Consensus on conscience

Cicero gives his thoughts on justice in the form of a dialogue between two men, one of whom is charged to defend injustice. Cicero says that some law comes from God and some from men, which is why justice is viewed differently around the world, and the only universal justice will come from the law of God. He defines justice as an unnatural thing that is not a part of human nature and injustice as an opportunity for personal advancement. Cicero actually names injustice as basic common sense and wisdom because arguing that it is more beneficial than justice because justice comes from a state of weakness which is not desirable.

After reading this piece I think it is pretty easy to see that Cicero is in support of justice and against injustice. I say this because I am sometimes confused with an author assuming the opposite position when making his point and I think Cicero was fairly clear about his intention for writing. He begins by portraying the defense of injustice as a comical thing only for the sake of argument and ends his piece with a reminder that everyone is able to interpret the law and that everyone is susceptible to punishment from men and from God.

The above being said, Cicero still makes some interesting statements about the human attitude towards law. If people have everything to gain by disobeying laws, than it is a strong motivation to break them. Cicero claims that if a man may commit injustice and dodge the penalty, then he may claim power, wealth, and status with no cost, except what may pursue him out of his own conscience.

Here comes this conscience idea again; conscience always seems to be a factor in the creation and interpretation of justice. Cicero notes that most laws are created by people and are beyond even the laws given by God. So if man’s laws go beyond God’s laws, then the conscience must be a way that we decide how to obey these laws. There is a consensus between all of the authors we have read that people have a problem following their consciences and therefore create unjust laws from time to time: Thoreau believed that the government was corrupted, Rawls believed that human justice could be perfect if only a group of unbiased people, nearly impossible to come by in today’s world, could agree on beneficial laws, King believed that a majority could become oppressive out of prejudice, and Cicero believed that the benefits of injustice could cause someone to stray from their conscience. An article I read about the conscience, found here - http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Ethics/conscience.htm, concluded that the conscience is generally a guide towards obeying the law of God and the law of man. The exception is when the law of man is unjust and disobeying is the only way to achieve justice.

What I am getting out of the Justice unit is that you should always follow the eternal, moral law of God and listen to your conscience because it will either lead you to follow the law or to make a just act of disobedience. This is the case only if your morals are favoring justice over personal advancement.