Conscience

Question 1

Critically compare the views of Aquinas and Freud on the conscience and its role in moral decision-making. [40]

Answer 1

Firstly, some may mistakenly argue that Freud’s approach is superior because it offers a psychological explanation of conscience that does not rely on belief in God and rightly acknowledges the influence that parents and society have on moral decision-making. However, the strength of his argument is weakened by the pseudoscientific nature of many of his claims.
Secondly, Freud’s approach is less appealing because linking conscience to the unconscious mind leaves little room for moral accountability or genuine moral progress. However, Aquinas’ view, while offering a more hopeful perspective, can be criticised for being overly idealistic; assuming that humans are always capable of rational moral decision-making may not reflect reality.
Finally, both approaches are guilty of OVERSIMPLIFYING the conscience. It is more convincing to argue that conscience is an UMBRELLA TERM COVERING VARIOUS FACTORS involved in moral decision making, such as culture, environment, genetic predisposition and education.

Question 2

Evaluate Freud’s psychological approach to conscience. [40]

Answer 2

Firstly, Freud’s claim that conscience is a product of the SUPEREGO is problematic, as it suggests that moral decision-making is largely UNCONSCIOUS and therefore REMOVES ALL RESPONSIBILITY from the moral agent.
Secondly, Freud’s claim that all psychological problems are caused by SEXUALITY is flawed, undermining his approach to conscience.
Finally, perhaps conscience is better understood not as the
superego/unconscious mind, but as an UMBRELLA TERM COVERING VARIOUS FACTORS involved in moral decision making, such as culture, environment, genetic predisposition and education.

Question 3

Evaluate Aquinas’ theological approach to conscience. [40]

Answer 3

Firstly, Aquinas’ approach to conscience fails as it is too heavily
reliant on the EXISTENCE OF GOD and the acceptance of a GOD-GIVEN REASON AND PURPOSE.
Secondly, Aquinas’ approach to conscience fails due to his OVERLY OPTIMISTIC and NAÏVE understanding of human nature.
Finally, perhaps conscience is better understood not as the act of reason making moral decisions (AQUINAS’ THEOLOGICAL APPROACH) but as an UMBRELLA TERM COVERING VARIOUS FACTORS involved in moral decision making, such as culture, environment, genetic predisposition and
education

Question 4

‘There is no evidence to support the claim that conscience exists.’ Discuss. [40]

Answer 4

Firstly, Aquinas’ claim that CONSCIENCE EXISTS and is the act of
using GOD-GIVEN REASON to make moral decisions is weak, as it relies on acceptance of a theological framework that is overly
optimistic of human nature.
Secondly, Freud’s claim that CONSCIENCE ‘EXISTS’ - in the sense that it is the SUPEREGO - is weakened by the pseudoscientific nature of his theory.
Finally, it is clear that conscience DOES NOT EXIST and is just an
UMBRELLA TERM COVERING VARIOUS FACTORS involved in moral decision making, such as culture, environment, genetic
predisposition and education.

Question 5

Q4: ‘God is present within the workings of the conscience and the super-ego.’ Discuss. [40]

Answer 5

Firstly, AQUINAS’ THEOLOGICAL VIEW of the conscience, which
links conscience to God and not the superego, FAILS DUE TO ITS
OPTIMISM OF HUMAN NATURE.
Secondly, FREUD’S PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION of conscience as arising from the superego, rather than from God, is EQUALLY PROBLEMATIC.
Finally, it is most convincing to argue that conscience is an
UMBRELLA TERM for many influences on moral behaviour, not the presence of God in the workings of the conscience and the
superego.