Most of us agree that we have a conscience. Nevertheless, we’d also have to admit that we often ignore it when it suits us. Who will deny having had that nagging inner voice that goes something like this: This is not right, I shouldn’t be doing this. And who hasn’t said in reply, Well, I don’t care, I’m doing it anyway. Or, whose inner voice hasn’t said, “I should take care of that”—because it’s the right thing to do and therefore I ought to do it—and, in response, hasn’t said something like: Maybe later, another time, besides why should I be the only responsible one here, someone else can take care of it; I’m out of here! Indeed, we tend to view a nagging conscience as nothing but a nuisance.
But consider life without a conscience. We even have a name for it—sociopathic. When we think of sociopaths, we think of serial killers, psychopaths committing unspeakable atrocities against a line of individuals with no qualms. They feel no guilt, are never sorry for the harm they’ve caused others, and feel no remorse about any heinous acts they’ve committed. So which would you prefer, to have a nagging conscience, or to qualify for exclusive membership in a State Hospital’s psychopathic ward?
Thus, having a conscience is a good thing. It holds us in check, nudges us in the right direction, and inspires us to do right, to become better people. Yes, it can be annoying. And, yes, we tend to ignore it, even silence it at critical decision-making points in our lives. Nevertheless, it generally serves us well. Most of us learned at an early age that when we ignore our conscience we often regret it in the end. In short, we learn in principle that it pays to heed our conscience.
But when we say, “She has a strong conscience, but his is weak,” what do we mean? In one sense the conscience has little power. That is, the conscience is not the instrument that makes us do right, or has failed us when we do wrong. The conscience is merely a voice. It speaks to us, informs us, tells us what we ought or ought not to do, and perhaps even why, but nothing more: “That is right; this is wrong; I ought not, be doing this; I should be doing that.” The voice could be muffled, outshouted, even silenced. But, if and when it is given the opportunity to speak out, it does and will, and quite clearly too. Thus, someone with a strong conscience is someone that has trained his/her spirit to listen for its voice so that his/her conscience is free to speak boldly, clearly, and directly to the mind and heart. While someone with a weak conscience has developed a long standing habit of simply ignoring, muffling, or silencing its voice. To be cartoonish about it, the one with a weak conscience reacts like this: “This is your Conscience speaking….” “Say what!? Who are you? Get out of here! I don’t have to listen to you.”
This is true; we don’t have to listen to our conscience. So, if one’s conscience is simply a voice (I would add, a voice that is crying out in the wilderness, “Make way for the coming of the Lord”), where lies the actual decision-making power, the power that makes one do the good or the bad, the right or wrong? It lies in the Will. We are all free agents. We have a will. We choose. I choose to heed or to ignore my conscience. I choose to obey or rebel. I choose to engage or disengage. I will do this; I will not do that. I will to believe or I will to disbelieve. I will commit or I will not commit. It is our will that is responsible for our actions, not our conscience. Our conscience serves our will, and our will? Well, it will do what it will, respecting or disregarding conscience accordingly.
So, here’s a question: If we as individuals have a conscience, is it possible for communities, societies, or even nations as a whole, to have a conscience as well? If so, who or what serves as the voice-of-conscience for a nation? Know where I’m heading with this? [To be continued….]
No comments:
Post a Comment