This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Anti-war High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Conscience has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 9, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

Hi everyone, I am not experienced, so bear with me. Reading the article, most of it seems unreasonable, or hard to follow, one point (society forming instinct), I would say, comes somewhat close to what I have learned.

Bert Hellinger gained his theory by observation. The function of conscience was one of his earlier and most important findings. Here is his try:

According to Bert Hellinger, conscience is

1. primarily a feeling which helps us to behave so as to ensure our belonging to a group that is important to us. (good conscience: I may belong, bad conscience: I might be expelled). In this reflection, morality is beside the point. Group standards are variant (family, friends, confessional groups a.s.o.) so anyone can have differing conscience(s) regarding one and the same subject. Furthermore, many people have a bad conscience for "good" behaviour and vice versa. (For ex. if a young xenophobe man falls in love with an immigrant, and cannot come out with this in his peer group. Many people refer to a good conscience when doing other people harm.)

2. the knowledge of what I owe somebody I have received from, when I have not yet compensated, and vice versa.

3. the knowledge of what I owe a group so that that group can persist.

In Bert Hellingers view, conscience was vital for groups in prehistoric times, (which is when it probably developed), but should be overcome as just about every conflict (and war) draws enormous energy out of the good conscience of its participants. It is also the main binder in religion.

I have translated this from german. My source is Hellinger's book "Wahrheit in Bewegung." Herder, 2005, S. 44ff.

Waiting for response... if anyone wants to include this (is this philosophical or secular?), great. I would include it if there are no well-grounded objections, but I don't want to mess things up :). Also, if you want to improve my english, feel free.

Thanks, Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.30.206 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief note on the internal forum,

and its pastoral use in the Roman Catholic Church. --Aloysius Patacsil 22:46, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the bit in the introduction about Catholicism. It was out of place.--71.68.118.41 04:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the above statement was mine, wasn't signed in--Elizabeth of North Carolina 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This part is simply too short and rather facile. For example, that a conscience should be followed even if it disagrees with official Catholic teaching was established at least as far back as Thomas Aquinas, two centuries before Luther. The article implies that this was established after Luther. Jhobson1 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern day scientists in the fields of Ethology, Neuroscience and Evolutionary psychology seek to explain it as a function of the human brain that evolved to facilitate reciprocal altruism within societies. As such it could be instinctive (genetically determined) or learnt."

"Conscience can prompt different people in quite different directions, depending on their beliefs, suggesting that while the capacity for conscience is probably genetically determined, its subject matter is probably learnt, or imprinted, like language, as part of a culture. One person can feel a moral duty to go to war, another can feel a moral duty to avoid war under any circumstances."

This is a perfect example of scientism. Conscience can be instinctively (genetically determined) or learnt? That's interesting... Lapaz 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the above as a scientific statement and object to it being taken out. Are you suggesting that concience does not prompt people in different directions? What are you objecting to. If you don't think this is the scientific explanation, then what would you say is - or do you not think it has one? I'm reverting pending justification. --Lindosland 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean merge the whole article? It is not about consciousness surely, and deserves to stand alone. --Lindosland 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it? can you please explain in exactly which extent consciousness differs from conscience - in the talk page of consciousness? Lapaz 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk there. Conscience pertains to the moral facility in human beings.--Docjp (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Moral facility? So are we now classing assumptions of a supposed existence which one is subtly "judging" by one own "thinking"as proof that something exists?--Docjp (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Consciousness has to do with the awareness that "I exist."--Docjp (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Is the question not what is doing this "awareness"? Sould we not ascertain this before we attribute whether or not "it" has any relationship with ones existence [what ever that is?]? --Docjp (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)"Consciousness" cogito ergo sum has nothing to do with remorse but it proves consciousness.--Docjp (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC) No, I'm afraid it does not "prove" consciousness, what is being done is that the term consciousness is being given to awareness. But unless one can discover what is aware, all else is pure labeling of what one thinks --Docjp (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Perhaps you are thinking of conscientiousness??? I boldly removed flag because... I am very confident about this. MPS 04:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, me too! --Lindosland 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely con means 'with' and thus the etymology is con scientia 'with knowledge' and not 'self knowledge'. There is a book by Potts from 1983(?) which explains theories of conscience according to the scholastics and others which discusses the etymology, which is worked on by Sandywell in logological investigations (1996a) to explain that conscience was once a social knowledge that everyone shared but that the scholastics interiorised it. As I recall Abelard et al have this notion of the scintilla which is the spark of conscience which we all share- thus drawing a parallel between the cognitive notion of conscience and the religious one. If we lose the scintilla we are not sane. Also the etymology of consciousness and conscientiousness are clearly the the same. If we have consciousness of something- to take the phenomenological view of conscious- we are with knowledge of it; if we are conscientious we have knowledge of the accepted mores and act in accordance with those mores. 86.133.33.53Robat, Cambridge

