The Mystery of Conscience
A brief study in the field of psychology
by Nicolaus Anderson
for Mrs. Sarah Kranz
September 13, 2010
There appears to be a trend in so-called “Christian families” that the children will have heard of the idea of conscience. Statistics are hardly trustworthy and unimportant, so to verify this information, go up and question multiple people you know who have been in raised in a “Christian home”. Should you engage in one of these conversations and be discussing this issue, you may discover the same things I did as I spoke with a variety of people and probed my personal library of theologians: the function of conscience deals with guilt, yet the definition/essence of conscience appears to be indeterminate.
You may be curious as to why the subject of the conscience is being spoken of in the context of the field of society, but I assure you that the two are closely linked. If the conscience is dependent on the personal experiences (whose effects on the mind psychology examines), then one’s personal views of good and evil are stored in the physical memory of a human being. If, at the very least, some aspect of conscience transcends the physical, then the ideas of good and evil; right and wrong; kindness and hatred are things that each and every person is responsible for because they could theoretically know about those things while they live. Thus, responsibility and freewill are things that psychologists may have to take into account.
Purpose of Conscience
There is a general consensus among the few Christians I examined as to the purpose or function of conscience. According to the crowd, conscience deals with our judgment on good and bad actions, in other words, morality.
Conscience is attributed that feeling of ought. Arch-Bishop Fulton Sheen discussed this “oughtness” of the conscience in his TV-show-turned-into-a-book, Life is Worth Living. He said, “The lower orders [(plants and animals)] must be what they are… [Having] an intellect and a free will, man merely ought to do something. That ‘oughtness’ is recorded in conscience”. (Sheen 58) Indeed, this idea of “oughtness”, though not labeled as such, is a running theme in the first four chapters of C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity. Lewis, however, does not jump to using common Christian lingo (by using terms like “oughtness” or “conscience”) since his audience is mostly non-Christian. Instead, he presents it as the “moral law”. This is the “law… which [man] is free to disobey.” (Lewis 4) Though man may be free to disobey such a law, there is a feeling of guilt that accompanies it, as if for some reason we feel as if conscience has some authority over us. Bishop Sheen said, “Our conscience is an interior government, exercising the same functions as all human government, namely, legislative, executive, and judicial.” (Sheen 59) (Sheen discusses the issue in depth in the chapter “Conscience” in his book Life is Worth Living, but its information would be excessive.)
Amongst the random folk, the purpose of conscience was described in random ways. DJ Palmer claimed, “Humans want power, desire for things to be good, just joy, love, to be loved by other people, and the conscience is what will steer you towards acting in those characteristics.” (Interviews – DJ) The conscience was always associated with morality (see Interviews), but that was somewhat difficult to see since each person’s interpretation was based on their own definition of conscience. Rather than discuss that here, let us move on to the next section.
Definition of “Conscience”
The definition of conscience is questionable. No one I spoke with or whose book I read were in exact agreement with anyone else. This is the reason why the function or purpose of conscience wasn’t always the same, despite the fact that most agreed conscience primarily dealt with guilt. The responses ranged from, “Conscience is your personal ability to tell right from wrong” (Interviews – Steven) to “It is the innate desire to be like God”. (Interviews – DJ)
What I was searching for as to the “definition” of conscience was its essential structure. Consider a radio as an analogy: If I were to ask for the “definition” of a radio, I would have been informed that a radio receives signals and emits sounds. What I was searching for was more along the lines of “What are the signals?” and “What are the components of the radio that make it function that way?” The closest answers to had to be interpreted based on the person’s perception of the functionality of the conscience. For example, Joe Palermo stated, “The consciences is a product of the mind” (Interviews – Joe), and added that he had no trouble seeing the conscience as being entirely physical, as in, composed purely of human experience and memories (This description I later describe as the “Mechanical View” of conscience). This is in great contrast with most other people I spoke with, who claimed, “It has a spiritual aspect” (Interviews – Steven) or that “It is an indivisible whole – You cannot divide which parts are spiritual and which parts are physical.” (Interviews – Matt) The latter perceptions attribute to the conscience a spiritual aspect that they found to be rather indescribable except in terms of function (This perception I labeled the “Kantian View” of conscience).
