After a bit of perusing on the internet, it seems that a fair and basic definition of the word 'conscience' is a judgment by which a person distinguishes right from wrong. Unfortunately this definition leaves me wondering what the parameters of having a conscience are.
Some questions:
- Does eveyone have a conscience?
- Does having a conscience imply that one does the right thing?
- If in fact one has a conscience, can he or she consciously act against it, if so how/why?
- Is a conscience a universally present characteristic or can you be conscientious on one matter, but without a conscience on another?
In the reading by Thoreau, he writes : "The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think is right." This implies that his having a conscience necessarily leads to his adherence to it. Is this really the case he is trying to make?
Notice the way Thoreau's comment is an echo -- and an interpretation -- of Socrates' statement in Crito that he is the sort of person who listens only to the reasoning that, on reflection, seems best.
ReplyDeleteSocrates is famously aporetic (he recognizes that he is substantively ignorant of anything durably important, though he very much wants to know). This does not prevent him from acting on his best judgment at any given moment, but it keeps him from being dogmatic. So he subjects even the claims of what we call conscience (he describes it as a "voice" -- and for all we know he actually had auditory hallucinations) to systematic examination.
PLEASE TURN OFF WORD VERIFICATION FUNCTION!
Very interesting post Joel.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to point out a contradiction in the Thoreau quote. He states, "The only OBLIGATION which I have a RIGHT to assume." In my understanding, "rights" are not "obligations." Just because I have the right to bear arms does not obligate me to bear arms. So, I think it implies that doing what one thinks is right (following one's conscience) is actually up to his or her discretion.
Now I would like to attempt to give my view in response to your questions.
1. I think having an abstract function is a learned behavior. Some people may either choose not to learn or are maybe even not taught properly.
2. If it is a learned behavior, then it can be distorted. Perhaps some are able to override this function. Perhaps others simply have a different idea of what is right. Since there is no truly objective "right" this is hard to judge.
3. I think it is absolutely possible to act against one's conscience. If we are able to override instinctual functions such as eating, why would we not be able to override a learned function?
4. Once again, if it is a learned behavior then it is possible that some things just haven't been taught. A person may not know what the right response is in some situations. However, I believe that they would quickly make a connection to a similar experience in order to fill in the gaps.
I don't detect the contradiction.
ReplyDeleteJoel, please turn off your word verification, or I won't post any more comments.
My apologies, I believe I forgot to hit 'save settings' when I first did this; the problem should be resolved.
Delete