The etymology of the words is indeed the same, but one's conscience is a subset of one's consciousness. The two terms are not interchangeable. One's conscience is a part of one's overall consciousness, the part that deals with moral values (that are either innate or learned, philosophers, of course, can't agree which). But I think that conscience is such a big and important part of consciousness that it deserves its own page. For example, cities are part of countries but have their own Wikipedia pages, and Plato's cave analogy is part of his philosophising, which is part of his life, yet his philosophy and his analogy have their own pages. It makes life simpler. Fledgeaaron (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-"The angel often stands on the right, the good side, and the devil on the left, the bad side (left measured as bad luck in ..."

Minor edit. I replaced "bad side" with "sinister side", with the appropriate link, and replaced the commas after "right" and " left" with semicolons.

cckeiser 00:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor edit. Corrected punctuation to: The angel often stands on the right, the good side; and the devil on the left, the sinister side (left measured as bad luck in superstition).

Unless I thoroughly misunderstand the sentence, the good side stands in apposition to the right; the sinister side to the left. In written English, Appositions are set off with commas, not semicolons. Semicolons arre used to punctuate tightly conjoined sentences, and also to separaate logically distinct groups of words themselves containing commas. The sentence in question consists of two sentences, the second beginning with and the devil. In the second sentence the verbal phrase often stands is left understood. This is sometimes called gapping. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added sourced note from Soloveychik's book. I was not able though to make the source as a footnote. I hope the way it is will be accepted. Abuhar 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move the pop culture area to its own section and see if I can find out how other cultures illustrate conscience . Anyone agree/disagree? -Ravedave 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, if you leave a summary of the subject here and provide a link to the new page...Fledgeaaron (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just revised the introductory definition to reflect the fact that conscience is not necessarily consciousness of doing bad, nor uniformly considered irrational.--Paularblaster 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section under Roman Catholic Conscience which told readers to "please refer immediately to the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part Three, Article VI [1] wherein Moral conscience is being discussed in precise and divine way of discourses about conscience." Since this does not seem to be encyclopedic. MaxoremNihil (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on the views of e.g. Richard Lynn or Garrett Hardin - that conscience can be self-eliminating. E.g. those who forfeit their place in the lifeboat are replaced by those who won't, and those who reproduce responsibly are replaced by those who, culturally and or genetically, are not inclined to do so.

To clarify the point these authors are making let me who from Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons":

People vary. Confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences. The difference will be accentuated, generation by generation.

Richard001 (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP address 69.125.162.141 vandalized this page. He kept putting in references to someone and saying they had no conscience. Perhaps we should lock this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.127.101 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of one probably male vandal are not really enough to warrant protection. We just revert them and forget about it. Richard001 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been marked since March. Can that huge "one authors opinion" be removed yet? It's even revealed as original research in the section title... 67.86.17.13 (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought of a conscience as an inner voice, the fact that it can be good or bad just doesn't seem right, because just because something pops into your head doesn't have to mean its right or wrong, right? and it was your mind reacting to something you've seen, heard, or thought of and it's just giving you lists that your mind randomly makes up, and the mind just picks up ones you think are important or have a meaning to you. Cind of like subliminal messages or something like that. Thats what you happen to hear in your head and then you react i geuss. This is what i think anyway.William.stowers (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate synthesis?