Important to the definition is whether conscience is affected by influences external to the person. Most admitted that was true. This could either mean that conscience is something solely determined by physical influences, or, if it is innate, it is something that can be ignored or something from which people can pick-and-choose what they wish to feel guilty about. (“Interviews”, a private study, is incorporated in this document at the end.)
Descriptions of the Views
Considering the variance in each person’s view of the conscience, it is easiest to discuss them generically. These are probably best described as the Kantian and the Mechanical (In addition, there is one further view of conscience which I did not find amongst my interviewees or authors but is nevertheless a generic alternative and a discussion of it is attached as an addendum). Alas, neither of the views can be discussed in great depth due to the apparent logical holes in the definition of “conscience”.
The “Kantian View”
Though Kant would completely separate the spiritual and the physical, this specific label has been attached to this view because Kant saw the spiritual as being unexplainable in terms of the physical. Many share his viewpoint, as noted by the lack of details (concerning the tangible aspects of the conscience) that were attained in the interviews (in one of which Matthew Frick notably said, “I refuse to have an opinion on something that I don’t know anything about.” (Interviews - Matt)).
An individual specific example of the “Kantian view” was presented by DJ Palmer. He attempted to describe the conscience as something that analogously tagged along behind the human soul or that stood in an out-of-the-way manner. “It is the voice in the back of your head that tells you to be good.” (Interviews – DJ)
The “Mechanical View”
The second generic view I encountered in my studies was what I call the “mechanical view”. The promoter was Joe Palermo, a computer science student at LeTourneau University whose understanding of computational systems had apparently influenced his philosophical perspective. In general discussion, he mused about creating a program that could be “conscious” (though this author’s point of view opposes that). Yet what does that have to do with conscience? – Joe confessed that he considered conscience to be entirely mechanical. His words sum up the “mechanical view” in a nutshell: “Personally,” he said, “I have some unfounded theory that [spiritual things] (e.g. miracles) have a physical cause.” (Interviews – Joe) This is quite contrary to what Sheen argues: “This ‘oughtness’ in us… is not mechanical, or biological, or instinctive, but rational.” (Sheen 58) However striking it seems, Palermo’s view does not in any way strike at his faith. “The conscience may exist solely in your mind, but it is no less a gift from God.” (Interviews – Joe)
Conclusion
The findings were simple: There were two ideas that people agreed upon. The first is that conscience is a “gift from God”. (Interviews – Joe) The one time C.S. Lewis mentions “conscience” in Mere Christianity, he says “He [God] left us conscience” in order that humanity (which he calls a “machine”) will function properly since “God designed the human machine to run on Himself.” (Lewis 50) The second idea that people agreed upon was the role of instructor or guilt-imposer. The conscience serves to guide us, whether we obey it or not. As DJ Palmer said, “Your mind is the vehicle, your soul is a driver, and your conscience is your mom sitting in the back telling you to drive safe.” (Interviews – DJ)
Sources
Sheen, Peter “Fulton” J., Life is Worth Living. Garden City, New York: Garden City Books, 1955 ed.
Lewis, Clive S. Mere Christianity. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001 ed.
Editor: Anderson, Nicolaus. Interviews Concerning the Subject of Conscience. Contributors: DJ Palmer, Steven Koch, Matthew Frick, Joseph Palermo, Will Hasse.
Further reading
Catechism of the Catholic Church. See paragraphs 33 and 46.
Dignitatis Humanae, by Pope Paul VI, Dec 7, 1965. See beginning of the second paragraph, page 2.
Definition of “conscience” < http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/conscien.htm >
The Holy Bible, by God. See especially the First Letter to Timothy, by the Apostle Paul. (References to “conscience”: 1 Tim 1:19 and 4:2)
Addendum:
Further Discussion on the Subject of Conscience
I consider it noteworthy to discuss a third generic alternative view of the conscience: the “conditioning view”. The view is rather absurd in itself since it essentially removes the freewill’s role in conscience entirely. The role of conscience is reserved entirely for the person’s perception of reality and the influence of their environment upon them.
