The armchair philosophy professor in the Catholic Peace Weekly offers his reflections on the place of conscience in our lives.
The ancient Greek word for conscience, 'syneidesis', etymologically combines 'syn (συν),' meaning 'together,' and 'oida (οἶδα),' meaning 'to know,' and is the root of the Latin 'conscientia'. Literally translated, conscience means 'to know together,' implying that the basis of certain and firm inner awareness lies within oneself. One might ask on what this firm knowledge is based. Socrates was executed in part because he described it as the 'divine thing' within oneself, the 'daimonion'.
Stoic philosophers understood conscience as moral confidence and conscious wisdom based on rational self-awareness. The Stoic concept of conscience, as the foundation for moral judgment and action, was later adopted and developed by Christianity. Conscience serves as the criterion for moral judgment in human actions, stemming from the soul's inherent tendency toward goodness. Its basis is reason, but ultimately it points to God, the absolute good. When conscience is grounded in human reason, there is a possibility of error; when grounded in God, it may appear mysterious and, at times, rigid and severe.
During the Enlightenment, conscience was completely separated from God and understood solely as an autonomous capacity to judge on the basis of individual reason. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) transformed conscience from an entirely external level to an internal and autonomous one. Conscience functions like an 'internal court' where reason legislates for itself. Religion can no longer serve as an objective basis for moral judgment; all judgments are made solely based on reason. Of course, Kant still calls for religion as a regulative principle for ethical life.
For the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883–1969), who resisted the Nazis to the very end, conscience is an “inner call demanding existence” directed at me. This call of conscience is neither the voice of a judge, nor the voice of God, nor the voice representing any objective moral law. Rather, conscience is the ‘absolute consciousness’ demanding that one become one's authentic self, transcending mere existence.
This absolute consciousness, which grasps existence, paradoxically reveals itself to me as the voice of conscience precisely in moments of crisis when my being is shaken. At the moment of existential crisis, when everything is at stake, this voice of conscience becomes the decisive catalyst guiding my existential decision. This decision is a fundamental choice, made by staking one's entire being, to truly become oneself.
Of course, finite humans are beings with limitations, so such self-determination is not only uncertain but also carries the possibility of error. What is crucial here is accepting and acknowledging these limitations. For it is precisely this acknowledgment that speaks to our authenticity. Conscience is not absolute; rather, it can be prone to delusion and error. Therefore, the constant and thorough self-examination before conscience is the path to true courage and to becoming fully human. This conscience, as envisioned by Jaspers, becomes a clarion call for healing in our contemporary society, wounded by a conscience dulled before false power and law.