Assess The View That The Conscience Is Not The Voice Of God, But Is Learned.

Assess the view that the conscience is not the voice of God, but is learned.

Those who argue for a psychological explanation of human behaviour, such as Freud, argue that conscience is learned and explained through a psychological conflict. Others, such as Cardinal Newman, argue that conscience is the voice of God and therefore not learned. Whilst the theistic view does require beliefs which many find hard to comprehend, the conscience it argues for is far more optimistic and reliable than that of the secular psychologists.

Erich Fromm's early view of conscience was influenced by the Holocaust, and wondering why Nazi soldiers could and did perform horrific acts to innocent men and women. He thought not all people could have a shared conscience and moral view, and his hypothesis was that of an authoritarian conscience. He argued that our sense of guilt comes from disobeying an internalised authority figure, much like a church leader, teacher or even head of state. He saw the Holocaust as an example of conscience being manipulated so that soldiers would carry out requests of Nazi authorities so to avoid a feeling of guilt. This is clearly a very pessimistic view of our conscience, and it also suggests an unreliable conscience as it gives an authority figure full control over individuals. One example of such an authority figure could, of course, be God. Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge and therefore felt guilty and, importantly, human. Fromm departed from the traditional religious orthodoxy; he praised the virtues of Adam and Eve taking independent action rather than adhering to an authoritarian conscience.

Whilst Fromm's view of conscience is learned, St Paul in his epistles used the term '??????????' (often translated as conscience) to describe an innate ability to know and choose good. He taught that even 'the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves'1, meaning that even non-Christians know instinctively what is right or wrong. Paul thought this showed that, as Gentiles could also follow their conscience to fulfil the will of God, then all consciences must come from God. As Paul sees conscience as a way of knowing, then it belongs in the heart where he believed our memory and thinking functions are located ('which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness'2). This of course also means we have the potential to ignore or misinterpret our conscience and this incapacitated consciousness of God is called a "seared" conscience, and what Paul argues Gentiles suffer from. Paul's view implies that our conscience is not learned, but also unreliable in our ability to disregard it.

St Thomas Aquinas also thought that our conscience came from God, but indirectly through our God-given reason as opposed to directly as a 'voice'. He argued that our conscience is not a 'feeling' from our heart or a sense of guilt as argued by Fromm and Paul/Augustine, but a process of reasoning, of applying our knowledge of good and evil to our actions: 'For conscience is said to witness, to bind, or incite, and also to accuse, torment, or rebuke'3. The God-given order which dictates this evil or good is called the Natural Law, and moves from the primary precepts, (which are obvious from scri pture and the Decalogue, such as 'It is right to have a family') to secondary precepts (which fulfil the primary precepts, such as 'It is wrong to have protected sex'). Aquinas argued that by applying this knowledge to what one does, we are free to either act in accordance with the wishes of God, or not. Our conscience is therefore our realisation that what we might or have done is good or not, but it is not the actual motion of choosing: 'Wherefore, properly speaking, conscience denominates an act.'4 This makes conscience reliable if it is fully formed, and our knowledge of good and evil is correct. However, children, for example, do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what the right thing to do is. Aquinas believes that one is excused from wrongdoing if one's conscience is in error, as one is bound to do the wrong thing if they believe their conscience is telling them do something that is right but is in fact wrong. Therefore Aquinas believed conscience is learnt through the process of applying reason, and also at times unreliable until fully developed. Butler agreed with Aquinas's argument for a God-given ability to reason. He argued that our feeling of what is right is not intuitive, but is our ability to use reason to weigh up factors in a moral decision. He also argued that the conscience should be seen as merely one among many drives or passions, but it should have ultimate authority over all our instincts.

Like Aquinas, Freud also did not accept that the conscience was an innate knowledge or 'feeling', and argued for a learned conscience. Of course, Freud did not include God-given reason in his argument and his idea of conscience is extremely pessimistic compared to Aquinas' optimism. Freud postulated a psychological structure consisting of three aspects: the id, which is our uncontrollable, primitive subconscious which contains our desire; the superego, which we create as an internalised parent which tells us rules; and the ego, which is the "battlefield" between the superego and the id. Freud saw this as a source of many neuroses, such as the infamous Oedipus complex, where one becomes sexually fixated on their mother and experiences a sense of competition and resentment with their father. Therefore, Freud is pessimistic about our conscience as it leads to psychological problems, such as the aforementioned Oedipus complex but also more Christo-centric examples such as a strict attitude to homosexuality manifesting itself in a harrowing sense of guilt if one does explore this area of sexuality in later life. He said therefore, that the "voice of God" that many Christians experience is simply our superego, our internalised father figure and therefore learned and unreliable. Cardinal Newman was the antithesis of this, claiming that the God was speaking to us directly and this was our conscience, and he would argue that Freud's internalised father figure was actually God, as it we feel ashamed of things that only we know about, and things that an internalised father figure, which we create, would not wish to talk about.

Vernan Ruland argued, however, that it is wrong to argue that our conscience is the direct word of God, as the voice can lead to conflicting views, seen by the many denominations of Christianity, and the existence of extremist religious movements. He argued for a middle ground between rationalists such as Aquinas, and Divine Command theorists such as Newland. Ruland argued that we receive promptings from God, and then interpret his voice. He said that this is conscience and this explains the different conclusions people reach. Of course, this creates a conscience that can be unreliable as it is an interpretation, but it is also a conscience that can be learned and improved through improving our interpretation.

Piaget rejected the notion of God-given conscience, but also questioned Freud's understanding of the conscience. By studying the developing morality of children overtime, he saw that moral reasoning depends upon development stages. He saw that the normal series of development for children went from playing on their own, to playing with others (but needing punishment and demanding justice to keep things fair) and then finally cooperating and acting in compromise. He came to the conclusion that from 5-10 years we have a heteronymous morality, meaning that our conscience is immature and that keep to the rules, and therefore we rely on consequences such as punishment and reward. After 10 years of age, we develop an autonomous morality, where there is cognitive advancement going beyond simple rule following. This involves higher order thinking and becoming more independent, questioning what is right and wrong. This is therefore a far more optimistic view of conscience than Freud's, and it sees a well-developed conscience as an important part of a healthy body, but one still that is learned and not from God.

In a non-psychological and non-religious stance, Nietzsche gave a social view of conscience, arguing that in a very simple, pre-urbanised society we acquire a concept of fairness from simply trade agreements with other individuals, and that we realise that if one party does not keep to the agreement, there is an unfair situation. Therefore, the creditor is allowed to punish debtor to rebalance the levels of equality and fairness, creating justice. This means we associate debt with possible suffering, and even the expectation of suffering can be painful itself. This means people will accept that if they do wrong, they will be punished an in fact desire their own punishment to restore the balance. This means conscience is learnt from social experience, and explained psychologically through our need for justice, as mentioned by Piaget, and certainly not the voice of God.

Overall, the psychological approach to conscience gives us an explanation not requiring an existence in God, and one that can be explained using scientific terms, and would at face value appear to be far more likely to be the correct view. However, the conscience it creates is authoritarian and unjust and is overall very pessimistic. Therefore, whilst these are disagreements as to how God gives us conscience, and whether this is learned or not, the conscience offered by theists is one is far more appealing and better relates to the intuitions we feel.