The article has "Conscience, then, and ideas of right and wrong, are a result of the kind of animals we are. We even see this in nonhuman animals [4][5][6]."

But the sources refer to group cooperation, not a sense of right or wrong. Even insects have group cooperation, not just the hive-mind ones (wasps, ants, bees, termites), but they usually tend not to kill their own species when they go 'round attacking and eating everything. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to jump from Aquinas to the relatively minor philosophers Butler and Soloveychik (?!). What about Rawls, MacIntyre, Peter Singer, Dworkin, Hannah Arendt, Ayer, CHOMSKY (!), Nussbaum? Probably better to organise the philosophy sections under conceptual rather than eponymous headings.121.127.222.111 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC).121.127.207.75 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at reorganising this as was requested and adding more references where I could. Its not quite there but I hope is heading more in the right direction.121.127.222.111 (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC).121.127.207.75 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC).121.127.207.75 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be maybe include a note about the debated concept of formation of consciences. Several noted educationalists have argued that the basic goal of education is the formation of consciences. This could be problematic though when taken in light of modern pluralism, i.e. people are often more likely to be influenced by socio-political ideologies and advertising than by their own consciences. ADM (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has much improved since I saw it last. I learnt a lot and parts of it are very inspiring58.163.6.199 (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in calculating "readable prose" size in this article, there are 54 images and 250 references (excluded). Article also is a summary and "high importance" starting point for 4 major Projects. It has been written with careful attention to readability.150.203.87.185 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I calculated readable prose according to the guidelines (stripping out references, formatting, images etc) and size was just over 60kb. Conscience is a major entry point for multiple fields. As the guidelines point out "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." This article summarizes major fields in philosophy, religion and human rights. The strengths of this article are its consistent readable style and the way sections add to each other. With conscience for example it is important that philosophic and religious theory be read alongside practical examples-take either away and the whole point of conscience is lost. In accordance with the guidelines, the article is well written, created with a sensible structure and style, and is an appropriate length for the topic. It creates a broad canvas on how conscience is and has been relevant to humanity. This makes it a unique article, much better than anything on the same subject in any other encyclopaediaNimbusWeb (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I calculated the prose size to be 75 kB, but that aside, I agree with your points. I'd personally trim some specific sections, but as this isn't really my field, so I'm not going to modify the prose or force anyone else to do it. The size is acceptable at the moment, but still nearing the rational (and technical) limits, in my opinion. —Quibik (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree it shouldn't get any larger. Perhaps it's time to submit for good article status. The sections do complement each other nicely and its unique in encyclopedia articles on conscience in covering so much ground-religious background, ancient and modern philosophic theories, relevance to law and human rights, contemporary examples and literary focus. There's been a synergy with these throughout the history of conscience-philosophy has led people to take stands on conscience for example. That makes the article a great package and a good entry point for so many major areas in wikipedia.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reflist tag was added on 23 November but no longer appears to be operating150.203.87.47 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor who has been removing Hansen references in numerous other articles did so here on the basis that the link was 'dead' and that Hansen isn't notable. The link is not dead. Hansen is notable generally and for calling for civil resistance against coal-fired power stations that don't sequester carbon doxide. I propose to reinsert the deleted paragraph reproduced below:NimbusWeb (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James E. Hansen has called for global civil resistance campaigns to replace the 'business-as-usual' Kyoto Protocol cap and trade system, with more efficient alternatives such as a progressive carbon tax at source (revenue being paid as dividends to low carbon footprint families) on the oil, gas and coal industries whose emissions are primary drivers of anthropogenic climate change.^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NimbusWeb (talk • contribs) 06:19, January 20, 2010

