What is conscience? What is conscience and what does it mean to live according to conscience? What is a bad conscience

Conscience is a certain moral tension, a person’s experience of words and actions. Moreover, the problem of conscience can affect not only a person’s own actions and words, but also the actions of someone else, and the meaning of the word conscience is distorted from one individual to another.

Definition and types

It is quite difficult to immediately determine what conscience is. The thing is that the problem of conscience is centuries-old and psychologists and philosophers of each period defined this word somewhat differently.

What does conscience mean from a psychological point of view: this is a quality of a person that indicates that he is able to bear responsibility for his actions and words. Philosophers define a sense of conscience as moral self-awareness, distinguishing between good and bad, and also motivating a person to do good deeds.

V. Dahl gave conscience the following definition: it is the inner consciousness, a secret corner of the soul, where lynching occurs over every action and phrase, dividing them into good and bad, as well as a feeling that can give rise to love for good and aversion to evil.

Honor and conscience are inherent in moral people who adhere to the principles of justice and life rules. If a person’s conscience gnaws at him, this means that he has committed an act that he himself cannot approve.

If she never torments a person, he is said to be soulless. So if it is impossible to take back the words and actions spoken, why is conscience needed, and is it needed at all, or are there motives and ways to get rid of conscience?

Concept in religion

In Christian terminology, this word consists of fellowship and message. This means what it means to live according to conscience in Christianity - to live, benefiting society, to live together with it. Deeply religious people often say that if our conscience torments us, it is the voice of God that condemns us for some unseemly acts.

Why is it different for everyone?

When conscience torments, a person engages in self-examination and self-torture, reproaches and shames himself, replaying the action in his head again and again as a subject of reproach. Some people are not and never have been tormented by it because they do not realize that their actions are causing harm to someone.

In fact, having such moral feelings is characteristic of people raised according to a certain scheme of distinguishing between good and evil. By adulthood, a so-called standard is formed in their minds, by which they determine the coloring of their own and other people’s actions. This parenting pattern is very common: we often hear young children being told that picking leaves on trees is bad, but sharing toys is good.

But such upbringing can make a child happy in the future only if the parents’ meanings and definitions of good and evil have not been distorted. If these concepts were instilled in a distorted form or were not instilled at all, it is possible that in adult life a person lives without giving an account of honor and conscience.

What does it mean to have a conscience?

To the question: “Is conscience necessary?” One can only answer in the affirmative. A person’s conscience serves as a fair, but also merciless measure of his deeds. If your conscience gnaws, it means that what you did does not correspond to your own ideas about good or neutral actions.

If we imagine that honor and conscience are not inherent in any person on Earth, we can safely say that chaos will begin. Everyone will do absolutely random things: go and kill the offender, who for others is the breadwinner of the family and an adored relative, steal money from someone, perhaps the last, intended for food or treatment. After all, making an appointment and not showing up, insulting or hitting - all this would be universal, because no one would be able to say that these actions are disgusting and unfair to others.

Sigmund Freud described this quality quite briefly. He believed that it originates in infancy: the child depends on parental love and acts in accordance with their standard of good and evil, so as not to lose this love.

It follows from this that conscience appears precisely in childhood, and parents and the environment play an important role in its formation. Repeated studies have proven that a conscientious person becomes one whose parents did not beat him for misdeeds in childhood, but expressed their grief at his behavior. As an adult, this person is responsible for his every word and does everything accordingly.

Tormenting conscience

This word has a lot of definitions, and among these definitions there is one stable one - tormenting and gnawing. What should a person who is tormented by his conscience do? First of all, be happy for yourself. This means that you clearly see the problem and know what you did and why you lost your peace of mind.

Sometimes frank conversations about a problem are needed. For example, parents, sisters and brothers, close friends, spouses - these are people who should accept you in any way, which means they will listen if you are tormented by your own conscience.

If the loss of balance is caused by deeds or words that hurt another person, you need to ask him for forgiveness. An accepted apology will be a real balm for a troubled soul.

Don’t try to drown out such feelings or define them in some other way, attributing them to fatigue or nervousness. If you have the honor to admit what you have done to yourself, life will become much easier.

A tormenting act is not always equivalent to the feelings experienced by the perpetrator. For example, some greatly exaggerate what they have done - this situation is well described in Anton Chekhov’s short story “The Death of an Official.” A person can simply drive himself into hysterics when there are no objective reasons for this.

