The conscience (ethics)

• Philisophers associated with non-religious ideas about the conscience

  Lawrence Kohlberg, Sigmund Freud, Emile Durkheim, Erich Fromm
• Kohlberg - the conscience as a behaviour developed through social interaction 


  3 levels of conscience
• Lawrence Kohlberg: The 3 levels of conscience (6 stages of moral development)

  The first two stages

  Pre-conventional (typical of primary school children)

  Stage 1: Obedience to socially acceptable norms knowing that disobedience = punishment

  Stage 2: Individual behaviour is determined by what is in their best intrest
• Lawrence Kohlberg: The 3 levels of conscience (6 stages of moral development)

  The 3rd and 4th stages

  The conventional level that is typical of society

  Stage 3 is the desire to do what will gain you approval of others

  Stage 4 is the response to what is seen as a duty through obedience of the law
• Lawrence Kohlberg: The 3 levels of conscience (6 stages of moral development)

  The last 2 Stages of moral development

  Post-conventional level, many people don't reach Stage 6

  Stage 5: An understanding of social interaction and genuine interest in the welfare of others

  Stage 6: based on respect for universal principles and demands of the individual conscience
• Freud: Conscience as an aspect of the super-ego


  Freud believed that there was 3 aspects of the mind

  ID: The unconscious and indistinctive part of personality based on basic needs and desires

  Ego: The rational faculty that realises we have to take others into account

  The super-ego: developed in early childhood, the internalised voice of parental authority
• Durkheim: conscience as sanctions or social conditioning 


  God is a useful idea in reaffirming moral obligation in society. Conscience is part of loyalty and fear of judgement from others

  The idea of a collective Conscience: An act is bad because it opposes the views of society

  The Conscience is also a survival mechanism
• Fromm: The authoritarian and the humanistic conscience 


  The authoritarian conscience:

  Society is designed to make us obey rules to conform to norms, people feel guilt and fear when they disobey this. The conscience becomes the internalised voice of society

  The humanistic conscience:

  Has awareness of what makes life flourish and what destroys it. This leads to civil disobedience when necessary. Rejecting the authoritarian conscience and embracing the humanistic conscience as this allows us to reach full potential as people
• Philosophers linked with religious attitudes towards the conscience

  Fredrich Schleiermacher, Thomas Aquinas, Joseph Butler and Joseph Fletcher
• Schleiermacher: conscience is the innate voice of God 


  Because of the source, the conscience should always be followed without question
• Weaknesses of Schleiermachers argument: 


  It suggests God is 'selective' by choosing some and not others

  Why do people who claim to have been spoken to directly by God come up with different answers?

  How can an individual be sure that the guidance comes from God?
• Aquinas: Conscience is the God-given faculty of reason 


  Act in a way that does good and avoids evil. Links with both NML and Divine Law

  Conscience is NOT the voice of God because saying that it is implies that God leads us and gives us direct commands through divine revelation - God has given us our ability to reason and so does not need to speak to us directly as a voice

  The conscience can also make mistakes (an err), but the conscience should always be followed because it is the method God gave us to reason
• Butler's reflective principle 


  He agrees with Aquinas, the conscience is our God-given ability to reason that should always be followed

  Butler sees the conscience as the ultimate moral decision maker.
• Fletchers agapeic principle 


  Act in a way that produces the most loving consequences in every situation. Conscience is a verb, not a noun. Conscience is not something that we have, it is a process that we use. No moral absolutes
• Strengths of Lawrence Kohlberg's argument

  Everyone has a conscience, which does develop through our lives, it isn't necessarily a religious thing. The conscience acts a clear moral guide for everyone (Universal). Argument backed up by psychology.
• Weaknesses of Lawrence Kohlberg's argument

  The fact that there are multiple levels means that not everyone will act in the same way. It does not provide a framework of actions in a deontological way. People's motivation tends to be bad, for example a pre-conventional conscience is very selfish, as it thinks of only our own reward or punishment
• Strengths of Freud's argument

  Explains clearly feelings of guilt and why people have religious convictions. Everyone has a conscience, it is not supernatural and does not depend on God. Evidence from psychology to back up his argument
• Weaknesses of Freud's argument

  Aspects of Freud's work have been discredited, particularly his methods. The psyche is unverifiable by empirical means. Religious people completely reject the argument. No deontological rules
• Strengths of Durkheim's argument

  Everyone has a conscience, because it is not supernatural and it doesn't come from God. The conscience is a clear moral guide, and encourages the development of society. It helps people to survive as it upholds law and order.
• Weaknesses of Durkheim's argument

  What happens when society becomes immoral? Humans become immoral in order to survive. Religious people wouldn't agree with the argument as they would reject the vice of God being used for societal control. There are no deontological rules
• Strengths of Fromm's argument

  Gives people the opportunity for civil disobedience, overcoming the issues of Durkheim's sociological view. Secular view that is relevant to everyone
• Weaknesses of Fromm's argument

  There is no deontological rules as there are different levels, there is no set morality. Some people get stuck in the authoritarian stage, and can do immoral acts
• Strengths of Aquinas' argument

  A universal theory. There are deontological rules so the conscience should lead to everyone behaving in the same way. It explains why people make mistakes, and encourages human development to avoid these mistakes.
• Weaknesses of Aquinas' argument

  Can be criticised with the DCT criticisms, how can non-religious people be moral? Not everyone has ability to reason, for example, dementia patients, mentally ill and disabled. Different cultures have different cultural practises across the world, for example, in some cultures they leave children and elders to die (survival of the fittest). Why should it be the ultimate authority if it makes mistakes?
• Strengths of Butler's argument

  Conscience is both a supernatural concept from God and a process of reasoning. Provides a perfect balance between helping yourself but also others There are intuitive aspects which make it flexible
• Weaknesses of Butler's argument

  People do make mistakes, so why's the conscience seen as the ultimate authority? Atheists would disagree with the belief that the conscience comes from God. Intuition makes the conscience more objective - people will do different things based on their own reason
• Strengths of Fletcher's argument

  Conscience is a process, meaning it is not supernatural. It is flexible in all situations. Unloving rules can be broken, unlike in Aquinas' view
• Weaknesses of Fletcher's argument

  It is subjective, which means individuals interpret different situations differently. Can allow for any action as long as the consequences are good. We cannot see into the future, so therefore it can not be used properly
• Traditional Christian viewpoint strengths

  Schleiermacher - the conscience is God's divine revelation, so it is flexible in all situations

  St Paul - God considers both how we follow the law and our intentions, making it a hybrid theory
• Traditional Christian viewpoint weaknesses

  There is no set definition of conscience in the Bible, so these interpretations may just be wrong. If the conscience is the voice of God, it could lead us to break the divine law (Leibniz' paradox). Does not apply to atheists