I apologize for stating the link is dead; it shows as dead in Opera on my computers, for some unknown reason. However, he's still not notable, and it is questioned whether his choices are a matter of conscience. Perhaps other, more notable, examples could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:13, January 20, 2010

Congratulations to all those who made positive contributions to Conscience achieving official Good Article status on wikipedia. I've been told that as of this date it is one of only four philosophy articles on wikipedia with Good Article status. Thanks again to all of you. Perhaps in time we'll push on to Featured ARticle status. The world certainly needs to know more about conscience and how to activate it.NimbusWeb (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent attempt to replace the van Gogh good samaritan picture with a less well known and more controversial and historically dated depiction of conscience. The samartitans were an outcast religious group so the image though coming from a Christian tradition has wide appeal. Its colours add lustre to the article.I wonder if it is time to lock the article from immediate changes. It has been stable for some time.NimbusWeb (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to understand the way conscience operates. Conscience is the ability to know knowledge of the spiritual realm - good / evil. It is through Conscience's endowments of rational, intellectual and human qualities that this is known. The good Samaritan perceived in his conscience that it was good to help the Jew who was stranded on the road-side. He reasoned this by the rational, intellectual and human qualities of his conscience and reflection.

Jesus Christ explained by the parable of the good Samaritan that such a conduct is in in touch with God. In helping out the Jew, the good Samaritan exercised the good function of his conscience to perceive the principalities and the virtues. So that his action was in conformity to his perceiving. (refer to Robert Fludd's diagram, explaining how the intellectual realm compromising of the Trinitarian God and the rest of the spiritual realm {including the principalities and the virtues} penetrates below to the conscience and reflection through their rational, intellectual and human qualities.)

Alan347 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what this last addition has to do with improving the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram shows how the intellectual realm affects conscience! Alan347 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is obviously (from prior contributions) keen on Fludd. Fludd's views on conscience, however, are not so well known or accepted as to justify the lead picture on a GA article. Perhaps a properly referenced sentence to Fludd's work could be inserted in the appropriate section.NimbusWeb (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think Fludd's work is appropriate is that it describes how conscience operates. I.e: What is conscience in touch with? What are conscience' qualities? where does it reside? Is conscience a part of perception? And if yes, what is it's connection with the rest of perception?

When will these questions be analyzed ? Alan347 (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the first point to make is that, as the article shows, these questions have been analysed in many disciplines -for example psychological, physical, sociological by many scholars whose academic reputations exceed Fludd's. That may be a misjudgment by the academic community, but it seems to be the fact. Second, Fludd has a philosophical view on conscience, it is unlikely that he describes it with the same sort of unequivocal accuracy that a physicist brings to describing an atom. If you are able to encapsulate some unique insight about conscience and reference it accurately to a reputable secondary source setting Fludd's published work in the context of other scholars of his period or field-perhaps to the early philosophy section.NimbusWeb (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The insight is this: conscience is combined with reflection. The psychological faculties of conscience and reflection have three endowments: rational, intellectual and human. The objective world, constituting of God and his glory, the principalities, and the angels penetrates through our human, rational and intellectual endowments and reaches conscience and reflection. We can than act accordingly. Alan347 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article doesn't even mention Fludd, his diagram shouldn't be the first image on the page on this GA article. Perhaps it's worth writing something about Fludd that's worth illustrating, in the "Medieval philosophical views" section? New content is more appropriate in text, than in the caption of an unconnected image. --McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fludd is a 1600's mystic with a view about conscience. He could be mentioned in the appropriate place if properly referenced. His views are not so central to consceience as to warrant opening picture.NimbusWeb (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conscience is the center of consciousness and the heart of perception in every human being.Alan347 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently attempted to add this para with 4 references to Capriles. First I'd like advice from other editors as to how preeminent Capriles is in this area. Second I find the terminology here obscure and out of keeping with the clarity of the rest of the article. There is a lot of jargon.NimbusWeb (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, in many Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings emphasis is placed on the fact that the Contemplation state of higher practitioners and final Awakening involve the dissolution of the subject-object duality which is the condition of possibility of conscience, and the Dzogchen teachings (as happens partly in Chán, and in original Daoism), in particular, compare the behavior of advanced practitioners to that of a madman, precisely because it involves achieving a spontaneity that goes beyond reference to conscience—and this is regarded as the source of the highest Good, for the selfishness that derives from the belief in a self and the Jungian shadow have been eradicated (Capriles, 2000a, 2000b, 2006, 2010).^[1]

I hadn't realised these refs were also posted at the bottom of the refs list. Same comments apply.NimbusWeb (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Capriles, E. (2000a). Budismo y dzogchén [Buddhism and Dzogchen]: Vitoria, Euskadi, Spain: Ediciones La Llave.
• Capriles, E. (2000b). Beyond mind: Steps to a metatranspersonal psychology. Honolulu, HI: The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 19, pp. 163–184.
• Capriles, E. (2006). Beyond mind II: Further steps to a metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology. San Francisco, CA: The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, vol. 24. (Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.) Also in Internet at the URL:
• Capriles, E. (2010). Beyond Mind III: Further Steps to a Metatranspersonal Philosophy and Psychology: Continuation of the Discussion of the Three Best Known Transpersonal Paradigms, with the Focus on Washburn’s and Grof’s. San Francisco, CA: The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, special issue devoted to this paper.

Another editor apparently reverted my recent posting of links to New York Times news articles about Harvard researcher Marc Hauser, who has had to withdraw one published paper and to modify other papers, and who is still under investigation for his research practices. I mentioned those news articles, with links, on this talk page solely to alert other editors to the need to check for reliable sources for this article. If an article is withdrawn from a published journal, it is no longer a reliable source. I visited talk pages of articles that cite Hauser after doing a Google search restricted to Wikipedia. You can find news articles about the current investigation of Hauser by doing a Google news search. That's all. I make no conclusions about Hauser, but thought that editors who work on articles who cite his writings might want to be aware of this. Reliable sources are always important on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These refs appear to be identical except for the paragraph numbers. Can someone assist in abbreviating?NimbusWeb (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.NimbusWeb (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent choice of image for the top of the article. — goethean ॐ 01:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weird, nobody cited 'Marx' in this article: guess something is missing --Oriettaxx (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are different conscienses. One of them is your own conscience, not the one that it should be but the one that it is. Try to live in agreement with your conscience, in other words act only according to what your conscience suggests. Do this for a few months. Amaszing, you will notice, after some time, that you like yourself. What is more, people are 'nice' and they are friendly towards you. You are becoming lucky. You are happy with your life. Problems with living exist but you eassily solve them. You do not believe this - try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.182.63.4 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:Burma 3 150.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, comprehensive, and well researched. Found the size a bit daunting - which could be problematic if anyone expands any of the sections. Maybe "Religious, secular and philosophical views about conscience" could be split off into separate articles with a summary in the main article.DavidWongShee (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but wouldn't see the article or Wikipedia as benefiting from such a split. It's such a central topic in so many fields, there are plenty of short articles of conscience in other encyclopaedias. Yet most suffer from leaving the thoughtful reader with knowledge gaps and/or a sense of either superficiality or sanitization. Splitting off the 'religious, secular and philosophical views' section would remove the core component of the article's good article status and undermine its symmetry and objectivity.NimbusWeb (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out Jim Garrison and two crackpot JFK assassination "witnesses" (who in fact lack credibility): Judyth Baker and Dan Marvin. Both under "Notable examples of modern acts based on conscience."

Wikipedia should not be a place where hoaxes are treated as true, nor where a highly controversial District Attorney who most scholars believe badly abused his power are lauded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcadams1 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contentious deletion. You obviously think they are 'crackpot' but apart from that being contentious the issue is whether they feel themselves and are perceived by others as acting on conscience for the sake of a greater good. We will need to have a debate about this before this deletion can be accepted.NimbusWeb (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence below was added under the heading 'neuroscience and artificial intelligence.' It sets out what appears to be primarily a philosophical position. The reference is not to a book by a main stream publisher. It sets out philosophical positions rather than neuroscience research. Griffith though he has studied biology is not a professor of biology at a university. It would be best to have a discussion about the inclusion of this. "Biologist Jeremy Griffith has defined conscience as the voice of our species' instinctive moral sense that was acquired before the psychologically troubled state of the human condition emerged. Ref: Griffith J. 2011. Conscience. In The Book of Real Answers to Everything! (see http://www.worldtransformation.com/conscience/ ). ISBN 9781741290073."NimbusWeb (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of peripheral points (I'm ignorant about the topic itself): criticizing the publisher and stating that a particular biologist is not a professor of biology seem to be a couple of denying the antecedent fallacies. I agree that the heading 'neuroscience and artificial intelligence' isn't a good choice for this material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These points simply go to the acknowledged expertise of the author or apparent lack of it. Most of the people cited in these sections have an acknowledged reputation as experts in fields related to conscience. Darwin wrote publications and received acknowledgement by the scientific community of his status as an expert. There is an implicit peer review process built into quality of publisher and position as professor.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting out your concerns with my edit. I maintain that Griffith's definition is a worthwhile contribution, as it adds an element from the the viewpoint of contemporary biology that otherwise doesn't appear in the page. His work is sourced and he has received acknowledgement from the scientific community (for example from Harry Prosen, Charles Birch, and John Edward Morton). The placement of the sentence is not the best, I accept, but there are limited options within 'Secular Views' and didn't feel that one edit was enough to generate a new heading. Perhaps a heading 'Biological explanations of the origins of conscience'? Ethologists, primatologists and anthropologists researching the origins of moral instincts etc could then have a place on the page?? Any other suggestions for where else to better place it? John184 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but Griffith is not regarded as a credible exponent of 'contemporary biology'. His source is about as close to self-publishing as can be. The content too is of dubious value: "Biologist Jeremy Griffith has defined conscience as the voice of our species' instinctive moral sense that was acquired before the psychologically troubled state of the human condition emerged." 'Voice' is used here in a very non-scientific way, it treats 'instinctive moral sense' as a fact when it is scientifically contentious, 'psychological troubled state of the human condition' is either trite or jargon or both. This addition is way off the level of expertise exhibited in the surrounding sources.NimbusWeb (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the quote belongs in the category of imaginative populist journalism, not science, but we cannot base wikipedia material purely on any editor's opinion of the relative worth of the products of other minds (no matter how knowledgeable that wikipedia editor might be), the material has to stand on its own merits. Consequently, for a topic like this one that really does belong on this page, we need to find better sources. Unfortunately, various pages that we might want to link to show some of the Randy in Boise effect, so ideally, if we all had boundless energy, we'd clean those up as well. It's a slow process! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can and should include wikipedia material based on its accepted policies. The fact that Griffith is not a biologist according to most of the accepted criteria is important. It is misleading to call him a biologist. He is pushing a philosophy. The quote from him is quite vacuous and should be deleted.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Griffith remains characterized as "controversial", that needs a citation. It would be wrong to call him a biologist if he is a philosopher without being also a biologist. It is a vacuous quote. The preceding material is also weak, quoting opinions, not science. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recent addition touts artificial photosynthesis as a way to achieve the sustainocene. That is a very odd juxtaposition, replacing the ecology that we depend on, rather than respecting it. How this relates to Conscience seems to warrant serious discussion, if anyone can provide suitable citations. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The world conscience section is about expanding human sympathy and compassion globally. One of the main movements there is towards respecting the interests if the natural environment. If you care to read the article cited (and other articles on artificial photosynthesis in the wikipedia article on that subject) you will see the idea is not to replace natural photosynthesis but to take the pressure off it--so that human structures help us pay our own way instead of us exploiting natural photosynthesis. Its another example of a technological expansion allowing conscience to expand to protect others.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A user posted this entry: "Daoism does not contain the concept of conscience, and authors have posited that this may have an influence on today's Chinese culture.ref: Frederick W. Mote. Intellectual Foundations of China Knopf. New York, 1971."

Yet, it seems far from unequivocal that Taoism does not "contain" the concept of conscience. The reference has no page number. Would be interesting to see what others think."Being compassionate one could afford to be courageous" (Tao Te Ching LXVII).NimbusWeb (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the book right now, but when I do, I can list the page numbers. Why do you say, "it seems far from unequivocal" yet you do not supply any counter argument? "Being compassionate one could afford to be courageous" suggests empathy, but does not suggest conscience. It seems you just find it hard to swallow that a religion would not have the concept of 'conscience'. This weak rebuttal motivates me more to try to put this in.

It has actually been considerably discussed by scholars on the subject that Taoism does not have the concept of conscience, and this has been cited by authors such as Frederick Mote as having a profound effect on modern Chinese culture.

Librarians, not scientists, tend to always want to show everything in organized agreement. Pointing out caveats such as absence of conscience in Taoism, in my opinion, is equally as important. I think it is worth including this in the article on conscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terraracer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The concept of the 'Tao' or 'The Way' is generally understood to involve living in harmony with the fundamental forces of nature and mind. This is implicit in many of the discussions on conscience above. Conscience itself is so broadly defined it seems a very problematic task to say that on none of those definitions is conscience configured in Taoism. A quick search reveals Glenn LM, Boyce J. The tao of conscience: conflict and resolution. Am J Bioeth. 2007 Dec;7(12):33-4. You might also want to look at p154 here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yVydhTcadswC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=conscience+and+the+tao&source=bl&ots=W1-BrPDvvO&sig=x-IM3pn30k3mzygXLv26SGmUrFA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8iurUfCYG-WNiAfFw4CgCQ&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=conscience%20and%20the%20tao&f=false.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119061605/http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,20541398-10389,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,20541398-10389,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Conscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822005450/http://www.visioncircle.org/archive/004733.html to http://www.visioncircle.org/archive/004733.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516020813/http://www.parentingforeveryone.com/book2part2ch12 to http://www.parentingforeveryone.com/book2part2ch12
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C%2C20541398-10389%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703174329/http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends/gtrends195.htm to http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends/gtrends195.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521211455/http://davidleser.com/slippages/uploads/download/file/df-9-128-18.pdf to http://davidleser.com/slippages/uploads/download/file/df-9-128-18.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327132311/http://www.lyricstime.com/the-dream-academy-forest-fire-lyrics.html to http://www.lyricstime.com/the-dream-academy-forest-fire-lyrics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Lectures/2003/02_Lecture_2003_1016.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106094410/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104002047/http://www.benhills.com/articles/articles/SCM38a.html to http://www.benhills.com/articles/articles/SCM38a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To abet my potential understanding, I attempted to break apart a sentence now in the lead.

The extent to which conscience:

• informs moral judgment before an action
• [and] occasioned debate through much of modern history between
  • theories of modern
  • in juxtaposition to the theories of romanticism
    • and other reactionary movements
      • after the end of the Middle Ages.

Eek. It didn't improve with air added. This is the kind of sentence that persists only because any sensible person skims over the top picking out a few keywords, before moving along briskly. Nobody ever really reads such a sentence deep down. — MaxEnt 01:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Define 184.53.32.219 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]