The most effective thing is still dialogue with the offended person. Remember that a frank apology is not humiliation or infringement of pride, but shows you as a highly moral and educated person who can answer for his words and actions.

Differences from honor

Honor, conscience, guilt, duty - this is just a short list of terms and conditions that are often identified. Honor and conscience are quite close concepts, but they have certain differences, and fundamental ones.

The latter is how we measure our own actions in relation to others. This is a kind of internal judge of all words and actions that brought joy to someone, and grief to someone. In accordance with this, the soul becomes good and light, but otherwise, the conscience torments.

Honor is a measure of behavior towards oneself. There is a common expression: this is below my honor and dignity. This means that a person cannot act in a certain way without hurting his own feelings.

It is worth noting that honor comes with much greater responsibility. Honor is a series of strict rules and principles in which a person is brought up from childhood. This does not mean putting yourself above others, on the contrary, it means knowing your place among people and treating yourself more strictly than others.

category of ethics that embraces moral issues. self-control of the individual, the ability of a person to independently formulate moral instructions for himself, demand their fulfillment from himself and evaluate his actions. In ancient Greek. mythology S. gets fantastic. depiction in the form of the image of Erinyes, goddesses of curse, revenge and punishment, pursuing and punishing criminals, but acting as benefactors (eumenides) in relation to the repentant. In ethics, the problem of personal socialism was first posed by Socrates, whom he considered the source of morals. of a person’s judgments, his self-knowledge (ancient Greek ??????????, like the Latin conscientia, means both S. and awareness). In this form, Socrates advocated the liberation of the individual from the unconditional power of societies over him. and tribal traditions. However, only in modern times the category S. acquires great importance in ethics, which reflected the process of liberation of the individual from feudal-class, guild and church. regulation during the development of bourgeois. relationships. The question of personal S. is one of the centers. in the ideology of the Reformation (Luther’s idea that the voice of God is present in the consciousness of every believer and guides him regardless of the church). Materialist philosophers of the 17th–18th centuries. (Locke, Spinoza, Hobbes, other materialists of the 18th century), denying the innate character of S., draw attention to its dependence on societies. education, living conditions and interests of the individual. Limiting themselves to only stating this dependence, they, as a rule, come to a relativistic interpretation. Locke, for example, says that “... if we cast a glance at people as they are, we will see that in one place some feel remorse conscience due to the commission or non-commitment of actions that others in another place consider worthy" (Izbr. filos. prod., vol. 1, M., 1960, p. 99). A similar idea is expressed by Holbach (see “System of Nature”, M., 1940, p. 140). Relativistic interpretation of S., which has an anti-feud among the enlighteners. and anticleric. direction, proclaiming the freedom of personal S., nevertheless deprives it of meaning. To the extent that S. is of a personal, “internal” nature, it makes it an object of influence from the state and society as a whole (although educators do not deny that S. is the prerogative of the individual. Holbach defines S. as an assessment, which “... in our own soul we give to our actions" - "Pocket Theology", M., 1959, p. 172). In contrast to this, idealistic. ethics developed the idea of ​​an autonomous individual who determines morals independently of society. law. Thus, Rousseau believes that the laws of virtue are “written in the hearts of everyone” and are sufficient to know them.” ..deep into yourself and, in the silence of passions, listen to the voice of your conscience" ("On the influence of sciences on morals", St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 56). Kant considers the only truly moral law for a rational being to be that which it gives to itself The idea of ​​personal autonomy ultimately led to an aprioristic interpretation of S. According to Kant, S. is not something acquired. Every person, as a moral being, has a conscience within him from birth. The idea of ​​personal autonomy was expressed even more sharply by Fichte. . which is the only criterion of morality, and subordination to external authority is unconscionability. Subsequently, this individualistic interpretation was taken to the extreme in existentialism, in which the ethical concept is denied. the universal nature of moral law: for example, Sartre considers the only criterion of morality to be adherence to an “absolutely free” individual plan, a person’s rejection of the “bad belief” in the existence of objective criteria. Hegel already gave a critique of the relativistic and subjectivist understanding. , which showed the contradictory nature of S. S. T. ZR. Hegel, S. “has its truth in the immediate certainty of itself,” “determines it based on itself.” But this self-reliability of S. entails the “arbitrariness of an individual,” which can “attribute... its own conscientiousness” to any content. Therefore, Hegel points out, S. acquires its reality only in “universal self-consciousness” thanks to the “universal environment” (society) in which a person finds himself (see Soch., vol. 4, M., 1959, pp. 339– 52). However, recognizing the priority of societies. consciousness over the personal, Hegel interprets it objectively and idealistically, as the embodiment of the absolute. spirit, but its immediate. considers religion to be an expression in the consciousness of the individual: “So, conscience, in the greatness of its superiority over a certain law and any content of duty... is a moral genius that knows that the inner voice of its direct knowledge is the voice of the divine... This lonely worship is at the same time time is essentially community worship..." (ibid., pp. 351–52). Feuerbach finds materialistic. an explanation for the fact that S. appears to a person as the voice of his inner self and at the same time as a voice coming from the outside, entering into an argument with the person and condemning his actions. He calls S. “another self” of a person, but points out that this alter ego does not come from God and does not arise “by a miraculous way of spontaneous generation.” “For, as belonging to this community, as a member of this tribe, this people, this era, I do not have in my conscience any special or other criminal statute. .. I reproach myself only for what another reproaches me for... or at least I could reproach me if I knew about my actions or myself became the object of an action worthy of reproach" (Elected philosophical works, t 1, M., 1955, p. 630). The Marxist understanding of socialism reveals its social nature and shows its determination by the conditions of human life and his ideological position. - different from that of the have-not, from the thinker - different from the one who is unable to think" (K. Marx, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 6, p. 140) The sources of personal conflicts should ultimately be sought in social contradictions that in one way or another affect the individual and are reflected in his consciousness, the contradictions between the interests of different classes, between societies and personal interests, between the reflection of social and historical necessity. institutions and the understanding of a private person confront the individual with the need for his own choice, the alternatives to which constitute the problem of his personal self. It is in this sense that Lenin’s instruction should be understood that “the idea of ​​determinism, establishing the necessity of human actions, in no way destroys either reason or a person’s conscience, nor an assessment of his actions" (Works, vol. 1, p. 142). Marxism does not deny the specifically personal character of socialism; it only reveals its content: the higher the measure of societies. development of the individual, her social activity and consciousness, the greater the role played by S. in her life. The conditions for this development of the individual are the elimination of class-antagonistic. relations in society and then the development of communist. relations, as they become established, legal coercion will gradually give way to morality. influence, and this influence itself will increasingly coincide with the commands of personal S. and therefore, in the overwhelming majority of cases, will be carried out through personal awareness by the individual. "...In human relationships, punishment will be effective and will be nothing more than a sentence that the offender pronounces on himself... In other people, on the contrary, he will meet natural saviors from the punishment that he himself imposed on himself..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 197). Lit.: Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Even in ancient times, philosophers and sages pondered about this voice: where does it come from and what is its nature? Various assumptions and theories have been put forward. The presence of this voice created special problems for philosophers and scientists of the “new time”, who see in man only a material being and deny the existence of the soul.

