Conscience Flashcards
Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory
God has designed a moral law into human nature, guiding us to act morally.
Ethics involves using reason to discover and follow this law to fulfill our purpose (telos) of glorifying God.
Primary Precepts & Synderesis
Synderesis is the ability of reason to understand fundamental moral principles.
The first principle: “The good must be done and evil avoided.”
Primary precepts: worship God, live in an orderly society, reproduce, educate, preserve human life, defend the innocent.
Secondary Precepts & Conscientia
Secondary precepts apply the primary precepts to specific situations.
Example: Euthanasia violates the precept of preserving life, so it’s wrong.
Aquinas’ View of Conscience
Conscience is the application of reason to understand and follow natural law.
Conscience operates in three ways:
Witness – Knowing if we have done something.
Bind & Incite – Conscience urges us to act.
Accuse, Torment & Rebuke – Conscience causes guilt if we’ve done wrong.
Real vs. Apparent Goods
Apparent goods seem moral but are misguided.
Aquinas insists we must follow our conscience, even if it is wrong.
Vincible vs. Invincible Ignorance
Invincible Ignorance: When a person couldn’t have known better, actions are not sinful.
Vincible Ignorance: When a person should have known better, actions are sinful.
Criticism of Aquinas’ View: There is no orientation towards the good.
Human nature’s orientation toward the good is challenged by extreme evil (e.g., slavery, Nazism).
Aquinas acknowledges human failures are due to original sin, mistakes in conscientia, or corrupt cultures.
Descriptive Moral Relativism
Different cultures have vastly different moral beliefs, known as descriptive moral relativism.
Modern anthropology shows this diversity, suggesting there may not be an innate, God-given moral law.
Criticism: lack of moral agreement (Fletcher and Freud)
Fletcher argues that the lack of moral agreement across cultures challenges the idea of a universal natural law.
Freud suggests that moral views are shaped by society, not an inherent moral law.
Cross-Cultural Moral Similarities
Despite differences, there are core similarities in moral codes across cultures (e.g., rules against killing and stealing, importance of reproduction and education).
Many cultures have similar moral principles, like the Golden Rule (treat others as you want to be treated), found in ancient Chinese Philosophy, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity.
This could suggest a universal human moral nature.
Alternative Explanations to Cross-Cultural Moral Similarities
Cross-cultural similarities may arise from biologically evolved morality, rather than a God-designed telos.
Another explanation is that these moral codes emerge from the practical needs of a functioning society (e.g., rules against killing and stealing to maintain order).
Richard Dawkins argued our moral sense partly came from evolution – which programmed us with empathy to care about other people, reproduce, educate, etc, all of which is evolutionarily advantageous for a herd species like us.
Aquinas’ Natural Theology
Aquinas believed human reason could not fully understand God but could support faith in God through natural theology.
Human reason can understand God’s natural moral law, particularly through the synderesis rule and primary precepts.
Criticism: Cant rely on human reason (Karl Barth)
Barth argued Aquinas’ natural law theory wrongly relies on human reason, making revelation unnecessary.
He believed humans cannot comprehend God’s infinite nature, and any attempt to understand God through reason amounts to idolatry.
Barth emphasised that after the Fall, human reason cannot know God or determine right and wrong; only faith in God’s revelation, such as through the Bible, is valid.
Aquinas’ Defense of Natural theology
Aquinas did not claim that human minds can understand God’s nature but only that reason can understand the natural law God embedded in human nature.
Reason’s purpose is to support faith, not replace revelation.
Tillich’s Defense of Aquinas
Tillich argued that Barth was overly negative and that human conscience can discover aspects of natural law, even if imperfectly.
He suggested that acknowledging the gap between what we are and what we could be implies a conscience that still judges us, even in our fallen state.
Denying the natural law contradicts this awareness of our moral shortcomings.
Final Criticism of Aquinas
While a misled conscience can identify some moral direction, it does not lead to God’s true morality.
The belief that humans can know God’s morality through reason is seen as the arrogance that led to events like the fall of Adam and Eve and the Nazis, highlighting humanity’s need for humility and faith.
Freud’s View on Conscience
Freud viewed the conscience as a psychological result of internal forces, not the voice of God.
The mind is divided into:
Id: unconscious desires and instincts.
Ego: conscious decision-making self.
Superego: the part of the mind that stores moral values learned from authority figures during childhood.
Conscience arises when desires from the Id are suppressed by the Superego based on societal values, not divine morality
Freud suggested that if society’s morals are flawed, so is the conscience. Thus, morality may be purely societal conditioning.
Freud’s theory of Psychosexual Development
Freud’s psychosexual development stages describe how children learn to control the Id:
Oral stage (0-1.5 years): failure leads to smoking or overeating.
Anal stage (1.5-3 years): failure leads to control issues, either overly controlling or messy.
Phallic stage (3-6 years): Oedipus/Electra complex develops; problems lead to intimacy issues.
Latency stage (6-puberty): sexual desires repressed; gender roles learned.
Genital stage (puberty onwards): mature sexual desires, fully developed conscience.
Freud’s Influence
Freud’s theory was influenced by Nietzsche’s idea that the conscious mind (Ego) emerged as a mediator between instincts (Id) and society.
Criticism: Freud is unscientific (Karl Popper)
Freud’s theory has been criticized for being unscientific and “unfalsifiable” by Karl Popper, meaning it cannot be tested or disproven.
Freud’s small sample size and lack of proper experiments make his theory unempirical.
Piaget’s Defense of Freud
Piaget, a contemporary psychologist, agreed with Freud’s basic concepts but used more empirical methods.
Piaget’s theory of moral development:
Heteronomous morality (under 11 years): children follow authority figures’ rules without understanding the reasoning behind them.
Autonomous morality (over 11 years): children develop their own moral beliefs and understand the consequences of actions.
This suggests that while Freud’s ideas were not entirely empirical, similar conclusions can be drawn from more scientifically rigorous methods like Piaget’s.
Freud’s critique of Religion: Repression of Anti-Social Instincts
Freud believed that religion helps maintain social order by repressing anti-social instincts like violence and sexual desires. While he saw this as beneficial for civilisation, he thought religion’s approach had become outdated.
Freud’s critique of Religion: Religion as a Control Strategy
Freud evaluated religious doctrines, like the concept of original sin, as strategies to control human instincts.
He considered them primitive and ineffective, arguing they cause more unhappiness and immorality than they prevent.
He believed that focusing on human sinfulness and divine forgiveness led to “backsliding” and reliance on penance, rather than encouraging real moral improvement.
Freud’s critique of Religion: Childhood Neurosis and External Imposition
Freud compared religion’s influence on conscience to treating people as children, imposing external rules that lead to unconscious resentment.
This repression causes suffering, similar to childhood neurosis, as people are controlled by external authority rather than self-understanding.
Freud’s critique of Religion: Autonomy Over Religion
Freud argued that a secular society would be better because individuals could autonomously understand the need to repress instincts for social order.
This would lead to voluntary rule-following and allow for the continuous improvement of social rules.
Freud’s critique of Religion: Criticism of Religious Social Order
Freud concluded that the effectiveness of religious rules depends on the belief that they come from God, which makes them rigid and external.
He believed society would benefit from recognising that rules are designed for social order, not divine decree.
