Now, it was wrong to burn heretics, and pillory reformers, and work
babies to death in the mill and the mine in those days, or it is right
to do the same things now.
But conscience now condemns as wrong the same acts which it once
approved as right; it now approves as right what it once condemned as
wrong.
Conscience, then, differs in different ages. Conscience tells two quite
different tales at two different times.
And if we want to find out which tale is the true one we have to use our
_reason_.
As to personal conscience. We all know that one man's conscience differs
from another. We all know that in any English town on any day there are
as many varieties of conscience as there are varieties of hands, and
eyes, and feet, and noses.
There are the Nonconformist conscience, the Roman Catholic conscience,
the Rationalist conscience, the Aristocratic conscience, the Plebeian
conscience, the Military conscience, the Commercial conscience, the Tory
conscience, and the Socialist conscience.
One man's conscience forbids him to swear, to eat meat, to drink wine,
to read a newspaper on Sunday, to go to a ball or a theatre, to make a
bet, to play at cards or football, to stay away from church.
Another man's conscience permits him all those indulgences, but compels
him to pay trade union wages, to speak courteously to servants and poor
persons, to be generous to beggars, and kind to dumb animals.
A very striking example of this personal difference in the ruling
of conscience is afforded by the quite recent contrast between the
sentiments of Northern and Southern Americans on the question of negro
slavery.
Another equally striking example is the difference to-day between the
rulings of the consciences of Socialists and sweaters.
My own conscience, for instance, never chides me for "Sabbath breaking"
nor for "neglect of God"; but it would not allow me to grow rich on the
rent of slum houses, nor on the earnings of half-starved children, nor
on the sale of prurient novels, or adulterated beer, or sized calico.
Now, it is either right or wrong to do all these things. It cannot be
right for one man to dance and wrong for another to dance; it cannot be
right for one man to bet, and wrong for another man to bet; it cannot be
right for one man to draw rents for slum houses, and wrong for another
man to draw rents for slum houses.
But conscience tells some men that it is right to do these things, and
tells other men it is wrong to do the same things.
Conscience is not the same thing to one man that it is to another man.
It praises Brown and blames Jones for doing the same thing. It tells
different tales to different men.
An when we want to know which is the _true_ tale we have to use our
_reason_.
As to changeable conscience. We all know very well that conscience does
not keep to one rule of right and wrong even with one man; but that it
changes its rule whenever the man changes his belief through teaching or
experience.
I need not give many examples of these changes. Every reader can supply
them for himself. When I was a boy my conscience pained me severely if
I stayed away from Sunday school or neglected to say my prayers. But it
does not chide me now for not going to church, nor for not reading the
Bible, nor for not praying. Why has conscience thus changed its tone
with me? Simply because I have changed my opinions.
But those things could not have been wrong then if they are right now.
Conscience has changed. Conscience changes as the mind changes. It tells
one tale in our youth, and another in our prime, and perhaps yet another
in our decay.
And if we want to know which tale is the _true_ tale we must use our
_reason_.
And now we find that conscience is different in different nations,
in different cities, in different classes, in different persons, in
different ages, in different circumstances, in different moods.
And, when we come to think about it, we find that conscience never tells
us anything we do not know. It is a voice which always tells us what we
do know: what we believe. It does not teach us what acts are right and
what acts are wrong. It _reminds_ of what we have been _taught_ about
right or wrong.
It is not a divine voice, for it often leads us wrong. It is not a
divine voice, for it is no wiser and no better than ourselves.
What is it? What is conscience? Conscience is chiefly _habit_: it
is chiefly _memory_: but it is partly, perhaps, inherited instinct.
Conscience is habit. We all know that it is easier to do a thing which
we have often done before than to do a thing we have never done before.
We all know that what we call practice improves an organ or power of our
body or our mind.
As the proverbs put it: "Use is second nature." "Practice makes
perfect."
Most of us know that an organ develops with use and decays with disuse.
If you wish to develop your muscles you must use them. If you wish to
improve your memory or to sharpen your wits you must use them.
When a man is first taught to use a rifle he finds to his surprise that
he cannot pull the trigger just exactly when he wants it. But in time
he does that quite without thought or effort. The muscles of his finger
have been "educated" to act with his eye.
Some men, when they first begin to shoot, shrink from the rifle. They
fear the recoil or the sudden explosion, and the muscles of their
shoulder flinch. If a man gives way to that habit it grows upon him, and
he can never shoot straight. The muscles have learnt to flinch; and they
flinch.
One man falls into the habit of swearing. The habit grows upon him. The
words come ever more readily to his tongue, and he swears more and more.
Now, let us suppose a boy has been taught that it is wrong to swear.
In his memory lies the lesson. It has been repeated until it has grown
strong. When he hears swearing it shocks him. But the more he hears it
the less it shocks him. The words grow more familiar to his ear, just as
the sound of a waterfall or of machinery grows familiar to the ear.
