Fletcher's View on Conscience
Summary
Fletcher rejects traditional views of conscience (from Aquinas and Augustine) and proposes something radically different: conscience is a VERB, not a noun. It's not a fixed internal faculty or "moral compass" that whispers to us what's right or wrong. Rather, conscience is the active process of working out what the most loving action would be in a specific situation. Fletcher says: "There is no conscience; conscience is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively, fittingly". Conscience as a calculator or reasoner figures out which action will maximize agape (love) given the facts of the situation. This makes sense in Situation Ethics because there are no pre-set rules—you must use your conscience to decide there and then what the loving action is. Unlike Aquinas (who said reason discovers pre-written natural law) or Augustine (who said God speaks directly to us), Fletcher says conscience is simply brain processing working out loving outcomes.
Detailed Explanation
Traditional Views of Conscience That Fletcher Rejects
Thomas Aquinas' View
- Aquinas said conscience is synderesis—an innate ability of reason that all humans share
- It allows us to discover primary precepts (natural law) through reason
- Everyone can access the same moral truths because they're built into human nature
Augustine's View
- Augustine said conscience is the voice of God working within us through the Holy Spirit
- God speaks directly to our hearts, guiding us morally
- Religious people listen for God's voice to know what's right
The Problem Fletcher Saw
- If Aquinas was right, all humans should agree on basic morality—but they don't (cultural disagreement)
- If Augustine was right, all religious believers should hear the same voice—but they don't either
- These traditional views make claims that seem scientifically unfounded
Fletcher's Radical Reframing: Conscience as Verb
The Key Distinction
Conscience as a Noun (Traditional View)
- Something that exists independently of whether you're using it
- A fixed internal faculty or "thing" in your mind
- A moral compass with pre-set guidance
- An innate ability (like Aquinas) or divine voice (like Augustine)
Conscience as a Verb (Fletcher's View)
- Something you do—an active process
- A process of working through a moral situation
- Created fresh each time you face a decision
- A calculating, creative, reasoning process
Fletcher's Definition
"There is no conscience; conscience is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively, fittingly."
Or more positively:
"Conscience is a verb rather than a noun. It is something you do when you make decisions, as Fletcher puts it, 'creatively'."
Key Point
Conscience is "a function, not a faculty". It's what your mind does when processing a moral decision, not a pre-existing thing.
How Conscience Works in Fletcher's System
Conscience as the "Agape Calculator"
Conscience is the process of figuring out what action will produce the most loving outcome. It's the reasoning faculty that calculates and decides what's most loving in that situation.
The Process
- Recognize the situation: What are the facts?
- Consider the context: Who is involved? What's at stake?
- Calculate outcomes: Which action would maximize agape?
- Decide creatively: Make a fresh moral decision for this situation
- Act: Implement the decision
Not Pre-determined
- You cannot know in advance what your conscience will tell you to do
- Conscience operates in the situation itself, not from armchair reflection
Fletcher's Point
"We need to be in the situation, and experience the situation... Maybe we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend's phone, maybe we will not but whatever happens the outcome could not have been known beforehand."
What Conscience Depends On
Knowledge and Information
What your conscience will tell you depends heavily on what information you have and what you value. Different people may conscientiously reach different conclusions based on their understanding of the situation.
Example
Should we withdraw life support from a terminally ill patient?
What you answer depends on:
- What do you consider important? (Religious views? Quality of life? The patient's wishes?)
- What's the long-term consequence? (Effect on medical profession? Family wellbeing?)
- What information do you have? (Prognosis? Patient's values?)
Different people, using conscience conscientiously, might reach different conclusions.
Why Conscience Varies
- Not Everyone's Conscience Says the Same Thing: This is good news for Fletcher—it explains why there's moral disagreement
- It shows that conscience is not a fixed, universal faculty (like Aquinas claimed). Rather, it's a personal process shaped by knowledge, situation, and reasoning
Aquinas' Problem
Aquinas claimed everyone shares the same synderesis—ability to recognize natural law. But if that were true, everyone should agree on basic morality. The fact that they don't shows Aquinas was wrong—conscience isn't a universal faculty.
Conscience Is Fallible but Necessary
Not Infallible
Fletcher admits that using conscience to figure out the most loving action can go wrong. You might make a mistake in calculating what's most loving.
Why Mistakes Happen
- Limited information: You don't have all the facts
- Predictive failure: Consequences turn out differently than expected
- Social conditioning: Your background influences what you think is loving
Aquinas' Warning
Aquinas said we often pursue "apparent goods" instead of "real goods". Fletcher agrees—people can be mistaken about what's most loving.
But It's the Best Guide We Have
- Despite these fallibilities, conscience (as Fletcher understands it) is the best guide we have for ethical decision-making
- It's flexible and accounts for the specific situation
- It responds to unique circumstances
- It's not bound by rigid rules that fail in edge cases
Fletcher's Advantage Over Aquinas
Aquinas' conscience is bound by fixed natural law precepts. Fletcher's conscience is more flexible—it can respond to any new situation.
How Conscience Relates to Agape
Conscience Serves Agape
Conscience's job is to determine what agape requires in each situation. Fletcher's ethics is about making decisions that maximize love. Conscience is the process of figuring out how to do that.