The “conditioning view” describes conscience, not as an interior mechanical system, but as the direct result of the society in which we live. The idea was promoted by B.F. Skinner as “Operant Conditioning” in which a person’s moral choices are all directed by their instinctive nature to try to survive. The format for the “conditioning view” is laid out by B.F. Skinner, in his book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”, when he says, “Man's struggle for freedom is not due to a will to be free, but to certain behavioral processes characteristic of the human organism, the chief effect of which is the avoidance of or escape from so-called ‘aversive’ features of the environment.” (Skinner 42) Skinner himself did not bother to define conscience, but the idea of the “conditioning view” is nevertheless similar: guilt is something imposed upon the individual by their feelings towards society. People question themselves as to whether or not they will be “accepted” in society, and they act and respond accordingly.
This action-response view reduces the “conscience” down to a mental contract between society and the individual, which Sigmund Freud claimed occurred in the “super ego”. Jean-Jacque Rousseau made a related claim: society corrupts the individual. If such is even partially true, then an individual’s conscience can lead them not only to what is culturally good but also what may be universally “evil” – at least in the eyes of Rousseau. Of course, both Skinner and Rousseau ignored the fact that society itself is composed of individuals, and as such, they treated society (more particularly, its institutions of religion and government) as independent entities that were always trying to manipulate men without explaining why they were doing so.
The foundation of the “conditioning view” is different from other views of the conscience in the most notable way. According to this view, there really is no such thing as conscience! Conscience implies freewill, something which neither Skinner nor Rousseau would have acknowledged because that in itself implies responsibility. Hence, discussing the ought-factor is a moot point, and the idea of guilt is explained away as merely trying to avoid pain. Bernard Berelson and Gary Steiner based their research on this idea, noting that “The more the control [over a] child is love oriented, rather than based on physical punishment, the more effective the parents’ control over desired behavior and the stronger the development of the child’s guilt feelings for improper behavior.” (Berelson/Steiner 77) If manipulating a child and his/her conscience (“guilt feelings”) can be done through love, then even older men could be manipulated with that technique. Hence, in order to get people to do “good”, Skinner claims, “Religious agencies move from the threat of hellfire to an emphasis on God's love." (Skinner 33)
In conclusion, the “conditioning view” of conscience can hardly be considered a view of the conscience. Though it provides no tangible conscience, the view is technically important in psychology. Should this be true, people not having a religious education would not be held accountable for actions considered to be “immoral”. Hence, it would be a moral disservice to a man to teach him to follow rules and practices. This is exactly what the promoters of this view, Rousseau and Skinner, had in mind.
Sources
Berelson, Bernard and Gary A. Steiner. Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Hardcourt, Brace, & World, 1964.
Skinner, Burrhus F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 1971.
Interviews Concerning the Subject of Conscience
A Private Study in the Field of Psychology:
Interviews conducted by Nicolaus Anderson
Special thanks to those who contributed to the discussion: D.J. Palmer, Ogle Basil Hall III, Matthew Frick, Steven Koch, Joseph “Joe” Palermo, Will Hasse and all those whose names I forgot to mention
Note on the text
In the process of writing down the responses of the individuals, I failed to record everything that they had said. Considering this, and considering that passing along information makes for a game of “telephone”, it is best that the reader personally interview these people to learn of their actual views. Some notes will be fragmented considering that general ideas were being passed around, and not always did the speaker finish their sentences (What they meant was then implied). The interviews were performed in the presence of other people (whose names have been mentioned in the “special thanks” note). This allowed for the discussion to progress and different ideas be presented that may have influenced the ideas or opinions (or wording to express such) of the interviewee. That being said, some of the answers given in this document are not immediate responses of the interviewees but are sometimes cumulative in order to be concise or clear.
The format of the documentation is as follows. “Q” stands for question, which the interviewer asked and sometimes rephrased for clarity. “A” stands for the answer given by the interviewee and not of anyone else present. Words in square brackets indicate the idea that interviewees were probably implying when they spoke, or square brackets can indicate an editing mark. Words in curly brackets indicate an event that affects the clarity of the response in this document (i.e. an interruption in real time that may appear in this document as being an odd transition considering the trail of thought). What is given in parenthesis was told to the interviewee and is merely for clarity in the question.
Interview of D.J. Palmer (conducted 09/06/2010)
Q. What is conscience?
A. It is the innate desire to be like God. {Q repeated} Preprogrammed desire to be like God – That’s part of it. The other part is God communicating with us depending on certain situations. Like us being able to sense God’s heart through the Holy Spirit. I don’t think that communication with God through the Holy Spirit is not active in people who are not born again.
