What comparisons can be made between Aquinas and Freud on the process of moral decision making Flashcards
(12 cards)
Introduction
Moral decision-making theories seek to explain how and why humans distinguish between right and wrong. Aquinas and Freud both offer influential but radically different accounts of this process.
Aquinas roots his theory in a theological framework, grounded in Natural Law and the concept of telos, asserting that moral reasoning is guided by God-given rational faculties. Freud, by contrast, gives a psychological and secular account, arguing that conscience arises through childhood socialisation and unconscious mental dynamics, especially the interaction of the id, ego, and superego.
While both explain guilt, internal conflict, and behavioural regulation, their views are ultimately irreconcilable. This essay will compare their theories in terms of their structure, explanation of guilt, and basis for moral authority, evaluating which model best accounts for moral decision making.
LOA
The line of argument pursued is that although Aquinas’ view has a logical theological coherence, Freud’s naturalistic account provides a more scientifically grounded and culturally sensitive model of how humans make moral decisions.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1: Comparison of Conscience as a Moral Process – Rational Telos vs Psychological Conflict
Paragraph 1: Comparison of Conscience as a Moral Process – Rational Telos vs Psychological Conflict
AO1: Aquinas’ Theory of Conscience
• Aquinas’ view of conscience is inseparable from his Natural Law Ethics, grounded in telos – the idea that everything in creation has a purpose designed by God.
• Humans are directed towards moral good via the use of ratio (reason), a divine gift.
• The synderesis rule – the innate tendency to “do good and avoid evil” – forms the foundation of moral reasoning.
• The conscience comprises two parts:
• Synderesis: awareness of primary moral principles (e.g., preservation of life)
• Conscientia: application of these principles to specific situations, generating secondary precepts.
• Conscience, therefore, is a rational process aimed at achieving our God-given telos, and guilt arises when reason identifies moral failure.
• Aquinas acknowledges moral errors can occur due to vincible or invincible ignorance, which affects whether guilt is justified.
Paragraph 1: Comparison of Conscience as a Moral Process – Rational Telos vs Psychological Conflict
AO1: Freud’s Theory of Conscience
• Freud offers a secular psychological explanation of conscience through the dynamic between the id, ego, and superego.
• The id is the unconscious source of primal urges; the ego is the conscious decision-making self; the superego represents internalised societal rules.
• The conscience emerges from childhood socialisation through Freud’s psycho-sexual stages of development (oral, anal, phallic, latency, genital).
• By maturity, the ego manages id desires with reference to the superego. Guilt occurs when the ego violates internalised moral expectations.
Paragraph 1: Comparison of Conscience as a Moral Process – Rational Telos vs Psychological Conflict
AO2: Evaluation & Comparison
- Similiarity
- Key difference
- Scientific critique
- Stronger scientific grounding
- Freuds modal
- Conclusion of paragraph
• Similarity: Both models include an internal source of guilt regulating behaviour, suggesting conscience helps resolve internal moral tension.
• Key difference: Aquinas sees conscience as rational and objective, grounded in divine law; Freud sees it as emotional and subjective, conditioned by upbringing.
• Scientific critique of Aquinas: The idea of telos has been strongly challenged by modern science. As Francis Bacon noted, telos lacks empirical support. Sean Carroll, a physicist, affirms that purpose is not embedded in the universe’s structure. Evolutionary biology explains behaviours like empathy as survival traits, not divine imperatives.
• Stronger scientific grounding for Freud: Though his method was unscientific and unfalsifiable (Popper), Freud’s core insight – that conscience is a product of social conditioning – is supported by Jean Piaget and modern psychology.
• Freud’s model avoids metaphysical assumptions and can explain variations in moral development far more flexibly than Aquinas’.
• Conclusion of paragraph: Freud’s theory better explains the psychological complexity of moral decision making, whereas Aquinas’ reliance on telos weakens his theory under scientific scrutiny.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: Cultural Variation and the Reliability of Moral Judgement – Universal Reason vs Conditioned Morality
Paragraph 2: Cultural Variation and the Reliability of Moral Judgement – Universal Reason vs Conditioned Morality
AO1: Aquinas’ Claim to Universal Moral Knowledge
• Aquinas holds that the primary precepts are universally accessible through reason, because all humans share the same telos.
• These include life preservation, reproduction, education, and societal order – values that should guide all secondary moral decision-making.
• Moral error arises when people act out of ignorance, but true reasoning leads all humans to the same conclusions.
• Thus, the process of moral decision-making is fundamentally the same across cultures, guided by God’s law written into human nature.
Paragraph 2: Cultural Variation and the Reliability of Moral Judgement – Universal Reason vs Conditioned Morality
AO1: Freud on Moral Relativity
• Freud’s model naturally explains cross-cultural moral variation: different upbringings create different superegos.
• For example, attitudes toward euthanasia vary by culture, indicating moral values are shaped by social norms, not divine reason.
• This idea is also echoed by B.F. Skinner, who saw morality as a result of behavioural conditioning.
• The conscience, therefore, is a social construct rather than a universally objective moral faculty.
Paragraph 2: Cultural Variation and the Reliability of Moral Judgement – Universal Reason vs Conditioned Morality
AO2: Evaluation & Comparison
Freud
• Strength of Freud: His model accounts for real-world diversity in moral beliefs, which Aquinas’ model struggles to explain.
• If all humans share a divinely programmed telos, then why do cultures disagree so significantly on moral issues like sexuality, capital punishment, or euthanasia?
• Aquinas’ defence is to blame original sin or cultural corruption, suggesting that moral disagreement doesn’t invalidate his theory.
• He might argue all cultures still value life, education, reproduction etc., which mirror his primary precepts.
• However, this claim is weakened by scientific explanations. Richard Dawkins and others show that evolution and practical survival pressures naturally result in similar core values – not divine design.
• A society that permits murder or theft will collapse, so basic moral order is necessary for societal function, not necessarily God-given.
• Freud’s theory also avoids the theological circularity of assuming telos to justify reason, and reason to justify telos.
• Final comparative point: Aquinas’ model depends on faith in God and objective morality; Freud’s model is cognitively plausible, observable, and flexible to context.
Conclusion
Aquinas and Freud both seek to explain the process of moral decision-making, but from vastly different epistemological frameworks: one theological and teleological, the other psychological and empirical.
Aquinas proposes that moral decisions arise through rational discernment of God’s law, aimed at achieving our telos. Freud rejects the supernatural, instead viewing conscience as a by-product of internal psychological structures and social conditioning. While Aquinas’ model has internal coherence within a theological worldview, it lacks empirical support and struggles with cultural moral diversity.
Freud’s theory, despite being methodologically flawed, offers a more adaptable and scientifically plausible account of how humans make moral decisions.
Therefore, Freud presents a more credible model of moral decision making in the modern world – one that acknowledges human psychological complexity, cultural variation, and the influence of nurture over nature. The comparative analysis shows that while Aquinas assumes objective morality derived from God, Freud more effectively explains how moral decisions are actually made.
LOA
Although Aquinas presents a rationally structured and morally ambitious theory of conscience, Freud’s psychological model better captures the empirical reality of how moral decisions are made.
Freud’s account is more compatible with scientific evidence, accommodates cultural diversity, and avoids unnecessary metaphysical assumptions.
In light of these strengths, Freud offers a more credible and flexible framework for understanding moral decision-making than Aquinas’ telos-dependent account.
