You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Is conscience the voice of God, the voice of reason, or merely the internalised voice of those who raised us? Few concepts are appealed to so confidently and understood so variously. The AQA specification asks for religious and non-religious accounts of conscience and for an assessment of its value as a moral guide, and it pivots on a single sharp contrast: the broadly rational/theological tradition descending from Aquinas, Butler and Newman, which treats conscience as a faculty oriented towards real moral truth (and, for the theologians, as in some sense the voice of God), against the psychological account of Freud, who reduces it to the super-ego — a deposit of childhood authority with no access to objective morality. This lesson sets out each position precisely, brings in Fromm and the developmental psychology of Piaget (and Kohlberg), and asks throughout the question the specification cares about most: how reliable a guide to moral truth is conscience?
St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) gives the most influential account in the Christian tradition, and its defining feature is that, for Aquinas, conscience is an activity of reason (ratio), not a feeling, an intuition or a mysterious inner voice. He distinguishes two elements. Synderesis is the innate disposition — a habitus, a stable orientation of the practical intellect — to "do good and avoid evil"; it grasps the first principle of practical reason immediately and cannot err, and from it the precepts of the natural law are derived. Conscientia is the act of applying that knowledge to a particular case — the concrete judgement "this act, here and now, is to be done / to be avoided". Where synderesis is infallible, conscientia is fallible: it can go wrong through ignorance, haste or faulty reasoning, reaching a mistaken verdict about what the good requires in the instance.
Key term: Synderesis: in Aquinas, the innate and infallible disposition of practical reason to pursue good and avoid evil, grasping the first moral principles.
Key term: Conscientia: in Aquinas, the act of conscience — the application of moral knowledge to a particular case, issuing the concrete judgement that a given act is to be done or avoided; unlike synderesis, conscientia can err.
Several implications follow that examiners look for. First, because conscience is reason at work, moral error is intellectual error — a failure to reason rightly from sound principles to the case in hand — not (as for Freud) a quirk of upbringing. Second, Aquinas holds that one must always follow one's conscience, even when it is mistaken, because to act against one's sincere judgement of what is right is to choose what one believes to be evil; yet — crucially — one is not thereby excused for every wrong done in good conscience, because one also has a prior duty to form one's conscience well. Here his distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance does the work: where the ignorance behind a mistaken conscience could and should have been overcome by reasonable effort (vincible), the agent is culpable for the resulting wrong; where it could not reasonably have been overcome (invincible), the agent is blameless. Third, Aquinas explains why good people do bad things partly through his notion that the will pursues things under the "appearance of good" (sub specie boni): no one chooses evil as such, but a mistaken conscientia can present a wrong as good, so that "a mistaken conscience binds" — one is obliged to follow it, even as one remains answerable for the negligence that misled it.
A worked illustration shows how the machinery operates and why it matters for decision-making. Suppose a person must decide whether to lie to protect a friend from harm. Synderesis supplies the unargued first principles — good is to be pursued, evil avoided — and the natural-law precepts derived from it, including the wrongness of deception and the duty to protect the innocent. Conscientia is then the reasoning to a verdict in this concrete case: it weighs the precept against lying, the circumstances, the likely consequences and any relevant distinctions (is this a malicious falsehood, or the withholding of the truth from someone with no right to it?), and issues the judgement "in this case I should / should not lie." That judgement can be mistaken — the agent may misjudge the situation or reason carelessly — which is why Aquinas insists conscience must be educated: by study, by seeking counsel, by attending to the moral wisdom of the community and the Church. This is the deep difference from Freud: where Freud's conscience simply fires with inherited approval or guilt, Aquinas's conscience deliberates, and can be argued with, corrected and improved — which is also why, for Aquinas, the cultivation of prudence (practical wisdom) is essential to acting well, since prudence is precisely the virtue that perfects conscientia's reasoning from principle to particular act.
Joseph Butler (1692–1752), Anglican bishop and moral philosopher, argued in his Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (1726) that human nature is a system of principles — particular passions, the general principle of self-love, the principle of benevolence — over which conscience is set as the highest, with a natural authority and "superintendency" to direct and adjudicate the rest. His central claim is not about conscience's power but its authority: even when passion or self-interest overwhelms it in fact, conscience retains the right to govern. In his memorable formulation, "had it strength, as it has right; had it power, as it has manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the world." Butler holds this faculty to be God-given — implanted in our nature as our guide — and his account is more intuitive than Aquinas's: conscience delivers an immediate verdict of approval or disapproval on actions, "a sentiment of the understanding or a perception of the heart", which we recognise at once even when we disobey it. Butler also mounts a famous argument against psychological egoism (the view that we always act from self-interest), distinguishing self-love from the particular passions and insisting that genuine benevolence is a real and irreducible part of our nature — a point relevant to whether conscience can be more than disguised self-interest. Tellingly, Butler thought that, "in a cool hour", rightly understood self-love and conscience point the same way — that virtue and our true long-term interest ultimately coincide — so that following conscience is not finally a sacrifice of the self but its fulfilment; this optimistic harmony of duty and interest is itself a contested claim, since hard cases seem to set genuine moral demands directly against the agent's good. Butler's deeper purpose is theological and anti-reductive: he is showing, against thinkers like Hobbes who reduced human motivation to self-interest, that our nature is constitutively moral — that conscience is not an alien imposition on a fundamentally selfish animal but the governing principle of a nature designed (by God) for virtue.