Q. Why do you define conscience this way?
A. Humans want power, desire for things to be good, just joy, love, to be loved by other people, and the conscience is what will steer you towards acting in those characteristics – like when you would digress from those characteristics, your conscience steers you back, and all of those basic desires are found in God. Humans wants [sic] what is good and wants [sic] and are searching for what is good, but the only thing that is really good is God.
Q. What is conscience? (First question restated)
A. It’s the voice in the back of your head that tells you to be good.
Q. How does the conscience relate to the mind? As in, how are they connected?
A. The mind is the vehicle and the conscience is the pilot. [Actually] Your mind is the vehicle, your soul is a driver, and your conscience is your mom sitting in the back telling you to drive safe.
Q. Where is your conscience located (bodily or spiritually)?
A. Spiritually – it’s hanging in the back of my soul.
Q. Is conscience something that is developed or do we have it at a mature state immediately / from birth?
A. Conscience is something that is perfected before we are born, but as we get older, it is applied to more situations. But basically, conscience is always the same.
Q. What does it mean when your conscience is “seared”? (see 1 Timothy 4:2)
A. It’s kind of like, since it’s hanging in the back of your soul, your soul puts down your conscience, saying, “Walk on your own two feet.” {Analogy of the soul driving away and the conscience tailing it} The more your conscience is seared, the more your conscience is left behind by your soul.
Q. In more concrete terms please…
A. Your conscience reflects God. When you sin, it hurts God and hurts your conscience. The reason why you become less sensitive to things is because you try to seal off your conscience rather than letting it get hurt again by the things you do or let happen.
Interview of Steven Koch (conducted 09/11/2010)
Q. What is conscience?
A. The thing that tells you right from wrong. It also has a spiritual aspect.
Q. What is that spiritual aspect?
A. Well specifically the Holy Spirit. {Clarification requested} [The spiritual part of conscience is] A way for God to reach you subconsciously with His laws and such like that.
Q. Where did you get your view of conscience? (Family or personally-formulated)
A. Mostly from church – I guess my family’s part of that. And also personal experience played a lesser role – personal experience as in like I’ve had things feel right and feel wrong.
Interview of Will Hasse (conducted 09/11/2010)
Q. What is conscience?
A. Conscience is your personal ability to tell right from wrong.
Q. Is this something only influenced by personal experience?
A. It can be influenced by outside sources, but when it comes down to it, it is what you personally believe.
Interview of Joseph “Joe” Palermo (conducted 09/11/2010)
Q. What is conscience?
A. The only thing that’s kept the human system alive in the absence of the Judeo-Christian religion. {Some discussion about artificial intelligence being “conscious”} Conscience is a product of the mind, obviously. Ok, so I’m kind of weird. Personally, I have some unfounded theory that [spiritual things] (e.g. miracles) have a physical cause. {Joe uses an example from the middle ages: [Someone might say, “Oh God. Save me from a cold.” Today, however, there happens to be a cure.]} The conscience may exist solely in your mind, but it is no less a gift from God.
Q. Is [conscience] something only influenced by personal experience?
A. There is pretty compelling evidence for a sort of in-built conscience. There is good evidence [that certain things] are moral and immoral. {Joes uses an example of murder, noting how the recognition of the immorality of murder transcends culture and yet sometime people don’t follow such morals/values} Obviously, a serial killer feels no remorse.
NOTE: Joseph Palermo’s interview was on-the-spot during Will Hasse’s interview. Hence, the second question given here was actually presented and answered first.
Interview of Matthew Frick (conducted 09/11/2010)
Q. What is conscience?
A. Uh… It is the awareness that God exists. The state that was given to us by God. {Q rephrased} It is still something given by God so that we may know right from wrong and know that we need Him.
Q. So is conscious only physical (in your brain)?
A. No. It is an indivisible whole – you cannot divide which parts are spiritual and which parts are physical.
Q. What is the spiritual aspect?
A. The aspect that tells you there is something more.
Q. Is [the conscience] solely internal?
A. I think it is solely internal. God only speaks to the heart. [The heart is solely spiritual.] {Interviewee further questioned about the essence of the conscience} I refuse to have an opinion on something that I don’t know anything about. [Word of advice: You want to know what conscience is?] – It’s in the Bible.
