Wow. Interesting. I suppose your moral code or your conscience would be dictated by your upbringing, and the mores of the society you were raised in? You know?Many small children are familiar with the story of Jimmy Cricket who tells Pinocchio always to let his conscience be his guide. The wisdom of this advice hits people as they grow older.
So “What is your conscience?”
I think that the flaw in that Catholic view of conscience is that a few formulations of its definition put too much weight on its derivation from external authorities into which the mind of the subject has no insight, which the person cannot understand, but which the subject merely obeys. Obedience to an alien dictate whose reasons are not perfectly comprehensible, and which thus do not fully command the obedience of the person addressed by their rationally persuasive force is simply the abdication of reason. In contrast, true obedience to the dictates of conscience, to be meaningful, has to arise from the inner conviction of people who choose to obey because they are convinced of the moral validity of what they commit themselves to.From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
**I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE **
**1777 **Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
**1778 **Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.
**1779 **It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of *interiority *is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:
Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.
**1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
**1781 **Conscience enables one to assume *responsibility *for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:
We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
**1782 **Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
Yes, that is known as moral relativism and rejects the notion of objective truth. Being guided towards objective truth in no way an abdication of reason. One can always choose whether or not to follow and discern what is objectively true or to follow their own convictions. But once you go down that road then one person’s conviction is as good as the next’s. As a Catholic we cannot adhere to moral relativism since that very theory refutes itself. It’s basically saying that something is true because I think that it is. That statement in and of itself can never be true if even one other person believes otherwise… Peace… teachccdI think that the flaw in that Catholic view of conscience is that a few formulations of its definition put too much weight on its derivation from external authorities into which the mind of the subject has no insight, which the person cannot understand, but which the subject merely obeys. Obedience to an alien dictate whose reasons are not perfectly comprehensible, and which thus do not fully command the obedience of the person addressed by their rationally persuasive force is simply the abdication of reason. In contrast, true obedience to the dictates of conscience, to be meaningful, has to arise from the inner conviction of people who choose to obey because they are convinced of the moral validity of what they commit themselves to.
No, since I said my own ‘reasoning,’ not my own ‘arational whim,’ determines my conscience, my position does not amount to moral relativism. When I reach a conclusion which guides my conscience it is always based on objective facts or logical inferences which I believe I could explain or justify to other people, since I believe that moral values necessarily make claims to objective validity.Yes, that is known as moral relativism and rejects the notion of objective truth. Being guided towards objective truth in no way an abdication of reason. One can always choose whether or not to follow and discern what is objectively true or to follow their own convictions. But once you go down that road then one person’s conviction is as good as the next’s. As a Catholic we cannot adhere to moral relativism since that very theory refutes itself. It’s basically saying that something is true because I think that it is. That statement in and of itself can never be true if even one other person believes otherwise… Peace… teachccd
Jiminy. Not Jimmy.Many small children are familiar with the story of Jimmy Cricket who tells Pinocchio always to let his conscience be his guide. The wisdom of this advice hits people as they grow older.
So “What is your conscience?”
So then, what specifically is your beef with the catechism’s description of conscience? You said, “**When I reach a conclusion which guides my conscience it is always based on objective facts or logical inferences which I believe I could explain or justify to other people, since I believe that moral values necessarily make claims to objective validity”. **Isn’t this what the Church is saying? Aren’t objective facts those facts which need to be explained to others in order for them to have the same moral values that will result in objective reality? You seem to be claiming the very thing that you initially resisted… teachccdNo, since I said my own ‘reasoning,’ not my own ‘arational whim,’ determines my conscience, my position does not amount to moral relativism. When I reach a conclusion which guides my conscience it is always based on objective facts or logical inferences which I believe I could explain or justify to other people, since I believe that moral values necessarily make claims to objective validity.
A judgment of taste, such as that ice cream is ‘better’ than salad, admits from the outset that it is entirely subjective: in making that statement, I don’t expect that anyone else should agree with me. But if I say that my own conscience, when rationally examined according to my own values, tells me that murder is wrong, I am not stating a subjective judgment of taste, but an objective judgment of value.
In this statement you just claim that a subjective idea can lead to an objective conclusion. This seems to contradict itself unless your values were derived from an objectively truthful source. I believe that this is what the catechism is alluding to … peace… teachccdBut if I say that my own conscience, when rationally examined according to my own values, tells me that murder is wrong, I am not stating a subjective judgment of taste, but an** objective judgment of value**.
Can you give some reference for this suggestion? Thanks.But we know that science says that everything in the physical world is causally determined.
That is actually Kant’s starting point for this reasoning, so it reflects the view of late 18th century natural science, which of course hadn’t anticipated the questions about universal causality posed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle, Copenhagen quantum mechanics, etc. But many theorists have argued in recent years that even these new discoveries don’t undermine the basic premise that natural science is the science of causes.Can you give some reference for this suggestion? Thanks.