Where’s Your Conscience?

It is the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic church that the conscience is the final judge whether an action is in conformity with objective law or not.

According to Thomas Aquinas, conscience is connected to the rational faculty of man. Now, what if this rational faculty is corrupted? Remember, religious, philosophical and political beliefs, misguided idealism, malicious propaganda and poor education can corrupt a person’s rational faculty.

What happens then? Well, then conscience becomes unreliable. That is why Aquinas becomes the victim of his own theory when he defended the evils of the Inquisition “in good conscience.”

In nature…

Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican who was greatly influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle believes that human are by nature good. Benedict de Spinoza (1634-1677) also believed that men are not conditioned to live by reason alone, but by instinct. Greatly influenced by Spinoza, Giambattista Vico (1688-1744) believed that God’s law were immanent not transcendent. God places these laws in us by instinct. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) both believed that men are guided by natural law, but unlike Aquinas, they believed that reason (not conscience) is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. These ethical theories influenced Thomas Jefferson’s “inalienable rights” which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence.

However, some believed that nature could not provide the norm and pattern for moral behavior. The Lisbon earthquake of 1747 brought out a moral dilemma regarding natural moral law. Voltaire (1694-1778) asked if nature is good, then there must be no evil. John Stuart Mill suggested that ethical naturalism is blind to the obvious darker side of nature, the side marked by physical disorder and calamities, the aberration of the human heart and the tragedy of history. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) stated that the natural condition of man is war. Since the main law of nature is self-preservation, it follows that men are obliged to confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon one assembly of men that will reduce all their wills to one will. There must be someone who has the power to enforce contracts and obligation.

Going through Hobbes, John Locke, (1632-1704), like Hobbes, believe that man by nature are equal (not good). But unlike Hobbes, he believe that civil society will prosper with reason. Therefore, instead of conscience, society must set up a known authority to which everyone may appeal and obey. However, this authority should be judge in each own case. Common good is now not based in instinct and nature, but is determined by standing laws, statutes that all are aware of and agreed to.

Natural moral law is definitely a double-edged sword. If a Christian would insist that morality in embedded in nature, what do I have to lose? If that is true, then we don’t need a God to discover morality. If Darwin was right about morality, that it (like cooperation and altruism) evolved to humans (through natural selection) then who needs God.

Speaking of morality, I prefer Mr. David Ramsay Steele’s explanation regarding this issue. His view is that the structure of moral theory is just as objective as the structure of, say, medical theory. Now, practicing morality, like practicing medicine, requires an input of subjective values. In the case of morality, these values derive from empathy from other conscious beings. This empathy is in fact, almost but not quite universal among humans. (Atheism Explained – From Folly to Philosophy p.289).

6 comments

  1. And how will our conscience be "informed and moral judgment enlightened?”

    That depends…if a person believes that God and the Bible will…show to us "the truth and to the law" then it is fed up by religious beliefs. Hence, rational faculty is corrupted resulting for a conscience that becomes unreliable.

    And the vicious cycle starts all over again.

    • "And how will our conscience be “informed and moral judgment enlightened?”"-pinoy atheist

      I am a Catholic and therefore a believer of God. Our Catechism is clear about how our moral judgment may be informed and enlightened. For a non-believer…that I do not know, maybe you can enlighten me on that.

      (Catechism of the Catholic Church) CCC 1783: Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

      CCC1784: The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

      CCC1785: In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

      • Again, again again…And how will our conscience be “informed and moral judgment enlightened?”

        That depends…if a person believes that God and the Bible (as stated in "willed by the wisdom of the Creator").

        Now what is this that is "willed by the wisdom of the Creator?"

        Again, religious, philosophical and political beliefs, misguided idealism, malicious propaganda and poor education can corrupt a person’s rational faculty. And when rational faculty is corrupted it will result for a conscience that becomes unreliable.

        And the vicious cycle starts all over again.

  2. "It is the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic church that conscience is the final judge whether an action is in conformity with objective law or not… Now, what if this rational faculty is corrupted? Remember, religious, philosophical and political beliefs, misguided idealism, malicious propaganda and poor education can corrupt a person’s rational faculty.
    What happened then? Well then conscience becomes unreliable. That is why Thomas Aquinas becomes the victim of his own theory when he defended the evils of the Inquisition “in good conscience.”

    Yes, conscience is the final judge but it follows that "“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church 1783

    "To claim that one has a right to act according to conscience, but without at the same time acknowledging the duty to conform one's conscience to the truth and to the law which God himself has written on our hearts, in the end, means nothing more than imposing one's limited personal opinion." -Pope John Paul II

    “A conscience that is not ‘fed’ by moral commandments and by grasping morally relevant and moral values is a blind conscience." -Dietrich von Hildebrand

    • Strong words coming from an organization that systematically hid rapists, and recently compared atheism to Nazis.

      Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the RCC is till claiming the moral high ground and the sole rite to steer people's consciences as it invokes "moral values"?

    • One assumption I find disturbing is that this assertion has yet to prove why RCC is the monopoly for moral truth? How about Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Bhuddism? I mean why base your conscience on RCC? I find Confucianism and Bhuddism more fundamentally and theoretically sound especially given how they accommodate outside/secular science regarding human behavior. In some aspect they also adapt to knew evidence and information, instead of stubbornly making excuses and denying facts and empirical arguments.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here