Conscience: why does not everyone have it and what to do if it does not exist?

[Brother]

How often do you hear the sacramental "People have no conscience at all - prices rise and rise" in someone's address? Or "There is no conscience at all - he thinks only of himself and his own benefit"? Or "There is no conscience at all - again all the work had to be done instead of him"? And what kind of beast is this - conscience - that should prevent you from thinking about your own profit, raising prices when they buy it anyway, or straining yourself with work that someone will do anyway? In principle, our online courses "Psychic Self-Regulation" and "Best Communication Techniques" can help to deal with your inner experiences and contradictions . In the meantime, let's talk in more detail about what conscience is.

What is conscience?​

There are many definitions of what conscience is. However, most often this word is used in the context of a person's duty and obligation to have his own moral attitudes, in accordance with which he will act in various life circumstances.

This is something like serving in the army, which has been declared a sacred duty and an honorable duty, but people who do not claim such honor will face criminal liability for evading military service. The category of conscience is not so scrupulously regulated by the law, but if it seems to someone that you have no conscience, you will face general condemnation.

This is despite the fact that Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation directly guarantees freedom of conscience. True, the concept of "freedom of conscience" goes hand in hand with freedom of religion and freedom to choose your religion or not to choose any of the religions. This definition is rather narrow and does not even come close to reflecting the whole variety of meanings that humanity invests in the concept of “conscience”.

In general, the topic of conscience is rather ambiguous and confusing. Perhaps the wisdom of the ages will somehow help to understand the origins of this moral category, to understand the essence of conscience and to find out whether freedom of conscience can be interpreted as freedom not to have any moral principles.

The theme of conscience in the writings of philosophers​

Prior to the separation of psychology as a separate science in the 19th century, philosophy was engaged in the interpretation of cognitive and psychological processes. It is believed that for the first time such a category as "conscience" was designated by a separate term by representatives of Stoicism - a philosophical school that originated around 300 BC.

The term συνείδησις is translated into Russian as "consciousness". The word "consciousness" is also quite ambiguous, but the Stoics used this term precisely in the sense identical to the words "conscience", "conscience." The most detailed principles of stoicism are set out in the works of Lucius Seneca, which are regularly reprinted to this day. In addition, the book of Marcus Aurelius "Alone with himself" is informative in this regard, which also underwent many reprints.

Of course, moral categories that cannot be defined in quantifiable units worried philosophers before. For example, Socrates (469-399 BC) believed that in every person there is “a particle of general necessary conditions that, defining a person's life experience, give him a push in unclear and not amenable to reasonable accounting, directing his behavior in one or the other side."

This is how Plutarch described the views of his teacher in his work "On the Daimony of Socrates", which is found under the second title "On the Demon of Socrates". Socrates himself never described anything in writing, because he believed that it was necessary to train memory. This wonderful way of training memory became known to us only because the disciples of Socrates were not too lazy to write down this non-trivial thought of their teacher.

In the Middle Ages, representatives of the scholastic trend in philosophy, which was formed as a synthesis of the views of Aristotle and the canons of the Catholic Church, considered conscience to be a certain "pre-established" characteristic of a person, peculiar to him from birth. In any case, this is how this category is presented in the works of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In addition, the scholastics distinguished two understandings of conscience: as a pre-established constant characteristic (synderesis) and as a certain variable (conscientia), which denote actions related to conscience. For example, remorse.

The understanding of conscience as a kind of innate characteristic persisted for a long time. We meet him in the works of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), in particular, in his book "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morality". And the German philosopher Johann Fichte (1762-1814) believed that categories such as duty and conscience should have clear criteria of truth. On the whole, he believed that “conscience is nothing more than a direct consciousness of our duty”.

With the isolation of psychology as a separate science, conscience was no longer considered exclusively in conjunction with religious beliefs. Today, such a medieval approach has been preserved in narrow religious circles and the constitutions of some states. And the development of innovative research methods made it possible to reveal the centuries-old secret of where a person has a conscience and how an awakening conscience works in a decision-making situation.

The topic of conscience in scientific research​

With the advent of devices that scan the brain and visualize foci of heightened activity, the era of experiments in the study of the human brain has kicked off. Gradually, scientists have managed to put together a whole picture of how the brain works and which parts of it are responsible for certain emotions.

In 2014, a part of the brain was discovered that is activated when a person is asked to make a knowingly immoral decision. Scientists from Oxford concluded that emotions associated with such a category as conscience are concentrated in one of the 12 regions of the lateral frontal cortex of the human brain, located just above the eyebrows.

