Alone with conscience

Few of us are familiar with Kant’s philosophy, but everyone knows the famous phrase that two things surprised the philosopher: the starry sky above us and the moral law within us. That is, the presence of conscience in everyone seemed to him undoubted, he was only surprised how this purely human property appears almost in a newborn.

We sometimes say “unscrupulous person”. Or: “I completely lost my conscience”, “You have neither shame nor conscience.” And, in turn, we are surprised now at the absence of conscience, and not at its miraculous emergence in a person. You can temporarily drown out your conscience, lose it, put it to sleep, but sooner or later it will be found, it will wake up, we think. In a world where every person without exception is endowed with a conscience, it is safer to live, agree.

There are no tools and techniques that would help to investigate this problem. Neither Kant nor his possible opponent has proof. Well, except that one will give examples of obvious atrocities and sins, and the other – numerous cases of repentance. Therefore, the phrase is possible (and nothing happens by chance in the language): “I appeal to your conscience.”

Of course, I am not the owner of the truth either, but I assume that conscience has more historical roots than genetic ones, and even less divine ones. In ancient times, for example, cannibalism was a natural phenomenon, not only everyday, but also religious and mystical. Among many tribes and peoples, the eating of various parts of the body of killed enemies, prisoners of war, and dead relatives was based on the belief that the strength and other properties of the slain person passed to the eater. In the twentieth century, rare cases of cannibalism were most often dictated by hunger. Here – yes, a person experienced remorse and repentance, because he did something that was contrary to common ideas.

That is, conscience works in the realm of existing, perceived or educated ideas. After all, even today a soldier who kills the enemy in a war that is recognized as just is a hero, and in an unjust war he is a cruel killer. Needless to say, the warring parties evaluate the same war from opposite positions. This means that the question of whether a person acts according to conscience or against conscience is decided solely by the convictions that exist in society and are imbibed by the belligerents. Here, however, patriotism comes into conflict with the gospel commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” Therefore, a conscientious person, even in the rank of a hero, still experiences some moral discomfort. The famous line of Okudzhava: “Ah, something I can not believe that I, brother, killed.”

But we usually talk about conscience on occasions that are not so grandiose. This is first. And secondly, if a person’s behavior is contrary to the very norms that are accepted in society? After all, only in this case we resort to the epithet “shameless”.

Read more:

• Why is guilt needed?

I think that in this case a person is vaguely or clearly aware that he is going against his conscience. Leaving the patient without help. Leaving small children and the elderly without a livelihood. Starting a false rumor, unfolding an intrigue in order to break a colleague’s career.

The reason here may be cowardice, indifference, envy, vanity, selfishness. And the justification is the same beliefs, this time personal, developed according to the circumstances. One or the other couldn’t help it anyway. Or: there is nothing to live on. Or: he is a grabber and a swindler and is not at all smarter or more talented than me. And then: I sacrifice everything for the sake of my calling.

Secretly, such a person is aware that his arguments are crooked. Here he really begins to drown out or persuade conscience. He drowns her in wine, hardens in defending his innocence, committing new and new actions, already intentionally and publicly. Surrounds himself with a group of like-minded people. At the same time, the actions of both sides are not disinterested: they equally need to justify the way of life that happened to them. Sometimes such a person comes to repentance. However, according to my observations, this happens much less often than samples of the previous literature show us.

But there is, of course, what Kant was talking about. That is, a person sometimes suffers from a mere trifle: a word of support not spoken in time, an accidentally inflicted insult. Yes, he was just in a hurry and did not help the old woman cross the road. No one will condemn him for this, and no one will notice, but he suffers, left alone with his conscience.

I said, “Yes, of course.” It is necessary to add: “… or not.” Because the presence or absence of such a conscience depends on the ability to love, on whether or not the moral imagination is developed in a person, that is, the ability to feel the state of another. If yes, then this gives rise to the need for participation in him and causes remorse if he did not show this participation. But it must be admitted that even people who are not bad and not mercenary, talented and intelligent, speaking about spirituality and mercy, are often deprived of this property.