Please help?

Question

Can anyone please help me find some Strengths and Weaknesses for Thomas Aquinas, Joseph Butler and Sigmund Freuds arguments/views on Conscience.
thanx.

Answer 1

Freud:
On the level of psychological theory, Freud divided the psyche into the id, the ego and the super ego. This seems at first to be quite similar to the traditional and commonsensical division into appetites, will and intellect (and conscience) that began with Plato. But there are crucial differences.

First, Freud's “super-ego” is not the intellect or conscience, but the unfree, passive reflection in the individual's psyche of society's restrictions on his desires — “thou shalt nots.” What we take to be our own insight into real good and evil is only a mirror of man-made social laws, according to Freud.

Aquinas:
Driven by concupiscence, the incontinent man sees an opportunity (for example, a desirable unmarried woman) as an example of the permitting rule (Pleasures should be enjoyed). Under the influence of concupiscence, he is unable to see the opportunity as an example of the correct, forbidding principle (One should not fornicate). Given his perception of the opportunity, it is not surprising that the incontinent man performs the incontinent action. But why does he see the opportunity in the way that he does? As Aquinas says, he is driven by concupiscence. The continent man, who chooses correctly, also has concupiscence. Yet, he is not driven by it as the incontinent man is.

Butler:
Butler's argument for morality, found primarily in his sermons, is an attempt to show that morality is a matter of following human nature. To develop this argument, he introduces the notions of nature and of a system. There are, he says, various parts to human nature, and they are arranged hierarchically. The fact that human nature is hierarchically ordered is not what makes us manifestly adapted to virtue, rather it is that what Butler calls conscience is at the top of this hierarchy. Butler does sometimes refer to the conscience as the voice of God, but contrary to what is sometimes alleged, he never relies on divine authority in asserting the supremacy, the universality or the reliability of conscience. Butler clearly believes in the autonomy of the conscience as a secular organ of knowledge.

Whether the conscience judges principles, actions or persons is not clear, perhaps deliberately since such distinctions are of no practical significance. What Butler is concerned to show is that to dismiss morality is in effect to dismiss our own nature, and therefore absurd. As to which morality we are to follow, Butler seems to have in mind the common core of civilized standards. He stresses the degree of agreement and reliability of conscience without denying some differences remain. All that is required for his argument to go through is that the opponent accept in practice that conscience is the supreme authority in human nature and that we ought not to disregard our own nature.




good luck

Answer 2

There are many ways of finding the infomation you want, and I have included the links you will need to help you. Of course, in addition to this, you can also use the resources at your local library, they are only too happy to help you with your searches and queries.

www.google.com

http://www.wikipedia.org/

http://uk.search.yahoo. com/web

http://findarticles. com/

http://vos.ucsb. edu/index.asp

http://www.aresearch guide.com/

http://www.geocities.com/ athens/troy/886...

http://www.studentre searcher.com/search/...

http://www.cha cha.com/

Answer 3

all of them had some of those weakness in their lives, i could see them as ordinary people, so, i guess they did have a conscience.