Assess the view that the conscience need not always be obeyed
Assess the view that the conscience need not always be obeyed. [35]
For many of use our consciences have always been a part of us since the day we first started to recognise ourselves. It would be easy for everyone to follow this ‘voice of reason’ in our head as the outcome if often a positive one. However there are cases in which it could be deemed in the best interest of the person to disobey the conscience as it could led to a very immoral action. It is in these cases that not always obeying the conscience would be seemed as the right action.
The conscience has had many scholars argue the origin of its being. From the God-given to the innate to being developed through the society and parents, the conscience has been given all those titles of origin. To find a plausible argument of the conscience not always needing being listened to, it is a good idea to first look at where the true origin began.
Ethicists such as Butler, Newman and St Augustine believed that the conscience was the voice of God speaking directly to us in our heads. Butler believed that the conscience was our natural guide and to not listen to its direction would be foolish. Newman famously said that he would first drink to conscience and then to the Pope. Whereas the likes of Aquinas, St Jermoe and St Paul believed that is was a gift from God, but was not the ‘voice’ of God. One question that comes to mind with the conscience being God-given is that, if it is the ‘voice’ of God or his gift to us, why would there be a need to disobey it? Surly God would not wish us to do immoral actions and therefore the conscience would only point us towards the rightful action which should be followed through. In this case these Ethicists would argue that to the only route of action is to follow the conscience fully.
Although Aquinas thought that the conscience was a gift from God, he also believed that it was innate within us, the conscience requires training and instruction to flourish. His belief
For many of use our consciences have always been a part of us since the day we first started to recognise ourselves. It would be easy for everyone to follow this ‘voice of reason’ in our head as the outcome if often a positive one. However there are cases in which it could be deemed in the best interest of the person to disobey the conscience as it could led to a very immoral action. It is in these cases that not always obeying the conscience would be seemed as the right action.
The conscience has had many scholars argue the origin of its being. From the God-given to the innate to being developed through the society and parents, the conscience has been given all those titles of origin. To find a plausible argument of the conscience not always needing being listened to, it is a good idea to first look at where the true origin began.
Ethicists such as Butler, Newman and St Augustine believed that the conscience was the voice of God speaking directly to us in our heads. Butler believed that the conscience was our natural guide and to not listen to its direction would be foolish. Newman famously said that he would first drink to conscience and then to the Pope. Whereas the likes of Aquinas, St Jermoe and St Paul believed that is was a gift from God, but was not the ‘voice’ of God. One question that comes to mind with the conscience being God-given is that, if it is the ‘voice’ of God or his gift to us, why would there be a need to disobey it? Surly God would not wish us to do immoral actions and therefore the conscience would only point us towards the rightful action which should be followed through. In this case these Ethicists would argue that to the only route of action is to follow the conscience fully.
Although Aquinas thought that the conscience was a gift from God, he also believed that it was innate within us, the conscience requires training and instruction to flourish. His belief