To submit a comment, click here.
Well thought out.
As a whole, I think that your thoughts are on the right track, but they leave a question open to debate. If one accepts Freud's comment that the conscience is external commands internalized, then can it truly be said that those who appear not to have internalized society's rules and mores have a conscience? Freud's definition seems to be very clear-cut; if the commands are internalized, then a conscience develops. If the commands are NOT internalized, then no conscience develops -- or so it would seem. The case of Ted Bundy seems to prove this. If he had internalized the commands against murder that society touts, then his "conscience" might not've let him kill the girls. It would seem, then, that he didn't have a conscience to recognize or understand.
Your paper contains excellent reasoning. I totally agree with your position. What things could prevent a conscience from being established? Why is the inner voice stronger in some and not others? Just curious.
I agree. Conscience doesn't always determine what is right or wrong. If a child has been taught that killing a person is good/right, then the conscience can't be relied on if what Freud says is true.
I totally agree with what you are saying, because in the aspect of killing Ted Bundy might not have had a conscience but in some other situation he might have one.
Very well explained, except I wonder if serial killers should be thrown in the category of a person. If a boat had no hull, would it really be a boat? Likewise is a "man" without a conscience really a person?
good paper. i agree. i also believe our conscience is not always the determinant of right and wrong. for example: killing is wrong. now it is not necessarily our conscience that tells us this. instead, we are just looking out for ourselves. we wouldn't want to be killed, so we claim it wrong.
i wouldnt necessarily say that, that is our conscience in action. of course, our conscience also would tell us it was wrong too if we were put into the position where we had the opportunity to kill. as for ted bundy, we would say that he has a conscience, but he is detatched from reality and from communication with himself. On the subject of serial killers and "crazies" i think
we should make them exempt.
I agree completely with your paper. I really liked the reasoning behind your argument.
This paper was outstanding. You did a great job explaining your topic.
I agree with you. You gave us good examples to support your paper.
I agree.
Your examples were helpful in making your point. I agree that a person's conscience is learned from experiences, so therefore each person's conscience is different and cannot be a determinant of right and wrong.
You're right--the example with the serial killer shows how people can commit actions that are deemed "wrong" by their society, yet they still commit those actions, regardless of the consequences.
I liked your paper and I liked how you realized that a conscience is there, just not always relized. Good paper!
Very well thought out and concise. You support yourself well.
This was a very interesting topic. I lik ehow you started it off with a definition.
well thought out. i have not looked at the conscience from that piont of view and it was interesting;good paper
Formal comments completed