Kinds of Conscience
1. Correct or True Conscience judges what is good as good and what is evil as evil. It is correct conscience which tells that getting the property of another without consent is stealing. It is also correct conscience which judges that we ought to pay out debts. 2.
Erroneous or False Conscience judges incorrectly that what is good is evil and what is evil is good. It is erroneous conscience which tells the husband to have a mistress, since it is the macho thing to do.
Error in conscience comes from the following factors: (a) Mistake in inferential thinking such as deriving a wrong conclusion from given mora morall prin princi cipl ples es;; (b) (b) Ignor Ignoranc ancee of the the law; law; (c) (c) Igno Ignora ranc ncee of the the fact fact and and othe other r circ circum umst stan ances ces modi modify fyin ing g human human acti action ons; s; (d) (d) Igno Ignora ranc ncee of futu future re cons conseq eque uence nces, s, especially those dependent on the free will of others. An erroneous conscience whose error is not willfully intended is called inculpable conscience. It is inculpable conscience operating in a person, who unaware of it, pays for grocery with “bogus” money. (Ignorance of the fact) An erroneous conscience whose error is due to neglect, or malice, is called culpable conscience. It is culpable conscience which believes that cheating is good since it helps us pass the exam and everybody does it anyway. The difference between culpable and inculpable conscience lies in the distinction between a voluntary error and an involuntary error. It is culpable precisely culpable precisely because the error is voluntary on the part of the person. It is inculpable because the error is involuntary, an “honest mistake”. 3.
Certain Conscience is a subjective assurance of the lawfulness of unlawfulness of a certain act. This implies that the person p erson is sure of his decision.
It is possible however to be sure of something as good when in fact it is just the opposite, and vice versa. It is possible for a policemen to be sure that killing the suspect is the best alternative under the principle of self-defense, whereas such killing is in fact unnecessary. Many Many theolo theologia gians ns believ believee that that a certai certain n conscie conscience nce should should always always be follow followed ed (Panizo: 65). This is to preserve the integrity of the human reason. One who therefore contradicts his certain conscience is morally guilty. 4.
Doubtful Doubtful Conscience Conscience is a vacillating conscience, unable to form a definite judgement on a certain action. A doubtful conscience must be first allowed to settle its doubts before an action is performed.
5. Scrupulous Conscience is a rigorous conscience, extremely afraid of committing evil. A scrupulous conscience is a meticulous and wants incontrovertible proofs before it acts.
6. Lax Conscience is one which refuses to be bothered about the distinction of good and evil. It rushes on and is quick to justify itself. May Filipinos who act on the impulse of “bahala na” on matters of morals are acting with lax conscience. The Compulsory Nature of Conscience
“Our bond with the natural moral law”, says Bernard Haring, is an exalted participation in the eternal law of God manifested by our conscience whose natural function it is to reveal our likeness to God” (The Law of Christ, Vol. I, p. 147). Conscience, therefore is aptly called the “voice of God”. Insofar as conscience operates within the realm of truth and sound reason, it is compulsory. When error creeps in, we should always trace it to its roots in order to eradicate it. It is only when conscience impels us to act according to our rational insights that it is truly the “voice of God”. But when it deviates from the correct norm, then it ceases to be rational, and is no longer the voice of God, but “our own evil work”. (Ibid.:148) Conscience operating according to sound rational insights is infallible. It should be followed. Conscience and Authority
Is conscience entirely a private matter? What does “freedom of conscience” means? Conscience insofar as it is the “voice of God” within the recesses of our nature assumes the authority of God. God is the ultimate norm to which conscience must conform to. Conscience too is linked with human authority. First, it is linked with the State insofar as this devices its authority from nature itself and is affirmed by natural law and divine revelation. Second, it is linked with human community, because conscience depends for help in community and social authority in order to be informed correctly of its judgments.(Ibid.:150) But when the state or the human community claims the exclusive rights to legislate and to command, and this contrary to the demands of the natural law, then such human authority loses its moral power to bind individual conscience to obedience. Law and commands are morally binding only when they are in agreement with the norms of morals. It is precisely the clamor to be liberated from the oppressive and tyrannical human authority that people claims “freedom of conscience “. Human authority therefore, presupposes individual conscience and is not the source of it.
