know in itself and from within itself what is right and obligatory； to give recognition only to what it
thus knows as good； and at the same time to maintain that whatever in this way it knows and wills
is in truth right and obligatory。 Conscience as this unity of subjective knowing with what is absolute
is a sanctuary which it would be sacrilege to violate。 But whether the conscience of a specific
individual corresponds with this Idea of conscience； or whether what it takes or declares to be
good is actually so； is ascertainable only from the content of the good it seeks to realise。 What is
right and obligatory is the absolutely rational element in the will's volitions and therefore it is not in
essence the particular property of an individual； and its form is not that of feeling or any other
private （i。e。 sensuous） type of knowing； but essentially that of universals determined by thought；
i。e。 the form of laws and principles。 Conscience is therefore subject to the judgement of its truth or
falsity； and when it appeals only to itself for a decision； it is directly at variance with what it wishes
to be； namely the rule for a mode of conduct which is rational； absolutely valid； and universal。 For
this reason； the state cannot give recognition to conscience in its private form as subjective
knowing； any more than science can grant validity to subjective opinion； dogmatism； and the
appeal to a subjective opinion。 In true conscience； its elements are not different； but they may
become so； and it is the determining element； the subjectivity of willing and knowing； which can
sever itself from the true content of conscience； establish its own independence； and reduce that
content to a form and a show。 The ambiguity in connection with conscience lies therefore in this： it
is presupposed to mean the identity of subjective knowing and willing with the true good； and so
is claimed and recognised to be something sacrosanct； and yet at the same time； as the mere
subjective reflection of self…consciousness into itself； it still claims for itself the title due； solely on
the strength of its absolutely valid rational content； to that identity alone。
At the level of morality； distinguished as it is in this book from the level of ethics； it is only formal
conscience that is to be found。 True conscience has been mentioned only to indicate its distinction
from the other and to obviate the possible misunderstanding that here； where it is only formal
conscience that is under consideration； the argument is about true conscience。 The latter is part of
the ethical disposition which comes before us for the first time in the following section。 The
religious conscience； however； does not belong to this sphere at all。
Addition： When we speak of conscience； it may easily be thought that； in virtue of its form；
which is abstract inwardness； conscience is at ties point without more ado true conscience。 But
true conscience determines itself to will what is absolutely good and obligatory and is this
self…determination。 So far； however； it is only with good in the abstract that we have to do and
conscience is still without this objective content and is but the infinite certainty of oneself。
§ 138。
This subjectivity； qua abstract self…determination and pure certainty of oneself
alone； as readily evaporates into itself the whole determinate character of right；
duty； and existence； as it remains both the power to judge； to determine from
within itself alone； what is good in respect of any content； and also the power to
which the good； at first only an ideal and an ought…to…be； owes its actuality。
Remark： The self…consciousness which has attained this absolute reflection into itself knows
itself in this reflection to be the kind of consciousness which is and should be beyond the reach of
every existent and given specific determination。 As one of the commoner features of history （e。g。 in
Socrates；40 the Stoics； and others）； the tendency to look deeper into oneself and to know and
determine from within oneself what is right and good appears in ages when what is recognised as
right and good in contemporary manners cannot satisfy the will of better men。 When the existing
world of freedom has become faithless to the will of better men； that will fails to find itself in the
duties there recognised and must try to find in the ideal world of the inner life alone the harmony
which actuality has lost。 Once self…consciousness has grasped and secured its formal right in this
way； everything depends on the character of the content which it gives to itself。
Addition： If we look more closely at this process of evaporation and see how all specific
determinations disappear into this simple concept and then have to be condensed out of it again；
what we find is that it is primarily due to the fact that everything recognised as right and duty may
be proved by discursive thinking to be nugatory； restricted； and in all respects not absolute。 On the
other hand； just as subjectivity evaporates every content into itself； so it may develop it out of itself
once more。 Everything which arises in the ethical sphere is produced by this activity of mind。 The
moral point of view； however； is defective because it is purely abstract。 When I am aware of my
freedom as the substance of my being； I am inactive and do nothing。 But if I proceed to act and
look for principles on which to act； I grope for something determinate and then demand its
deduction from the concept of the free will。 While； therefore； it is right enough to evaporate right
and duty into subjectivity； it is wrong if this abstract groundwork is not then condensed out again。
It is only in times when the world of actuality is hollow； spiritless； and unstable； that an individual
may be allowed to take refuge from actuality in his inner life。 Socrates lived at the time of the ruin
of the Athenian democracy。 His thought vaporised the world around him and he withdrew into
himself to search there for the right and the good。 Even in our day there are cases when reverence
for the established order is more or less lacking； man insists on having the authoritative as his will；
as that to which he has granted recognition。
§ 139。
Once self…consciousness has reduced all otherwise valid duties to emptiness and
itself to the sheer inwardness of the will； it has become the potentiality of either
making the absolutely universal its principle； or equally well of elevating above the
universal the self…will of private particularity； taking that as its principle and
realising it through its actions； i。e。 it has become potentially evil。
Remark： To have a conscience； if conscience is only formal subjectivity； is simply to be on the
verge of slipping into evil； in independent self…certainty； with its independence of knowledge and
decision； both morality and evil have their common root。
The origin of evil in general is to be found in the mystery of freedom （i。e。 in the speculative aspect
of freedom）； the mystery whereby freedom of necessity arises out of the natural level of the will
and is something inward in comparison with that level。 It is this natural level of the will which
comes into existence as a self…contradiction； as incompatible with itself in this opposition； and so it
is just this particularity of the will which later makes itself evil。 That is to say； particularity is always
duality； here it is the opposition of the natural level and the inwardness of the will。 In this
opposition； the latter is only a relative and abstract subjectivity which can draw its content only
from the determinate content of the natural will； from desire； impulse； inclination； &c。 Now it is
said of these desires； impulses； &c。； that they may be either good or evil。 But since the will here
makes into a determinant of its content both these impulses in this contingent character which they
possess as natural； and also； therefore； the form which it has at this point； the form of particularity
itself； it follows that it is set in opposition to the universal as inner objectivity； to the good； which
comes on the scene as the opposite extreme to immediate objectivity； the natural pure and simple；
as soon as the will is reflected into itself and consciousness is a knowing consciousness。 It is in this
opposition that this inwardness of the will is evil。 Man is therefore evil by a conjunction between
his natural or undeveloped character and his reflection into himself； and therefore evil belongs
neither to nature as such by itself … unless nature were supposed to be the natural character of the
will which rests in its particular content … nor to introverted reflection by itself； i。e。 cognition in
general； unless this were to maintain itself in that opposition to the universal。
With this facet of evil； its necessity； there is inevitably combined the fact that this same evil is
condemned to be that which of necessity ought not to be； i。e。 the fact that evil ought to be
annulled。 It is not that there ought never to be a diremption of any sort in the will … on the contrary；
it is just this level of dirempti