You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Conscience is the inner court in which a person tries their own conduct — the sense, however we account for it, that some things must not be done and that having done them we stand condemned. Few topics in the AQA A-Level Ethics component (7062, Component 1B) draw together so many threads: theology and psychology, reason and emotion, divine authority and human freedom. The specification asks you to set the religious accounts of conscience (especially Aquinas, with Butler and Newman as further religious voices) against non-religious accounts (above all Freud, with Fromm and the developmental psychologists). It then asks the harder, evaluative question that runs through this whole lesson: does conscience carry genuine moral authority, such that we ought always to obey it — or is it simply the voice of upbringing, no more reliable than the parents and culture that formed it?
Key term: Conscience is the faculty, capacity or process by which a person judges the rightness or wrongness of their own actions, intentions and character. Thinkers disagree radically about its origin (God, reason, or socialisation), its nature (a faculty, a feeling, or an act of reasoning) and its authority (infallible, fallible, or merely psychological).
A clarifying distinction at the outset prevents most confusion. We can ask three separate questions about conscience: what it is (a metaphysical/psychological question), where it comes from (an origin question), and whether we should follow it (a normative question). A thinker can be confident on one and silent on another. Aquinas, for instance, gives a precise account of conscience as an act of reason yet still insists we must follow even a mistaken conscience; Freud explains conscience's origin in childhood but draws no comfortable conclusion that we ought to obey it. Keeping the three questions apart is the single most effective way to write with control on this topic.
Aquinas gives the most influential religious account, and crucially it is a rationalist one: for Aquinas, conscience is not a mysterious inner voice or a feeling but an activity of practical reason (ratio). God is its ultimate author only in the sense that God is the author of our reason; conscience is reason working. This matters because it means Aquinas's conscience can be educated, can be mistaken, and can be argued with — quite unlike Newman's "voice of God."
Aquinas distinguishes two elements. The first is synderesis (sometimes synteresis): the innate, naturally-given disposition of practical reason to pursue good and avoid evil. Synderesis is not a list of rules but the single foundational orientation — bonum est faciendum et prosequendum, et malum vitandum, "good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided." Because it is the starting principle of all moral reasoning rather than a conclusion of it, synderesis cannot err: a person whose practical reason has ceased to aim at the good has ceased to reason morally at all.
Key term: Synderesis is the innate habit (habitus) of practical reason by which a person grasps the first principle of morality — that good is to be done and evil avoided. For Aquinas it is universal and does not make mistakes.
The second element is conscientia — conscience in the everyday sense. This is reason applying the general principle to a particular act: working out, in this case, what counts as the good to be done. Conscientia is a deliberative process, effectively a practical syllogism. A worked example shows its structure: the general principle (one ought not to take what belongs to another) is combined with a judgement about the particular case (this purse belongs to another) to yield the verdict (I ought not to take this purse). Because either premise can be defective — through ignorance of fact, faulty information, or bad reasoning — conscientia is fallible. Aquinas's own example is telling: a man might judge in good conscience that he ought to commit fornication if he has been persuaded, mistakenly, that it is no sin. His conscience is genuinely binding on him, and yet it is wrong.
Key term: Conscientia is the act of practical reason applying moral knowledge to a specific situation to reach a judgement about what should be done. Unlike synderesis it can, and frequently does, err.
This produces Aquinas's most demanding claim: we are obliged to follow even an erroneous conscience. To act against conscientia is to act against what one's reason presents as good, and that is always sinful, "for whoever acts against conscience builds for hell." Yet a mistaken conscience does not simply excuse: a person is culpable if their error is one they could and should have corrected (vincible ignorance), and excused only if the ignorance was genuinely beyond their control (invincible ignorance). Hence Aquinas's twin demand — follow your conscience, and take responsibility for forming it well through study, counsel, and the moral life.
Key term: An erroneous conscience is a conscientia that issues a wrong verdict through mistaken premises. For Aquinas it still binds — one must follow it — but it excuses only when the underlying ignorance is invincible; culpable (vincible) ignorance leaves the agent responsible for the wrong they sincerely do.
It is worth stressing how far this rationalism distances Aquinas from popular notions of conscience as a feeling or hunch. Conscience does not deliver moral knowledge from on high; it reasons its way to a verdict from principles that are, in turn, knowable by natural reason (this is why the topic links directly to natural moral law). The upshot is a conscience that is dignified — it shares in the authority of reason and ultimately of God — yet thoroughly accountable, since a verdict reached by bad reasoning has no special protection. Aquinas thus occupies a middle position the other religious thinkers do not: conscience is God-related but not God-dictated, authoritative but correctable.
| Aspect | Synderesis | Conscientia |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Innate first principle of practical reason | Act of applying that principle to a case |
| Content | "Do good, avoid evil" | A specific verdict: "this act is/is not to be done" |
| Can it err? | No — it is the starting point of reasoning | Yes — through faulty premises or reasoning |
| Origin | God, as author of human reason | The person's own deliberation |
Two lines of evaluation are worth weighing. In Aquinas's favour, the synderesis/conscientia distinction elegantly explains a real feature of moral life: humans seem universally to feel the pull of "do good," yet disagree violently about what the good requires — exactly what we would expect if the first principle is shared but its application is fallible. Against him, the account arguably gives reason too much credit: if conscientia is just reasoning, it is unclear why it should feel so authoritative and emotional — the burning of guilt seems more than a noted logical error. And the duty to follow even a mistaken conscience sits uneasily with the demand to keep it correctly informed: if the Church is the arbiter of correct formation, critics charge, "follow your conscience" quietly collapses into "obey the Church."
Bishop Joseph Butler, in his Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (1726), approaches conscience not from theology downward but from human nature outward. Observing how the mind actually works, Butler argues that human nature is a system of parts arranged in a hierarchy, and that one principle is naturally fitted to govern the rest. That governing principle is conscience.
