Conscience is the internal perception of the rejection of a particular wish operating in us.

Modernity has identified the theme of conscience as one of its most emblematic frontiers. [...] Too often, in culture as in life, the concept of conscience, that is, the ability of a person to recognise the truth and the decision to follow it, is confused with the ultimate peremptory nature of subjective opinion.

People talk about the conscience, but it seems to me one must just bring it up to a certain point and leave it there. You can let your conscience alone if you're nice to the second housemaid.

When the individual finds in her conscience beliefs that are relevant to public policy but incapable of the defense on the basis of beliefs common to her fellow citizens, she must sacrifice her conscience on the altar of public expediency.

I note that a common but faulty view is that, like a satellite navigator, conscience gives us directions from outside our own moral reasoning. The classical Christian conception of conscience is of the natural perception of basic moral principles, their application in particular circumstances, and the final judgment about what is to be (or has been) done. Without shared objective principles, "conscientious" belief becomes window-dressing for the raw expression of preference or power. But conscience must be both well-informed and well-formed if it is to be a reliable guide to action.

I keep having the same experience and keep resisting it every time. I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lack an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert. Everybody looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling this good and that evil. Nobody even blushes when you intimate that their weights are underweight; nor do people feel outraged; they merely laugh at your doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward: the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this "great majority." But what is goodheartedness, refinement, or genius to me, when the person who has these virtues tolerates slack feelings in his faith and judgments and when he does not account the desire for certainty as his inmost craving and deepest distress--as that which separates the higher human beings from the lower.

The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.

Even when there is no law, there is conscience.

Does anyone believe that there is an international conscience?

He ignored that, beginning to suspect his mind of harboring an alien. Once he might have termed it conscience. Now it was only an annoyance. Morality, after all, had fallen with society. He was his own ethic.

The idea of a civil conscience! It is a good joke; an excellent joke. All the consciences I have ever heard of were nagging, badgering, fault-finding, execrable savages!