There were Darwinists who argued that conscience is an unnecessary feeling that should be gotten rid of. It is interesting to quote the words of Hitler, who, as is known, was one of the thinkers of social Darwinism (the doctrine according to which the laws of natural selection and the struggle for existence, which, according to Charles Darwin, operate in nature, also apply to human society): “I free man from the humiliating chimera called conscience”. And Hitler also said: “Conscience is an invention of the Jews.”

It is clear that it is impossible to achieve a clear understanding of spiritual phenomena with the help of mere assumptions. Only God, who knows exactly the essence of spiritual phenomena, can reveal it to people.

Every person is familiar with his inner voice, called conscience. So where does it come from?

The source of the voice of conscience is the initially good nature (soul) of a person.Already at the very creation of man, God inscribed His image and likeness in the depths of his soul (Gen. 1:26). Therefore, conscience is usually called the voice of God in man. Being a moral law written directly on the heart of man, it operates in all people, regardless of their age, race, upbringing and level of development. Moreover, conscience is inherent only at the “human level”; animals are subject only to their instinct.

Our personal experience also convinces us that this inner voice, called conscience, is beyond our control and expresses itself directly, without our desire. Just as we cannot convince ourselves that we are full when we are hungry, or that we are rested when we are tired, so we cannot convince ourselves that we have acted well when our conscience tells us that we have acted Badly.