Beneath conscience sit two general principles — self-love (settled, reasonable concern for one's own happiness) and benevolence (settled concern for the good of others) — and beneath those, the particular passions (hunger, fear, anger, ambition and the rest). Crucially, Butler argues that self-love and benevolence are not opposed: properly understood, our own happiness and the good of others largely coincide, so that "the happiness of the world is the concern of Him who is the lord and the proprietor of it." But when principles do conflict, only conscience has the authority to adjudicate.
Key term: For Butler, conscience is the supreme, naturally-authoritative principle of reflection in human nature, placed in us by God to direct and superintend self-love, benevolence and the passions. It is "our natural guide, the guide assigned us by the Author of our nature."
Butler's decisive move is the distinction between power and authority. A passion may be psychologically stronger than conscience — a person can be carried away by rage or lust — but it never has conscience's right to rule. Conscience, he insists, "magisterially exerts itself" without being consulted; it pronounces sentence on our actions as of right. "Had it strength, as it has right; had it power, as it has manifest authority; it would absolutely govern the world." This separation of is (what in fact moves us) from ought (what has the right to move us) is Butler's lasting contribution.
A worked illustration makes the power/authority distinction vivid. Suppose a man is seized by a violent impulse to revenge himself on someone who has wronged him. The passion is, at that moment, the strongest thing in his mind; if strength settled the matter, he would strike. But conscience, "without being consulted," pronounces that the act is base — and that pronouncement, Butler insists, carries the right to govern even though it may lack the force to compel. The man who acts on the passion has not thereby shown that the passion was the higher principle; he has acted against his own constitution, "as really disturbed and out of order" as a watch whose mainspring drives the hands the wrong way. This is why Butler can treat wrongdoing as a kind of disorder of the self rather than merely a breach of an external rule.
Butler adds a subtle point that distinguishes him from cruder "follow your heart" moralists: he prizes cool self-love — calm, reflective concern for one's own real good — over the heat of particular passions, and he argues that cool self-love, benevolence and conscience converge. The dissipated person who chases every appetite is not even a successful egoist; they wreck the settled happiness that reasonable self-love would secure. Hence Butler's striking claim that "self-love in its due degree is as just and morally good as any affection whatever," and that there is "no inconsistency... between self-love and virtue." For Butler, then, to obey conscience is to follow our own true nature, and to disobey it is to be at war with ourselves — which is why he can argue that virtue and self-interest ultimately point the same way. Evaluatively, Butler's strength is phenomenological accuracy: he captures the felt experience that conscience speaks with an authority disproportionate to its power, and that acting against it is a kind of self-betrayal. His vulnerabilities are equally clear. He simply assumes conscience is a reliable God-given guide, yet consciences have sincerely endorsed slavery, persecution and "honour" killing; if conscience were a trustworthy divine faculty, such atrocities of conviction are hard to explain. And Butler offers no test to separate the authentic voice of conscience from deeply internalised prejudice — precisely the gap that Freud and Fromm will exploit.
Cardinal Newman, the most influential English Catholic thinker of the nineteenth century, pushes the religious account to its limit. Where Aquinas makes conscience an act of reason and Butler a natural faculty of God's design, Newman treats conscience as a direct messenger — an encounter with a divine person. In his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875) he calls conscience "the aboriginal Vicar of Christ," meaning that the inner moral voice represents Christ's authority in the soul prior to, and independently of, any external Church teaching.
Newman's reasoning runs from moral feeling to its divine source. The sense of duty, he observes, is unlike any other feeling: it carries an authority that points beyond ourselves. Above all the feelings of guilt, shame and responsibility behave as though they were owed to someone — they have, in his words, "a vivid and keen Sensibility" appropriate to a personal relationship. "If, as is the case, we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened, at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies that there is One to whom we are responsible." The phenomenology of conscience is thus, for Newman, an argument: the experience of obligation is best explained by the reality of a God who commands.
Key term: For Newman, conscience is the voice of God speaking within — a "messenger of Him who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil" — whose very existence furnishes evidence for the God to whom we feel answerable.
The evaluative balance is finely poised. Newman's argument from moral experience has real force: the distinctive, person-directed character of guilt does seem to call for explanation, and the reduction of it to mere social conditioning can feel like a redescription rather than a refutation. But three objections press hard. First, naturalistic accounts — evolutionary pressures favouring cooperation, plus childhood socialisation — can explain the feeling of answerability without positing God; the feeling that someone is watching is not proof that someone is. Second, the diversity problem is acute: if conscience is God's own voice, why does it command contradictory things to sincere people in different cultures and ages? Newman's reply — that conscience can be dulled, mis-educated or "corrupted" by sin — risks circularity, since it seems to count any conscience that disagrees with his conclusions as the corrupted kind. Third, even granting a divine source, conscience would still require interpretation, and the history of religiously-sincere atrocity shows how unsafe the unaided inner voice can be.
Freud's account is the specification's central non-religious voice, and it inverts the religious picture completely. For Freud there is no divine voice and no innate first principle of reason; what we call conscience is the super-ego, a structure of the mind built up in early childhood out of internalised external authority. The "voice of God" is, on this view, the remembered and absorbed voice of the parents — and behind them, of civilisation.
Freud's mature ("structural") model divides the psyche into three agencies:
| Component | Operates on | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Id | The pleasure principle | The unconscious reservoir of instinctual drives (libido, aggression); seeks immediate gratification |
| Ego | The reality principle | The largely conscious self that mediates between the id's demands, the super-ego's prohibitions, and external reality |
| Super-ego | The morality principle | The internalised moral authority — the "ego-ideal" plus the "conscience" — which praises, forbids and punishes with guilt |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.