"Love Decides There and Then"
Fletcher's Sixth Proposition: "Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively."
This directly involves conscience operating in the moment.
What This Means
- No fixed rules tell you what to do
- Instead, you use your conscience in that specific situation to decide what love requires
Fletcher's Example
A woman in Arizona might become pregnant with a severely disabled baby due to thalidomide. What should she do? Her conscience must work through:
- What's most loving for the baby?
- What's most loving for herself and her family?
- What's most loving in the broader context?
Using conscience, she decides what love requires—not blindly following a rule.
Strengths of Fletcher's View of Conscience
Strength 1: Explains Moral Disagreement
Fletcher's view explains why good people disagree morally. It's not that some people are evil—it's that they use conscience differently based on their understanding of situations. This is more realistic than claiming everyone should share Aquinas' universal synderesis.
Strength 2: More Scientific and Less Mystical
Fletcher's view is more grounded in science. It doesn't make the unverifiable claim that God speaks to us (Augustine) or that we all share hidden knowledge (Aquinas). Instead, it describes conscience as a normal process of reasoning.
Strength 3: Fits With Situation Ethics
If there are no pre-set rules, then conscience must be flexible and creative. Fletcher's understanding of conscience as an active, situation-responsive process fits perfectly with Situation Ethics.
Strength 4: Respects Human Autonomy
Fletcher's view respects individual conscience more than traditional views. It doesn't impose pre-written rules or claim to represent God's voice. It trusts individuals to use reason and conscience thoughtfully.
Criticisms of Fletcher's View of Conscience
Criticism 1: Conscience Becomes Subjective
If conscience is just personal reasoning in a situation, doesn't it become purely subjective? Different people could conscientiously reach completely different conclusions. How is this different from saying "anything goes"?
Criticism 2: We Can't Predict Consequences
Conscience must calculate which action maximizes agape. But we often can't predict what the consequences will be. How can conscience guide us if we don't know what will result from our actions?
Criticism 3: The Devil Problem
Suppose someone acts out of hatred and malice (the opposite of agape). But by accident, their action brings about vast amounts of love in the world. According to Fletcher's agape calculus, did they act correctly?
If yes, then agape must refer to consequences, not attitude. But then conscience becomes blind to moral character and intention.
Criticism 4: Social Conditioning Skews Conscience
Our conscience is shaped by culture, upbringing, and conditioning. What we think is "most loving" is often just what our culture teaches. How can we trust conscience if it's culturally determined rather than objective?
Criticism 5: Loses Connection to Divine Authority
Augustine and many believers think conscience is God's voice in us. Fletcher's view removes this sacred dimension. Conscience becomes just calculation, losing its connection to divine guidance and authority.
Scholarly Perspectives
"There is no conscience; conscience is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively, fittingly. Conscience is not a noun but a verb. It is something you do when you make decisions. Fletcher rejects the view that conscience is an internal faculty or moral compass that tells us what is right or wrong. Instead, conscience is the active process of working out what action will produce the most loving outcome in a specific situation."
— Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (1966), summarised by A-Level teaching
Context: Fletcher's fundamental redefinition of conscience—rejecting traditional views (Aquinas' synderesis and Augustine's divine voice) in favour of conscience as an active verb describing the process of calculating what action maximizes agape.
"We need to be in the situation, and experience the situation. Maybe we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend's phone, maybe we will not, but whatever happens the outcome could not have been known beforehand. What our conscience would have us do is revealed when we live in the world and not through armchair reflection. Conscience depends on knowledge of the situation and is shaped by what we consider important."
— Joseph Fletcher and modern interpretations of Situation Ethics
Context: Explaining how conscience operates in practice—it's not fixed in advance but emerges through engaged reasoning in the specific situation, accounting for unique circumstances, available information, and one's understanding of what matters.
Quick Reference: Fletcher's Conscience
| Aspect | Traditional View (Aquinas/Augustine) | Fletcher's View |
|---|---|---|
| Part of Speech | Noun (fixed thing) | Verb (active process) |
| Nature | Internal faculty or divine voice | Process of calculating/deciding |
| Source | Universal reason or God | Situation-specific reasoning |
| How It Works | Tells you pre-written rules | Works out what's most loving now |
| Agreement | All should agree (same synderesis) | Can legitimately differ |
| Relation to Rules | Applies fixed rules | Creates decisions for unique situations |
Key Takeaways
Conscience is a VERB, not a noun—active process, not fixed thing
Rejects Aquinas: conscience is NOT synderesis (universal moral faculty)
Rejects Augustine: conscience is NOT God's voice directly guiding us
"There is no conscience; it's just a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively"
Conscience = process of figuring out what action maximizes agape
Not predetermined: what conscience tells you depends on the situation
"Love decides there and then"—conscience works situationally, not prescriptively
Depends on information: what you know shapes what conscience tells you
More flexible than Aquinas because it responds to unique circumstances
Fallible but best guide: can make mistakes, but necessary for ethical decision-making
Explains moral disagreement: good people can conscientiously reach different conclusions
Criticism: subjective; can't predict consequences; socially conditioned