Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas believes that conscience is the voice of right reason. For Aquinas, reason is
central to life and morality (essential in distinguishing right from wrong). For Aquinas,
conscience was not a voice telling us what is morally right; it instead was reason
making right decisions. Conscience (reason) used correctly can therefore tell us what
God sees as right and wrong.
Aquinas beliefs centre on the Synderesis Rule, humanity always aims to do good and
avoid evil, however sometimes we make a mistake in reasoning. We follow an
apparent good instead of a real good. In the situation of following an apparent good, the conscience
has been mistaken. This idea of faulty reasoning is how Aquinas explains why people do things that
are perceived as wrong. (Consider Aquinas analogy of the man who sleeps with another mans wife
or the broader analogy of Hitler) Aquinas splits his understanding of conscience in too two main
parts: synderesis (right reason aiming for good) and conscientia (distinguishing right and wrong; the
process of deriving secondary precepts through use of the conscience).
The constant application of our conscience to derive secondary precepts eventually, over time,
guides us towards what is good and away from what is bad; Aquinas refers to this as gaining the
virtue of prudence. Building up prudence allows us to make moral decisions that are morally correct.
Aquinas didnt believe that the actions of conscience were always correct; although he did believe
that as long as you follow the moral principles that your conscience has shown you then you are
following the correct course of action. However, he realised that principles are flawed on occasions,
and therefore so must conscience be on these occasions also. Reason is a valuable tool, but part of
its being is that on occasion we will reason incorrectly and our conscience must be to some
extent flawed in these situations.
STRENGTHS:
WEAKNESSES:
If decisions are left to reason then we can do anything and claim that we have reasoned it is
morally correct (for example Hitlers approach to racial purity)
Aquinas rationalistic approach does not sit well with Christians!
1
This theory links well with G.E Moore ideas in Meta Ethics. We know what good means for
Moore by intuition. Butler has just extended this with conscience also intuitively telling us
what is good on top of what good means. Therefore, perhaps conscience tells us what is
good and what bad and: that is the end of the matter.
Does this theory combine reason and intuition (God) in a practical and coherent manner? It
can be said that Butler manages to provide a realistic view of conscience that still sustains
theological ideas and doesnt blame God for wrongful decisions (its our fault as we have
fooled our conscience)
If God is telling us the right thing through conscience, then this could provide an interesting
response to the problem of evil. It comes from people refusing to follow their conscience.
WEAKNESSES
Is it possible to fool our conscience without willing to do so? In extreme circumstances, our
emotions can cloud our judgement: in this point can our conscience also be clouded too?
Can we lose this intuitive guide if we have certain mental psychological diseases?
If conscience is a guide given from God, then why do some people not appear to have a
conscience? Take for example Jamie Bulger, many modern thinkers say he does not have a
conscience (and due to being so young it can not be that he fooled his conscience). What
would this suggest about God if he has not given some people this intuitive guide to let them
know how to do good? Or, can our intuitive conscience be overridden by our societys values
and our upbringing.
2
The ideas of Newman have many theological supporters. St Paul originally believed that the:
requirements of the law are written on their (humans) heats. St Augustine also believed
that conscience is Gods law written on our heart, it is innate law that is like the voice of
God. The conscience therefore, for Augustine, is also the supreme and moral guide and
cannot lead us astray.
WEAKNESSES:
Some theological ideas however have also challenged Newman. Although believing
conscience was innate and the voice of God, Paul believed that conscience could sometimes
be weak and therefore mistaken. Paul realised that we can override our conscience.
However, this was not a bad thing. Furthermore, for Paul this does not shine negativity on
God in anyway. This fits in well with ideas of free will, God has made us free but has given us
a conscience so that we know what is right and from there we can choose how to act.
If conscience is the voice of God, then why do we disagree on matters of conscience? Why
do we have so many different diverse views? (see page 6 for further analysis of this point)
Can such a religious approach really explain how moral decisions are made? Morality is a
universal issue however not everyone is religious. Therefore, should morality actually be
based on religion? This seems a bit narrow an approach.
The belief takes the existence of God as a pre-requisite. The existence of God cannot be
proved and can be bought in to question; therefore how reliable a basis is it for conscience
and moral decision making. We may think that conscience is the voice of God however this
may be an illusion. If it is an allusion then what really are we listening to and how reliable is
this? Or perhaps just the notion of conscience is an illusion because we fear having no
guidance with such a complex issue such as morality.
3
Freuds work has gained support from the late work of Piaget. Piaget claimed that we can
break from the authority at the age of ten, and at this point we can try and rid our
conscience and the associate feelings of guilt for not following our parents, teachers etc
Freuds view of conscience fits with modern scientific developments that suggest we can be
shaped by our experiences as a child
WEAKNESSES:
Piaget also proposes that Freuds view may be too limited and conscience may be able to
remain meaningful and reliable after the age of ten, but just in a different form that does not
depend on the authority of outside figures.
If not by conscience how do we know what is right? Freud fails to answer this question.
Therefore, is his theory doing nothing more than just dirtying the waters?
Fromm considers all aspects of the conscience when considering his conclusions, and
therefore does not reject the pessimistic or optimistic sides of the soul as all other thinkers
do respectively.
Fromms view seems practical in application, for example with Hitler. Also The Milgram
experiment shows us that some people can break away from the authoritarian conscience,
as we should do as humans to return to the humanitarian conscience.
WEAKNESSES:
Can we believe that we have been called back to the humanitarian conscience when infact
we have not? If the authority is clever then it still may be able to control us without us even
realising it. We may think that we are acting under a reliable moral guide, although the truth
may be entirely different. Is the humanitarian conscience just idealism? Is the authoritian
conscience the reality, even if we do not want to admit it?
Are the authoritarian conscience and humanitarian conscience completely separate? Is it not
possible that they can be acting together? Can we be being called and controlled at the
same time? Or it may be suggested that this calling is a form of authority, the authority of
our human nature (perhaps the authority of God).
5
CHRISTIAN A
CHRISTIAN B
So who has the correct view in conscience? Why can there be more than
two views on the same situation and both believe that their views are a
matter of conscience?
Consider how this impacts the theories of Newman, Freud, Aquinas, Fromm
and Butler. What would their approaches suggest?
Also, what does it suggest about the reliability of conscience?
Happy revising!