Conscience is a person’s ability to distinguish between good and evil, the basis of universal morality.

Degradation of conscience

Human conscience initially did not act alone. In man before the Fall, she acted together with God Himself, who abides in the human soul by His grace. Through conscience, the human soul received messages from God, which is why conscience is called the voice of God or the voice of the human spirit, enlightened by the Holy Spirit of God. The correct action of conscience is possible only in its close interaction with the Divine grace of the Holy Spirit. This was the human conscience before the fall.

However after the fall conscience was influenced by passions, and its voice began to fade due to the diminution of the action of Divine grace. Gradually this led to hypocrisy, to the justification of human sins.

If man were not damaged by sin, he would not need a written law. Conscience could truly guide all his actions. The need for a written law arose after the Fall, when man, darkened by passions, ceased to clearly hear the voice of his conscience.

Restoring the correct action of conscience is possible only under the guidance of the Divine grace of the Holy Spirit, achievable only through a living union with God, revealing faith in the God-man Jesus Christ.

Remorse

When a person listens to the voice of his conscience, he sees that this conscience speaks in him, first of all, as a judge, strict and incorruptible, evaluating all the actions and experiences of a person. And it often happens that some action is beneficial to a person, or has aroused approval from other people, but deep down in his soul this person hears the voice of conscience: “this is not good, this is a sin...”. Those. a person feels it deep down and suffers, regrets that he did it. This feeling of suffering is called “remorse.”

When we act well, we experience peace and tranquility in our souls, and vice versa, after committing a sin we experience reproaches of conscience. These reproaches of conscience sometimes turn into terrible torment and torment, and can drive a person to despair or loss of mental balance if he does not restore peace and tranquility in his conscience through deep and sincere repentance...

Unkind deeds cause shame, fear, grief, guilt and even despair in a person. So, for example, Adam and Eve, having tasted the forbidden fruit, felt shame and hid, with the intention of hiding from God (Genesis 3:7-10). Cain, having killed his younger brother Abel out of envy, began to fear that any passerby would kill him too (Gen. 4:14). King Saul, who was pursuing the innocent David, cried with shame when he learned that David, instead of avenging his evil, spared his life (1 Samuel 26).

There is an opinion that separation from the Creator is the root of all suffering in the world, therefore conscience is the most nightmarish and painful experience of a person.

But conscience does not infringe on a person’s free will. It only indicates what is good and what is evil, and it is up to a person to incline his will to the first or second, having received from his conscience the information necessary for that. A person is responsible for this moral choice.

If a person does not monitor his conscience and does not listen to it, then gradually “his conscience becomes covered with a layer of scum, and he becomes insensitive.” He sins, and yet nothing special seems to happen to him. A person who has lulled his conscience, drowned its voice with lies and the darkness of persistent sin, is often called unscrupulous. The Word of God calls such stubborn sinners people with a seared conscience; their state of mind is extremely dangerous and can be fatal to the soul.

Freedom of conscience- this is the freedom of a person’s moral and ethical views (i.e., what is considered good and evil, virtue or meanness, a good or bad deed, honest or dishonest behavior, etc.).

In France, the principle of freedom of conscience was first proclaimed in Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), which formed the basis of the legislation of the French state during the era of bourgeois revolutions. Freedom of conscience, among other human freedoms, was proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. In 1981, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. Freedom of conscience is enshrined as a constitutional freedom in Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The understanding (and demand) of freedom in the aspect of religious relations in different historical situations was filled with different content. Freedom of conscience begins with the recognition of the right to “inner convictions.” There is a substitution of concepts here - freedom of conscience is replaced by freedom of belief. Legally, freedom of conscience means the right of citizens to profess any religion or not to profess any religion.

However, many people are disgusted by the concept of “freedom of conscience.” To formally designate a person’s ability to have any belief, the term “freedom of belief” should be used, and to designate the opportunity to profess any religion, the term “freedom of religion.” The concept of “freedom of conscience” discredits conscience as a moral category, because it gives it the character of optionality and moral irresponsibility.

Conscience is a universal moral law

Conscience is the internal moral law of every person. There is no doubt that the moral law is embedded in the very nature of man. This is evidenced by the undoubted universality of the concept of morality in humanity. Through this law, God guides all human life and activity.

Scientists (anthropologists) studying the customs and customs of backward tribes and peoples testify that so far not a single tribe, even the most savage, has been found that would be alien to certain concepts of moral good and evil.

