence in the form of Piaget.
Explains why moral thinking differs between cultures and upbringing - plausible
Bowie claims that in whatever form it may exist conscience ‘does matter’ and is something that exists.
He cites several social and political movements that ‘in conscience’ have undertaken significant acts e.g., Suffragettes, Civil Rights, Environmentalism, World War Conscientious Objectors. All in some way have a sense of moral integrity that have driven them to action.
