What comparisons can be made between Aquinas and Freud on the concept of guilt Flashcards
(15 cards)
Introduction
- introduce the concept of guilt
- Freud
- Essay outline
- LOA
The concept of guilt is central to theories of conscience, and both Aquinas and Freud provide influential yet contrasting accounts. Aquinas, a 13th-century theologian, sees guilt as the rational recognition of failure to follow God’s natural law, which he believes is rooted in human nature and our God-given telos.
In contrast, Freud, a 20th-century psychoanalyst, explains guilt as a psychological phenomenon emerging from childhood socialisation and internal conflicts within the human psyche.
This essay will compare Aquinas’ theological view and Freud’s psychological interpretation, assessing which provides a more convincing explanation for the experience of guilt.
The line of argument will defend the claim that Freud’s model—despite its limitations—offers a more coherent and scientifically grounded account of guilt than Aquinas’ metaphysically dependent model.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
AO1 – Explanation of Aquinas’ Theory
• Aquinas links conscience to his Natural Law Ethics, arguing that humans are created with a telos (purpose) designed by God.
• Human telos is reached by using reason (ratio) to access natural moral law, guided by the synderesis principle—the innate inclination to “do good and avoid evil.”
• Conscientia is the practical application of synderesis to specific moral decisions. Together, synderesis and conscientia make up the conscience.
• When humans act against this rational understanding of the good, they experience guilt. Aquinas describes conscience as that which “witnesses, binds, and torments”—guilt is thus the rational self-judgement that one has failed to act morally.
• He distinguishes between vincible ignorance (when we should have known better) and invincible ignorance (when we couldn’t have known better), claiming only the former results in justifiable guilt.
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
Strength
Strength: This theory dignifies human reason and supports moral responsibility. By tying guilt to rationality, Aquinas accounts for the reflective nature of guilt.
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
Weakness
Weakness: The foundation of Aquinas’ view—telos—is metaphysical and unscientific. As Francis Bacon and Sean Carroll argue, the modern scientific worldview sees the universe as purposeless, composed of atoms and energy, not divine design.
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
Further critique
Further critique: Evolutionary biology offers naturalistic explanations for behaviours Aquinas claims come from God. Empathy, for instance, can be seen as a herd survival trait, not a God-given moral law.
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
Application of Ockhams razor
Application of Ockham’s Razor: Given that science explains conscience and moral feeling without invoking supernatural elements, Aquinas’ theory becomes an unnecessary hypothesis.
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
Cross cultural moral variation
Cross-cultural moral variation further undermines Aquinas. If natural law and synderesis were truly universal, we would expect more moral agreement across cultures. The reality of differing moral codes (e.g., on euthanasia) suggests conscience is shaped by culture, not divine reason.
Aquinas would reply that there is a core moral consensus, such as valuing life and education. However, Dawkins and other evolutionists explain this through pragmatic or evolutionary benefit, not innate God-given law.
Paragraph 1: Aquinas – Guilt as a Rational Recognition of Moral Failure
Mini conclusion
Mini conclusion Mini-conclusion: Aquinas provides a morally serious account of guilt grounded in reason and moral obligation. However, his reliance on teleology and divine purpose weakens the theory in a modern, scientific context. His account lacks empirical support and is better explained by scientific models of human behaviour.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: Freud – Guilt as a Product of Internal Psychological Conflict
Paragraph 2: Freud – Guilt as a Product of Internal Psychological Conflict
AO1 – Explanation of Freud’s Theory
• Freud rejects the idea of a God-given moral law. Instead, he presents the conscience as the product of psychological development, especially during childhood.
• His model of the mind includes:
• Id: instinctual drives
• Ego: rational self
• Superego: internalised moral standards from authority figures
Guilt arises when the ego fails to restrain the id in line with the superego. The superego punishes the ego with feelings of guilt, functioning like an internalised parent.
Freud’s psychosexual development theory explains how the superego is formed through stages like the oral, anal, and phallic stages. Social norms are internalised as children learn self-control, culminating in a mature conscience in the genital stage.
Thus, guilt is not objective, but the product of social conditioning.
Paragraph 2: Freud – Guilt as a Product of Internal Psychological Conflict
AO2 – Evaluation
- Strength
- Empirical support
- Contemporary research
- KArl Popper
- Core claim
- Compared to Aquinas
- Shared moral codes
Strength: Freud’s theory offers a naturalistic and psychological explanation of guilt without appealing to metaphysics or God.
Empirical support: Though Freud’s methods were unscientific, later psychologists like Piaget support his central idea—that conscience is shaped by childhood socialisation.
Contemporary research confirms Freud’s idea of unconscious motivations, making his account psychologically plausible even today.
Criticism: Karl Popper argued that Freud’s theories are unfalsifiable—they can’t be tested or disproven, so they aren’t scientific in the strict sense.
However, the core claim—that guilt arises from conditioning and internalised authority—is scientifically verifiable and used in modern psychology and therapy.
Compared to Aquinas, Freud better explains cross-cultural moral diversity. Different societies condition their children differently, explaining moral disagreements without needing a divine law.
Even shared moral codes can be explained without religion: evolution and social pragmatism explain why all cultures value life, order, and education.
Paragraph 2: Freud – Guilt as a Product of Internal Psychological Conflict
Mini conclusion
Mini-conclusion: Despite its early methodological flaws, Freud’s theory of guilt offers a more empirically grounded and flexible account. It fits with contemporary psychology, explains cultural variation, and avoids the metaphysical assumptions that weaken Aquinas’ model.
Conclusion
Aquinas and Freud provide two very different understandings of guilt: one theological, grounded in divine reason and purpose; the other psychological, rooted in childhood socialisation and unconscious drives.
Aquinas sees guilt as a failure to live up to a rationally known divine law, while Freud sees it as the emotional conflict between social conditioning and natural desires.
While Aquinas’ view offers moral weight and a sense of purpose, it relies on the now scientifically obsolete concept of telos and fails to account for cultural variation or psychological complexity.
Freud’s model, though not without flaws, has been largely vindicated by modern psychology and better aligns with what we know about human development and cultural diversity.
Line of argument
Line of argument: Freud’s theory ultimately offers the stronger account of guilt.
It avoids metaphysical speculation, accounts for cultural and psychological variation, and has empirical support. In comparison,
Aquinas’ theory, though morally serious, is rooted in outdated assumptions and less consistent with contemporary scientific understanding.
Therefore, Freud’s theory is more compelling in explaining the origins and nature of guilt in human beings.
