Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Henrik Lagerlund

Conscience

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1151-5_560-1

Abstract

Medieval thinkers inherited from Jerome (d. 420) a perhaps unintended distinction between conscience and synderesis, or the “spark of conscience”. Once accepted, the distinction required an explication of how conscience and synderesis relate to each other. Philip the Chancellor posited that synderesis straddles the distinction between a potentiality (potentia) and a disposition (habitus). As a dispositional potentiality, synderesis could either supply truths to conscience (as in intellectualistic accounts) or motivate the will to do good (as in voluntaristic accounts). Both types of account held that conscience binds us to follow it, but also allowed that conscience could be mistaken and yet still binding. While Bonaventure had recognized that conscience can learn from experience, Thomas Aquinas took the step of connecting conscience with prudence. This latter move anticipated later medieval accounts, where conscience would be treated in relation to the moral virtues rather than synderesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

  1. Aquinas, T. (1969–1971). Sententia libri ethicorum. In Opera Omnia (Vol. 47). Rome: Commissio Leonina.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, T. (1972). Quaestiones disputatae de veritate. In Opera Omnia (Vol. 22). Rome: Commissio Leonina.Google Scholar
  3. Aquinas, T. (1993, 1964). Commentary on Nicomachean Ethics (Trans. Litzinger C. I.). Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bonaventure. (1885). Commentaria in quatuor libros sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi. In Opera omnia (Vol. 2). Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae.Google Scholar
  5. Duns Scotus, J. (1986). John Duns Scotus on the will and morality (Ed. and trans. Wolter A. B.). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lombard, P. (1971). Sententiae in IV libros distinctae. Grottaferrata: Collegium S. Bonaventurae Ad Claras Aquas.Google Scholar
  7. Lombard, P. (2008). The sentences, book 2: On creation (Trans. Silano G.). Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
  8. Ockham, W. (1984). In G. I. Etzkorn et al. (Eds.), Quaestiones variae. St. Bonaventure: St. Bonaventure University.Google Scholar
  9. Philip the Chancellor. (1985). In N. Wicki (Ed.), Philippi Cancellarii Parisiensis summa de bono. Bern: Editiones Francke.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Celano, A. (2012). The relation of prudence and synderesis to happiness in the medieval commentaries on Aristotle’s ethics. In J. Miller (Ed.), The reception of Aristotle’s ethics (pp. 125–154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. D’Arcy, E. (1961). Conscience and its right to freedom. New York: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  3. Langston, D. (2001). Conscience and other virtues. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Langston, D. (2015). Medieval theories of conscience. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/conscience-medieval/.
  5. Lottin, O. (1948). Psychologie et morale aux XIIe and XIIIe siècles (Vol. 2). Louvain/Gembloux: Abbaye du Mont César/Duculot.Google Scholar
  6. McInerny, R. (1974). Prudence and conscience. The Thomist, 38, 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Potts, T. (1980). Conscience in medieval philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Potts, T. (1982). Conscience. In N. Kretzmann et al. (Eds.), The Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy: From the rediscovery of Aristotle to the disintegration of scholasticism, 1100–1600 (pp. 687–704). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sorabji, R. (2014). Moral conscience through the ages: Fifth century BCE to the present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySt. Thomas More College, University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada