Liberal democracies attempt to accommodate conscientious objections without having a clear understanding of the claims of conscience. This might lead to an Antigone claim, when conscience is irreconcilable with state authority. In this essay, I sketch three different models of conscience: a knowledge-based model where conscience gives priority access to moral norms; an emotional model that treats conscience as a natural capability that alerts us to wrongdoing; and a reflection model that argues that conscience works as our inner tribunal. Each model presents a different challenge to political authority. The conflict becomes tragic in Antigone's sense only when conscience is portrayed as providing knowledge of moral norms. The other two models can be squared with political authority in various ways, but they do not offer a final case for the authority of conscientious claims; at best, they show that political authorities should hear conscientious claims and engage with them in public deliberation. Conscience thus reconstructed can provide a constructive function in any society a) by holding political authorities to account; b) by forcing them to provide reasons for their actions; and, ultimately, c) by refining our deliberative and adjudicative practices to make sure that action is always anchored to truth.

中文翻译：

---

良心，真理与行动

自由民主制试图在没有清楚了解良心主张的情况下适应良心拒服兵役。当良心与国家权威无法调和时，这可能导致安提戈涅的主张。在本文中，我概述了三种不同的良心模型：一种基于知识的模型，其中良心优先考虑道德规范；一种将良心视为一种自然能力的情感模型，可以提醒我们注意不当行为；还有一个反思模型，认为良心是我们内部的法庭。每种模式都对政治权威提出了不同的挑战。仅当良心被描绘为提供道德规范知识时，冲突才在安蒂戈涅意义上成为悲剧。其他两种模式可以通过各种方式与政治权威相提并论，但是，它们并没有为基于良心主张的权威性提供最终解决方案；他们充其量表明，政治当局应听取良心要求，并与他们进行公共协商。这样重建的良心可以在任何社会中发挥建设性作用。b）强迫他们提供采取行动的理由；最终c）通过完善我们的审议和裁决做法，以确保行动始终立足于真理。