Critically assess the claim that conscience is the voice of reason.
The nature of the conscience has always been heavily debated with some thinking that it is the
voice of reason, such as Thomas Aquinas. However there are some who think that the
conscience may even be the voice of God, Newman, or the voice of God speaking to us, Butler,
and some even think that it is developed socially by our beliefs, values and upbringing, Freud
and Piaget.
Thomas Aquinas saw the conscience as ‘right reason’ and disagreed that it was an inner voice
that tells us right from wrong. He believed that it was reason making right decisions, and when
it’s used correctly it tells us what god sees as good/right. Aquinas distinguished between
synderesis and conscientia. Synderesis is an innate ability to distinguish right from wrong while
conscientia is a judgement made by using our reason. Thomas Aquinas believed that naturally
people stray away from bad/evil and towards good/right thing, this is the synderesis rule.
However this doesn’t mean that people never do bad things, it just that they don’t intend to
do them; they have pursed an apparent good rather than a real good. An apparent good is
something that seems the right thing to do, but doesn’t fit the perfect human ideal. A real
good is the right thing to do that fits the human ideal. We discover real goods by using our
reason and move from potentiality to actuality. We might do something wrong but it may still
be acceptable because we were following our conscience. Aquinas believed that the
conscience is binding but it can make mistakes. For example, a person could do a wrong action
through no fault of their own or they could do it deliberately and this would be because they
have not used their reason correctly.
A strength of the conscience is that it gives us set guidance and Aquinas explains why our
conscience is wrong sometimes since it is because of the wrong use of reason/ following
apparent goods, however if the conscience can be lead astray then how good is god’s gift of
reason and it the guidance really clear? Another weakness is that Aquinas assumes that right
and wrong/ good and evil are the same for everyone. Furthermore some acts can never be
morally blameless as they still may break the law which means they are entitled to
punishment, regardless of right intention/ following the conscience.
Newman took a different approach to Aquinas and said that it was the voice of God and not
the voice of reason. He saw the conscience as intuitive and it was the sense of responsibility
that humans have to God. Newman believed that God was the one who gave us our
conscience and then our parents and society give the content for each person’s conscience. He
described the conscience as the ‘law of the mind’ that gives us a clear indication for what is
right and what is wrong.
A strength of this belief is that it understands that the conscience is based on more than
reason and can include intuition. It also emphasises the importance of taking responsibility for
our actions. However, if the conscience is the voice of God, can you still here it if you don’t
believe in him? Also what happens to freewill if God is telling us what to do? Newman’s belief
of conscience doesn’t coincide with Aquinas’ as the voice of reason but rather the voice of God
that guides us, which doesn’t seem very plausible since there is no evidence for God’s
existence much less Him being the voice of God.
Joseph Butler believed that the conscience was innate and was God-given. He believed that it
was central to our humanity. The conscience is an essential part of being a human being and it
is was separates us from animals. He believed that is what we use to judge an action good or
bad and it has to be obeyed. Butler thought that we were driven by two tendencies: self-love
The nature of the conscience has always been heavily debated with some thinking that it is the
voice of reason, such as Thomas Aquinas. However there are some who think that the
conscience may even be the voice of God, Newman, or the voice of God speaking to us, Butler,
and some even think that it is developed socially by our beliefs, values and upbringing, Freud
and Piaget.
Thomas Aquinas saw the conscience as ‘right reason’ and disagreed that it was an inner voice
that tells us right from wrong. He believed that it was reason making right decisions, and when
it’s used correctly it tells us what god sees as good/right. Aquinas distinguished between
synderesis and conscientia. Synderesis is an innate ability to distinguish right from wrong while
conscientia is a judgement made by using our reason. Thomas Aquinas believed that naturally
people stray away from bad/evil and towards good/right thing, this is the synderesis rule.
However this doesn’t mean that people never do bad things, it just that they don’t intend to
do them; they have pursed an apparent good rather than a real good. An apparent good is
something that seems the right thing to do, but doesn’t fit the perfect human ideal. A real
good is the right thing to do that fits the human ideal. We discover real goods by using our
reason and move from potentiality to actuality. We might do something wrong but it may still
be acceptable because we were following our conscience. Aquinas believed that the
conscience is binding but it can make mistakes. For example, a person could do a wrong action
through no fault of their own or they could do it deliberately and this would be because they
have not used their reason correctly.
A strength of the conscience is that it gives us set guidance and Aquinas explains why our
conscience is wrong sometimes since it is because of the wrong use of reason/ following
apparent goods, however if the conscience can be lead astray then how good is god’s gift of
reason and it the guidance really clear? Another weakness is that Aquinas assumes that right
and wrong/ good and evil are the same for everyone. Furthermore some acts can never be
morally blameless as they still may break the law which means they are entitled to
punishment, regardless of right intention/ following the conscience.
Newman took a different approach to Aquinas and said that it was the voice of God and not
the voice of reason. He saw the conscience as intuitive and it was the sense of responsibility
that humans have to God. Newman believed that God was the one who gave us our
conscience and then our parents and society give the content for each person’s conscience. He
described the conscience as the ‘law of the mind’ that gives us a clear indication for what is
right and what is wrong.
A strength of this belief is that it understands that the conscience is based on more than
reason and can include intuition. It also emphasises the importance of taking responsibility for
our actions. However, if the conscience is the voice of God, can you still here it if you don’t
believe in him? Also what happens to freewill if God is telling us what to do? Newman’s belief
of conscience doesn’t coincide with Aquinas’ as the voice of reason but rather the voice of God
that guides us, which doesn’t seem very plausible since there is no evidence for God’s
existence much less Him being the voice of God.
Joseph Butler believed that the conscience was innate and was God-given. He believed that it
was central to our humanity. The conscience is an essential part of being a human being and it
is was separates us from animals. He believed that is what we use to judge an action good or
bad and it has to be obeyed. Butler thought that we were driven by two tendencies: self-love