Visually, this section is a spherical clot of nervous tissue, and in different people it has a different size, therefore, the reactions of each individual to the same external stimuli may differ. Interestingly, only humans have this 12th section (lateral frontal pole), while apes have only 11 sections. These 11 sections largely coincide in structure with similar sections of the lateral frontal cortex in humans.

Let us clarify that the research objectives were much broader than the “search for conscience” and were fully reflected in the article Brain area unique to humans linked to cognitive powers.

Of course, studies of this magnitude are not carried out in the same day or year. Interim results were published back in 2011 in the article Frontal cortex and reward-guided learning and decision-making.

Russian scientists also contributed to the study of this problem. Our scientists propose to consider conscience from an anthropocentric position, which will allow a better understanding of the underlying causes of human behavior in situations of moral choice. More details about this approach can be found in the article “To Understanding the Phenomenon of Conscience in Psychology”.

Scientists at the Institute of the Human Brain of the Russian Academy of Sciences believe that the so-called "pangs of conscience" are a sign of normal brain function. However, Russian scientists, unlike their Western colleagues, are not inclined to believe that only one part of the brain is responsible for emotions associated with conscience. Everything that is associated with complex psychological reactions can be considered only in the context of the work of the nervous system and the brain as a whole.

Research on the topic of conscience actualizes new scientific problems related to this issue. Thus, some researchers emphasize that any person determines himself in matters of conscience and morality both in his personal capacity and as a social agent, i.e. acting as an agent of public morality, the action of which is institutionally mediated.

Therefore, in further research, it will be logical to study conscience as a phenomenon, taking into account that it will manifest itself in different ways as an autonomous agent and as an agent of public morality. This dilemma is discussed in more detail in the article "The problem of conscience in modern domestic psychological research and the tasks of ethics". The author develops this idea in his subsequent works. In particular, in the article "Philosophical and ethical attitudes of the psychological study of conscience".

Now that we have some idea of how conscience functions and what it is in general, it's time to try to answer the question raised in the title: why does not everyone have a conscience?

Can conscience be unified?​

Agree, it would be more convenient for all of us to live and interact if each and every one had the same moral guidelines, a common understanding of what is good and what is bad, how you can act, and how you should not under any circumstances. However, even people endowed with such a quality as conscience may have different ideas about good and bad, the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable.

All this complicates interaction and mutual understanding even in the segment of society where everyone has a conscience. What can we say about those who have no conscience from the word "absolutely". By the way, the definition of "no conscience" is also perceived by many differently. An official who steals from the budget, in the understanding of society, is unequivocally shameless. However, in the understanding of the immediate environment, he is a very caring person who thinks about the welfare of relatives and friends, and is never shameless if he has not killed, beaten or robbed anyone on the street.

And if such a deputy or an official at least occasionally "shares" with voters living in the territory under his jurisdiction, and at least some of the budget funds are directed to improvement, then no one will even hint about the lack of conscience of such a figure. This is despite the fact that such a figure can safely continue to steal from the budget, caring for his own welfare more than for the public.

Is it possible to bring such a category as conscience to a conventional common denominator so that everyone understands the norms of morality and ethics in the same way and with the same enthusiasm to follow them? In general, such ideas have been repeatedly presented in the works of utopian philosophers who dreamed of an ideal world, universal prosperity and the rule of morality. The most famous utopia belongs to the pen of Tomazzo Campanella, who wrote his famous book "City of the Sun" in the distant 17th century.

Of course, the dreams of that period of time are generously seasoned with trends that were relevant at that time, i.e. at the beginning of the 17th century. However, the dream of general prosperity as such and the search for a format for the realization of such a dream are still relevant, as is clearly evidenced by the queues at the polling stations in any election. Does this mean that general prosperity based on a common understanding of the principles of conscience and morality is impossible as such? Probably yes. Why?

This question was partially answered by scientists from Oxford, who discovered that the brain region responsible for the implementation of reactions of conscience has different sizes in different people. Consequently, the very ability to respond in one way or another to identical stimuli is different for different people. This does not in any way contradict the conclusions of Russian scientists who believe that reactions associated with conscience cannot be reduced to the functioning of only one part of the brain, but they must be considered in the context of the functioning of the entire nervous system and the brain.

Any system consists of elements, and since these elements differ in different people, even in size, not to mention the potential for activity, then the functioning of the system as a whole will also differ for different people. Thus, the potential reactions of morality and ethics predetermined from birth are different for all people.

