Singer rejected the latter idea of conscience without reason.
Instead, he would consider that St. Thomas Aquinas' definition,
‘the mind of man making moral decisions', comes closest to the
truth. Aquinas rejected Augustine's theory of innate moral
knowledge and instead favoured the Aristotelian idea of still using
‘right reason' (recta ratio), but basing all knowledge, including
moral knowledge, on empirical ‘evidence', so to solve an ethical
dilemma with intellect. Aquinas thought that ‘synderesis' alone
could not guide one through life without a more specific capacity
to distinguish good from bad courses of action, and he called this
‘conscientia'. Although conscience is derived from the human
intellect, Aquinas believed that we should inform our conscience
with Christian teachings, which because of divine revelation,
ultimately come from God.
The first problem with Aquinas' line of thinking was that if the
correct ethical solutions are accessible without God, then the
need for God diminishes greatly. Also, in Aquinas' view, any act
can be morally justified only if ‘informed' by the Church. If the
Christian teachings accurately portray the voice of God, then your
conscience becomes, by default, the voice of God. If however the
Church is wrong, then your conscience is not the voice of God.
Realising this, Aquinas tried to embellish his theory with the idea
of ‘Invincible Ignorance'. The idea is simple: if, Aquinas said, a
man sleeps with another woman thinking that it is his wife, he has
done everything to inform his conscience but has still accidentally
committed a wrong act. His ignorance made him carry out the
wrong act, and thus he should not be held morally culpable for his
actions. However, not only does his amendment fail to deal with
the issues of an autocratic Church, but it merely enforces his own
rule of ‘follow the Church'. It is impossible to have fully informed
your conscience, and therefore the idea of ‘invincible ignorance'
does not mean as much as Aquinas implies. For the Church to
teach ‘do not commit adultery' implies ‘make sure you know who
you are sleeping with'. If the latter is not taught by the Church
then it is ignorance yes, but not necessarily invincible.
Instead, he would consider that St. Thomas Aquinas' definition,
‘the mind of man making moral decisions', comes closest to the
truth. Aquinas rejected Augustine's theory of innate moral
knowledge and instead favoured the Aristotelian idea of still using
‘right reason' (recta ratio), but basing all knowledge, including
moral knowledge, on empirical ‘evidence', so to solve an ethical
dilemma with intellect. Aquinas thought that ‘synderesis' alone
could not guide one through life without a more specific capacity
to distinguish good from bad courses of action, and he called this
‘conscientia'. Although conscience is derived from the human
intellect, Aquinas believed that we should inform our conscience
with Christian teachings, which because of divine revelation,
ultimately come from God.
The first problem with Aquinas' line of thinking was that if the
correct ethical solutions are accessible without God, then the
need for God diminishes greatly. Also, in Aquinas' view, any act
can be morally justified only if ‘informed' by the Church. If the
Christian teachings accurately portray the voice of God, then your
conscience becomes, by default, the voice of God. If however the
Church is wrong, then your conscience is not the voice of God.
Realising this, Aquinas tried to embellish his theory with the idea
of ‘Invincible Ignorance'. The idea is simple: if, Aquinas said, a
man sleeps with another woman thinking that it is his wife, he has
done everything to inform his conscience but has still accidentally
committed a wrong act. His ignorance made him carry out the
wrong act, and thus he should not be held morally culpable for his
actions. However, not only does his amendment fail to deal with
the issues of an autocratic Church, but it merely enforces his own
rule of ‘follow the Church'. It is impossible to have fully informed
your conscience, and therefore the idea of ‘invincible ignorance'
does not mean as much as Aquinas implies. For the Church to
teach ‘do not commit adultery' implies ‘make sure you know who
you are sleeping with'. If the latter is not taught by the Church
then it is ignorance yes, but not necessarily invincible.