Then suppose he swears. That is a very unusual act for him. And his old
lesson that to swear is wrong is still firm and ready. It is not his
habit to swear: it is his habit to shrink from swearing.
So if he swears, his memory, which has been educated to resent all
swearing, brings up at once to his notice the lessons of years.
The same kind of thing is seen on the cricket field. A batsman is
playing steadily. He has been trained to play cautiously against good
bowling. But he has a favourite stroke. The bowler knows it He sends a
ball very aptly called a "ticer" to entice the batsman to hit, in
the hopes of a catch. The desire to make that pet cut or off-drive is
strong; but the "habit" of caution is stronger; he lets the ball go by.
Or the habit is not as strong as the desire, and he cuts the ball; and,
even as he watches it flash safely through the field for the boundary,
he feels that he ran a foolish risk, and must not repeat it.
What is it tells him he did wrong? It is his memory: his memory, which
has been educated to check his rashness. In fact, it is his cricketer's
conscience that warns him.
So with the youth who swears. No sooner has the word passed his lips
than his educated memory, which has been trained to check swearing,
brings up the lesson, and confronts him with it.
But let him swear again and again, and in time the moral lessons in his
memory will be overlaid by the familiar sound of curses; the habit of
flinching from an oath will grow weak, and the habit of using oaths will
grow strong.
It is really what happens with the rifleman who gives way to the recoil
and forms a habit of flinching, or with the cricketer who allows his
desire to score to overcome his habit of caution. The old habit fades
from disuse; the new habit grows strong from use. The rifleman becomes
a hopelessly bad shot; the batsman degenerates into a slogger: the young
man swears every time he speaks, and his conscience loses all power to
check him.
Take the case of the letter "h." The young Lochinvar who comes out of
the West sounds his aitches properly and easily--just as properly and
as easily as a fencer makes his parries, as a pianist strikes the right
notes, as C. B. Fry plays a straight bat. It is a matter of teaching and
of use, and has become a habit. From his earliest efforts at speech he
has heard the "h" sounded, has been checked if he failed to sound it,
has corrected himself if he made a slip.
But the young Lochinvar who comes out of the East drops his aspirates
all over the place without a blush or a pang. He has never been taught
to sound the "h." He has not practised it. He has formed the habit of
not sounding it, and it would take him years of painful effort to change
the habit.
Now what happens in the case of a letter "h" is what happens in the case
of the rifle, of the ticing ball, of the swearing. One man's memory is
educated to remind him not to swear, not to slog, not to flinch, not to
drop the "h." The other man's memory is not so trained.
And this trained memory we call conscience. It is purely habit: and it
is wholly mechanical.
There is a good story of a gang of moonlighters who had shot a landlord,
and were afterwards sitting down to supper. One man was just raising
a piece of meat to his lips when the clock struck twelve. Instantly he
dropped the meat. "Be jabers!" he said, "'tis Friday!"
That was the _habit_ of abstaining from meat on a Friday. It had been
drilled into his memory, and it acted mechanically.
Conscience, then, is largely a matter of habit: it depends a great deal
on what we are taught. But it is not wholly a matter of habit, nor does
it depend wholly on our teaching.
We all know that two brothers, born of the same parents, brought up
in the same home, educated at the same school, taught the same moral
lessons, may be quite different in the matter of conscience. One will
shrink from giving pain, the other will be cruel; one will be quite
truthful, the other will tell lies.
And so to go back to our rifleman and our cricketer. Every novice does
not flinch from the recoil, every batsman is not prudent. No. Because
men are different by _nature_.
Some boys are easy to train; some are not. Some are naturally obedient;
some are not. Some are naturally cruel; some are naturally merciful.
The conscience of a boy depends upon what he is by nature and what he is
taught.
If the emotion of anger is naturally strong in a boy it will need a
better-drilled memory to check his anger than if the emotion of anger
were weak.
I do not mean it will need more teaching to curb his "will," but it
will need more teaching to build up his conviction that anger is wrong,
because the motion resists the teaching.
But in the case of a boy gentle and merciful by nature it needs no
teaching to prevent him from torturing frogs, and very little to make
him know that to torture frogs is wrong.
It is a common mistake in morals to say that a man is to blame for an
act because he "knew it was wrong." He may have been told that it was
wrong. But until he _feels_ that it is wrong, and _believes_ that it
is wrong, it is not true to say that he knows it _is_ wrong; for he
may only know that some other person says it is wrong, which is a very
different thing.
For instance, it might be said in this way that I am wicked for
listening to Beethoven on the Sabbath, "because I know that it is
wrong." But I do not know that is wrong. I do not believe that it is
wrong. I only know that some people say it is wrong.
So I claim that conscience is what a man's nature and teaching make it:
that it is a habit of memory, and no more mysterious than the habit of
smoking, or dropping the aspirate, or eating peas with a knife.
Let us now look at some of the scientific evidence.