The second point is a person's ability to learn and the formation of neural connections in the brain throughout life. Of course, these processes will proceed in different ways depending on what family and what social environment a person is formed in, what he sees from day to day and what books he reads (and whether he reads at all).

From this comes another very important point: it is necessary to take into account the local conditions for the formation of the principles of morality, duty and conscience. We have already mentioned the "City of the Sun" by Tomazzo Campanella. He proposed to take as a basis the moral principles on which Catholicism is built. How would they look at this in countries where Orthodoxy, Judaism, Protestantism, Buddhism, and Islam are professed?

Even in the 17th century, it would be worth thinking about, because shipping, trade and cultural exchange between different countries and regions were already well established at that time. But what about today's multimedia and cosmopolitan world? It is hardly possible to obtain constructive interaction by imposing unified norms on someone that are understandable only in a particular region.

However, if from century to century there are those who want to promulgate yet another utopian model of the world, and from elections to elections there are those who want to believe that this particular deputy or president will bring the general good, then why not fantasize about the topic of conscience? For example, think about the circumstances under which conscience could become a universal regulator of human behavior and any social interactions. Let's just fantasize under what circumstances this would be possible.

When will it be possible to unify conscience:

1. All humans will be born with the same size of the 12th section of the lateral frontal cortex (lateral frontal pole).
2. All people will have the same functioning of the central nervous system and the brain.
3. All people will be brought up in an identical social environment with a single religion, the same material wealth, and a unified educational and cognitive content.

Note that all 3 conditions must act necessarily and simultaneously, since the loss of any segment will immediately lead to differences between people in terms of the perception of the surrounding reality and what is duty and conscience, morality and ethics, good and bad, etc.

Is this possible in our world so diverse and so beautiful in its diversity? Of course not, and that's good too, because being monotonous can be tiring too, even when everything is fine. Does this mean that we are doomed to coexist with shameless people and constantly struggle with their selfishness? It seems that yes. And, finally, does this mean that conscience is gradually turning into a rudiment of civilization, which interferes with the personal prosperity of each of us? But here just no.

The presence of conscience gives undoubted advantages to the owner of this wonderful quality. And, of course, it helps to live more than hinders. We have already mentioned the conclusions of scientists above that the presence of remorse indicates the normal functioning of the brain. Therefore, if you have them, you can be sure that your brain is working properly. Since the brain is needed for a lot of other things besides remorse, its stable functioning is definitely good news.

The second point is that a conscientious person will never become an inveterate egoist. This means that he will always find support, understanding and resources to implement his own goals and projects based on mutual benefit. Of course, this is also a big plus. A conscientious person, even if he thinks about the priority of his own interests, will try to realize them from the standpoint of reasonable egoism, i.e. taking into account the interests of others.

And, finally, conscience will keep a person from unlawful acts that are fraught with punishment, even criminal. The fact that you do not bring harm to society, do not break the law and are at large is definitely good and a reason to continue in the same spirit further. Now let's summarize the benefits of having a conscience.

The benefits of having a conscience:

1. Evidence of normal brain function.
2. No inconvenience associated with manifestations of selfishness.
3. Lack of consequences associated with violation of the law.

But what about people who are completely devoid of such a quality as conscience? After all, we will not get away from them, they were, are and will slowly harm society, individuals, nature, the state budget.

What can I say? Those who harm so much that they are not even able to take the position of reasonable egoism and share with the people (power, companions, etc.), society gradually squeezes out of the system of sharing public goods.

Selfish businessmen go bankrupt because it is impossible to implement ambitious business strategies alone in today's realities. People who do not want to act for reasons of conscience gradually find themselves in social isolation due to the fact that few people want to be deceived, abandoned, thrown into money, or simply work instead of such a shameless and lazy comrade. And even in an imperious environment, no, no, and justice will prevail when those who steal on a particularly unlimited scale are behind bars.

As for everyday communication and interaction, the only way out is not to allow unscrupulous people into the close circle of communication and not to initiate them into their affairs. Our online courses "Psychic Self-Regulation" and "Best Communication Techniques" will help you learn how to do this . If interaction is unavoidable, for example, at work, you can always find ways to minimize it.

And, finally, one more question that we raised in this article: is it possible to understand freedom of conscience as freedom not to have any moral and ethical attitudes? We answer: it is possible, but not necessary, because it harms, first of all, the person himself.

I think we figured out in general terms what conscience is, why not everyone has it, and what to do if you have to communicate with people completely devoid of conscience. We wish you extremely pleasant and constructive communication!