Thus, every person, no matter who he is, Jew, Christian, Muslim or pagan, feels peace, joy and satisfaction when he does good, and, on the contrary, feels anxiety, sorrow and oppression when he does evil.

At the upcoming Last Judgment, God will judge people not only by their faith, but also by the testimony of their conscience. Therefore, as the Apostle Paul teaches, pagans can be saved if their conscience testifies to God of their virtuous life. In general, sinners, both believers and non-believers, subconsciously feel responsible for their actions. Thus, according to the prophetic words of Christ, sinners before the end of the world, seeing the approach of God’s righteous judgment, will ask the earth to swallow them up, and the mountains to cover them (Luke 23:30, Rev. 6:16). A criminal can escape another human judgment, but he will never escape the judgment of his conscience. That is why the Last Judgment frightens us, because our conscience, which knows all our deeds, will act as our accuser and accuser.

Material prepared by Sergey SHULYAK

Church of the Life-Giving Trinity, Moscow

“You have no conscience!”, “I wish I had a conscience!”, “Conscience is the best controller.” "Remorse." We have heard these and many others more than once or twice in our lives. So what is conscience? Why do we need it? How do we know whether we have it or not, and how not to lose it?

Conscience is a kind of regulator of our relationships with people around us. At the same time, everyone has their own regulator. A person’s conscience is a purely individual concept, there is no standard in it, it cannot be measured and said: “My conscience is greater than yours.” It all depends on how capable a person is of regulating his moral and ethical behavior, the norms of which are different for everyone and depend on their environment, personal qualities, and life experience. At the level of feelings, conscience helps us evaluate the wrongness or correctness of actions or deeds.

Conscience: conscience in life examples

Conscience has a strong influence on our lives and can lead to serious moral suffering (especially for emotional and sensitive individuals) as a result of committing a bad or even simply wrong act towards someone. For example, we can be rude to a passenger in transport due to our irritation or lack of upbringing. A so-called “conscientious” person will apologize for his inappropriate behavior immediately or will experience “pangs of conscience” for a long time, but for an “unscrupulous” person rudeness is the norm, nothing can be done about it. We can be rude to our parents, who never tire of teaching us about life, but then we realize that we were wrong, because from childhood we were taught that being rude to elders is bad. In many situations in which we become participants every day, conscience protects and warns us from committing actions that we will later regret, as if giving an alarming signal about the fallacy, incorrectness or inappropriateness of this or that action.

What is conscience: sources of conscience

The foundations of conscience are laid in us by our parents at an early age (at 3-5 years), and the process of its formation is called upbringing. At the same time, the most important role here is played not by verbal stories about what is bad and what is good, but by the visual behavior of the parents and their reaction to the actions and actions of the baby. To cultivate a conscience in a child, you need to work hard. So, if you say that lying is bad, and then you yourself tell a lie, what can you expect from a child who believes that everything his parents do is the norm for him? If you teach a child to respect the adult generation, and then take it out on each other or on others, will the beginnings of conscience bear good fruit? If your child does something wrong, you don’t need to immediately shout: “You can’t do that!” and punish him for his crime. Explain clearly why exactly it is impossible, what negative consequences this may result in (“If you touch the hot surface of the iron, you will burn your fingers, it will be very painful, you will not be able to play with toys, draw”, “If you do not pick up the toys from the floor and If you don’t put them in place, someone will step on them and they will break,” etc.).

Shame, shame and conscience

When we condemn someone, we can say that we are shaming the person, trying to awaken his conscience. The feeling of shame is an indicator of moral behavior. It is believed that it has such a synonym as shame. This is not entirely true. Shame is actually a certain state of our soul, self-condemnation. Shame is a state of mind imposed on us, one might say, a provocation. Someone insulted us, told an unpleasant story about us, and we took it upon ourselves, we feel disgraced (and it doesn’t matter whether they told the truth or made it up). And here the person begins to gnaw at us more deeply than conscience.

What is conscience: varieties and forms of conscience

The science of morality, in particular conscience, is called ethics. Ethics classifies conscience according to:

2. Form of manifestation (individual, collective).

3. Intensity of manifestation (suffering, muted, active).

Forms of conscience are also represented by a fairly wide range of manifestations: doubt, painful hesitation, reproach, confession, shame, self-irony, etc.