The Anchor of Conscience

If there is no moral restriction on conscience anchor, human beings will be a painful catastrophe of anarchism or it will be at peak of achievement. Among his novels "crime and punishment", Fyodor Dostoevsky is exploring many complex themes, but the concept of guilt and its emphasis on everyday behavior and results stand out in the purpose of his work . Performance In the 19th century in St. Petersburg, Russia, in most cases Dostoyevski lives The hero of the novel Raskolnikov is bravely confronted with the boundary between man and God. I took a foolish and unwieldy pawnbroker's life.

First of all, conscience is a pluralistic concept. To say that there is something in violation of conscience or conscience of others by a person does not mean what the act is or the moral value of that person (conscience itself cherishes this person It can be said that it is worth). Using a metaphor, conscience is like an empty box that can satisfy any kind of moral content. As Strohm said, for example, some health workers are "responsible" for abortion and refuse to serve, but the opposite of women's rightly considered abortion, Abortion to respect may be necessary (Joffe 1995). )

The wrong conscience is a wrong conscience. This is not a correct conscience. There is no moral equivalence between the two. There is no moral equivalence between truth and error, good and evil. If ignorance is not unbeatable, intentionally the wrong conscience is an objective mistake, it is the culprit. If a person tries to maintain moral principles or ethics but fails due to human weakness, we can praise his efforts to maintain moral principles. But we can not praise His attacks against his failure and moral principles. Murder is always wrong. Innocence is always wrong. Homosexuality is always wrong. Contraception is always wrong