Until now, we have discussed law as ethical guide to human action. Laws are external guides to men. In contrast, conscience acts as an internal moral guide to them. Conscience comes into play when mind passes a judgement on the rightness and wrongness of a particular act. Conscience can morally judge past actions, present action and those under contemplation. Conscience is different from moral laws. Moral laws are general and cover many actions. Conscience applies laws and rules to particular actions. Conscience in a way completes human individuality or ego or selfhood. Both ego and conscience can think about actions, ascertain their meaning and evaluate their moral worth.
Historical Evolution of Ideas on Conscience
The concept of conscience used in moral philosophy has changed considerably over time. In fact, the earlier views on conscience have been discarded. Both Aristotle and Stoics described human consciousness (recognition) of moral value and of moral law simply as reason, or the ruling part of the soul. It is the scholastic writers who propounded the doctrine of conscience as a special form of knowledge of moral laws which God reveals to human soul. This theory of conscience or of moral knowledge is called intuitional. Its chief tenet is that the knowledge of good and wrong is immediate or intuitive, and not as stated by the empirical view of conscience, the result of processes of association and reflection. That conscience is innate or inborn is also usually associated with this view.
Joseph Butler is the most prominent writer on the subject of conscience. According to Butler, God gives men conscience. It should be the final authority for human actions. But unlike other social science concepts, conscience cannot be operationised---there is no way of discovering it or knowing how it works in actual practice. For example, attitudes can be studied using methods of social science research. But we cannot study conscience that way.
How is conscience conceptualized by different thinkers? We list a few views.
• St Paul: Conscience is a God-given ability in all human beings to know and choose the good.
• Aquinas: Conscience is knowledge of human nature and primary moral precepts or fundamental moral ideas.
• Butler: Conscience is a God-given ability to reason, our ‘natural guide’ with ultimate authority.
• Newman: Conscience is ‘the voice of God’ planted in us before we could reason. It is an intuition, the ‘law of the mind’. Intuition is sixth sense, something we know without relying on logic or conceptual thinking.
• Freud: Conscience is the ‘superego’, guilt resulting from disobeying moral ideas planted in us by authority figures like parents. It is part of the subconscious mind. The ego (conscious self awareness of oneself or personality) is in charge in a healthy person, not the conscience.
• Piaget: Conscience develops over time. It is a part of a healthy human mind.
St Paul, Aquinas, Butler and Newman all agree that the conscience comes from God and should have ultimate authority over what we do. Aquinas and Butler see reason as an essential part of this, but Newman thinks it is intuitive. Freud and Piaget explain conscience without reference to God.
Conscience, moral reason, moral sense, or divine reason often means the same. These terms are used in this manner in old books on Ethics.
Conscience is a reflective principle. It judges morally what we did and want to do. All ordinary human beings have a sense of right. According to Butler, it is an aspect of human reason or of sentiments. Conscience has a unique authority among the principles belonging to human nature. It should direct other principles and not vice-versa.
Conscience is closely connected to autonomy of individual’s moral insight. It signifies being motivated by our inner sense of moral rightness and wrongness, and not by external considerations such as moral law, duty, obligation, or virtue. It is uninfluenced by fear of punishment or hope of reward.
Conscience is a principle superior to and governing particular passions, emotions, and instincts. There are various parts to human nature, and these are organised hierarchically. The part of human nature that is at the top of this hierarchy is conscience. The two principles of human nature at work are: self-love, that is, is a desire for happiness in the self; and benevolence, that is, desire or hope for happiness in other people. Conscience adjudicates between these two principles. This is an intrinsic part of human nature. This guidance is intuitive. It is a gift from God, and as such, its guidance is not an option. It has universal authority in all moral judgments.
Objections to Butler’s Views
There have been many objections to Butler’s ideas. Some of these criticisms are essentially against the very concept of conscience. Sidgwick argues that conscience really is neither an independent nor a distinct moral principle. Suppose it is reasonable to obey conscience. Then “the rules prescribed by conscience” are either reasonable on their own or they are “the dictates of an arbitrary authority”. If the latter, how can one justify the arbitrary authority? But if the
former, there is no independent moral authority for conscience. Conscience becomes another name for reason.
There is no clear justification for the supremacy of conscience. Intuition is not infallible – the conscience could be misinformed or even wrong. Without an appeal to external, objective moral yardsticks, Butler’s idea may lead to moral anarchy. An individual can intuit what is best regardless of the moral character of an action. The appeal to intuitive conscience is self- authenticating or self certifying. It has its authority from within itself. It is, however, possible to rebut this criticism by pointing out that men are altruistic and benevolent, and will not use conscience in support of immoral actions.