Key term: Conscience as authority (Butler): the view that conscience is the supreme principle within human nature, possessing a rightful authority to direct all other motives — whether or not it has the power to enforce its verdicts.
The standard criticisms are pointed. Butler offers no method for resolving conflicts between different people's consciences: if conscience is self-authenticating and its verdicts immediate, how do we adjudicate when my conscience approves what yours condemns? The appeal to its authority can look circular — conscience is authoritative because it has authority — and the assumption that an intuitive faculty reliably tracks the true good, rather than merely the values we happen to have absorbed, is precisely what Freud will deny.
John Henry Newman (1801–1890), the Victorian theologian and cardinal (canonised in 2019), develops the most explicitly theological account. For Newman the phenomenology of conscience — the felt sense of obligation, the shame and self-reproach when we do wrong, the peace when we do right — is the key: these are not the feelings appropriate to breaking an abstract rule but the feelings appropriate to having displeased a person, one who sees us, commands us and judges us. The best explanation of conscience's imperative, personal character is therefore that it is the voice of God within us. "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ," he wrote in the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875). From this Newman draws an argument for God's existence: the experience of conscience points beyond itself to a divine Lawgiver and Judge, much as a child's instinctive response to a parent's voice presupposes the parent — conscience is, in effect, a form of religious experience available to all.
Key term: Conscience as the voice of God (Newman): the view that the imperative, personal and judgemental character of conscience is best explained as the immediate voice of God speaking within the soul, which Newman also treats as evidence for God's existence.
Newman is equally famous for affirming the primacy of conscience even against ecclesiastical authority: in the same Letter he says that if obliged to give an after-dinner toast to religion, he would "drink to the Pope, if you please — still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards." This is not licence for caprice — Newman insists conscience must be informed and is not "the right of self-will" — but an insistence that a sincere, well-formed conscience is the ultimate subjective norm of moral action, because it is where God's voice is heard. The obvious criticism is that the argument presupposes theism: the sense of obligation is only evidence of a divine Judge if there is one, and Freud offers a rival, deflationary explanation of those very feelings — they are the pangs of the super-ego, the internalised parent, not the voice of God. A second difficulty is the unreliability problem in a theological key: if conscience were straightforwardly the voice of God, why do sincere consciences command contradictory things, and why have consciences, in good faith, endorsed persecution and cruelty? Newman's resources for answering this lie in his insistence that conscience must be informed and can be corrupted — he distinguishes true conscience from its "counterfeit", mere self-will dressed in conscience's clothes — so that the conflicting and monstrous "consciences" are malformed rather than genuine; but this concession brings his view closer to Aquinas's (conscience as needing formation and capable of error) and somewhat softens the bold claim that conscience simply is God's voice. It also raises the question of how, in practice, one tells the authentic voice from the counterfeit — a question on which Newman leans on the formation of conscience by reason, revelation and the Church.
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the founder of psychoanalysis, gives the great rival account, and the contrast with the theologians could hardly be sharper: for Freud conscience is not the voice of God or even of reason but the super-ego, a structure of the mind formed by the internalisation of external authority. On his structural model the psyche has three parts: the id, the unconscious reservoir of instinctual drives demanding gratification; the ego, the reality-oriented self that mediates between drive and world; and the super-ego, the internalised voice of parental prohibition and social norm, which judges the ego and inflicts guilt when its standards are transgressed. The super-ego forms in early childhood, Freud held, especially through the resolution of the Oedipus complex: the child, renouncing forbidden desires, internalises the authority of the parent and adopts its commands as an inner monitor. Conscience, on this account, is the residue of this process — the parent installed within.
Key term: Super-ego: in Freud's structural model, the part of the psyche that internalises parental and social prohibitions and produces guilt; Freud identifies conscience with the super-ego, making it a product of upbringing rather than a faculty of moral truth.
Freud developed the social dimension of this in Civilization and Its Discontents (1930): civilisation requires the renunciation of instinct, and the aggression that cannot be discharged outward is turned inward by the super-ego as guilt, so that the price of communal life is a permanent, often crushing, sense of bad conscience. Guilt, on this view, is not a reliable signal that one has done genuine wrong but the internal tax civilisation levies on the drives — which is why Freud thought religion, with its stern divine Father and its apparatus of sin and judgement, intensifies neurotic guilt rather than revealing moral truth.
The implications are deflationary and directly threaten the religious accounts. If conscience is the super-ego, then its commands reflect not objective moral truth but the contingent values of one's particular parents, culture and era; conscience is unreliable, liable to enforce prejudice as readily as virtue, and can be positively pathological — an overactive super-ego produces crushing, irrational guilt and neurosis. The "voice of God" Newman heard is, on this telling, the voice of one's father, misheard. The standard criticisms of Freud are, however, substantial, and a strong answer deploys them. First, the account struggles to explain moral progress and moral heroism: if conscience merely re-transmits social conditioning, how do we explain the reformers — abolitionists, those who defied Nazism or apartheid — whose consciences turned against the values they were raised in? Conscience seems able to criticise society, which a theory that derives it wholly from society cannot easily allow. Second, the theory rests on contested and hard-to-test psychoanalytic constructs (the Oedipus complex, the tripartite psyche) that much of modern empirical psychology has abandoned. Third, to explain the origin of conscience in upbringing does not, by itself, show that its deliverances are false — that would be a genetic fallacy; even a faculty installed by parents might happen to track real moral truths, just as we learn arithmetic from our teachers without that making arithmetic merely a social construct.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.