On April 5, the world celebrates the International Day of Conscience. This day does not belong to the list of well-known international dates, it is hardly mentioned in news releases and is not accompanied by loud ceremonies or parades. However, this fact makes it particularly interesting. The Day of Conscience was started not as an outward display of virtue, but as a reminder of an internal process—people’s ability to evaluate their own actions. This is a day for reflection, when the global calendar invites each of us to pay attention to how we evaluate our actions, how we behave in difficult situations, and whether we are able to act not by compulsion, but by our own conviction.
Conscience as a political category: an unobvious but fundamental dimension
The International Day of Conscience was established by the decision of the UN General Assembly on July 25, 2019 by Resolution 73/329. The document that accompanied this initiative emphasized the need to develop a culture of peace, dialogue, tolerance, inclusiveness and mutual respect. And although the key concept — conscience — does not have a clear legal definition, it turns out to be surprisingly productive for understanding what does not lend itself to formalization: moral choice in conditions of social tension.
The initiator of the introduction of this day was Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa of Bahrain, who proposed the concept of «global conscience» — not as a unified code of ethics, but as a call for self-reflection, internal discipline, and the search for a compromise not through concessions, but through understanding.
For the first time, the International Day of Conscience was celebrated on April 5, 2020, when the world literally came to a standstill due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At a time when health care systems were operating on the edge, states were faced with the choice between security and freedom, and global supply chains revealed their fragility, the idea of conscience has been left out of the theoretical plane. Then the question arose: how to act morally when resources are lacking? Is it acceptable to refuse medical care based on age? Do states have the right to close borders, knowing that behind them are vulnerable people?
Paradoxically, the relevance of the Day of Conscience increases precisely in the XXI century — an era when more and more decisions are made with the participation of algorithms and artificial intelligence. Then, when social networks stimulate reactions rather than reflection, the question of conscience arises anew. Who is morally responsible for military conflicts and mass casualties? How to form digital ethics, in which conscience will not simply be an outdated concept? At the same time, conscience as an internal ability to critically analyze one’s own actions in the face of difficult choices is something that no algorithm has yet learned. And that is why it does not lose its importance — on the contrary, it becomes a condition for survival in the information noise.
The International Day of Conscience is a reminder that politics, human rights, international conflicts and interpersonal relationships are not just about laws and rules. Every situation contains a moral component. In conflicts, it is an opportunity to see the opponent not as an enemy, but as a person. In discussions — the ability to admit a mistake. At work is the understanding that not everything that is legal is morally permissible. In this sense, this day is dedicated to a border that is not between countries or systems, but within the limits of each person’s personal choice. Conscience, no matter how trite it sounds, is one of the few categories that is both a personal responsibility and a social resource, about which little is said now.
Interesting facts and historical examples
The term «conscience» comes from the Latin «conscientia».» and literally means «knowledge with others.» And this is not random semantics. In the Roman Republic, conscience was not a private feeling of guilt, but an awareness of one’s role in public life. It was the ability not only to recognize good and evil, but also to be responsible for the consequences. Roman senators who voted for the death penalty did not appeal to a personal moral sense, considering themselves responsible to the whole community. Conscience then was not something that «is or is not», it was measured by actions.
In the Middle Ages, the situation changed and conscience became a matter of relationship with God. In the 11th century, Pierre Abelard wrote that even a good deed committed for the wrong reasons is not moral. That is, conscience was determined not only by an act, but also by an intention. It was then that the inquisitional formula appeared: «justification due to sincerity of intention.» In the 12th century, Pope Innocent III, during the Fourth Lateran Council, introduced mandatory confession as a mechanism for cleansing the conscience. But this also meant that conscience became institutionalized. It was no longer an internal dialogue, but an object of control.
In the 1630s in France, the Jesuits taught a course of morality in which conscience was defined as the «rudder of the soul», which should not only protect against sin, but also guide behavior in the political environment. For French jurists of the 17th century, conscience already had the importance of a social reference point, but it was also a period of abuse. In 1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, which guaranteed religious freedom to Protestants, and justified it as «a duty to the conscience of the Catholic monarch.» Since then, conscience has become a rhetorical tool.
In the 20th century, a new turning point came. At the Nuremberg trials of 1945–1946, the accused Nazi officers claimed that they were only «following orders». It was the moment when conscience first officially collided with law. The court rejected the «subordination» argument, saying that even in a rigid vertical of power there is a personal moral limit. But is it always activated?
In 1961, the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem became not just a legal trial of a Nazi criminal, but the point at which the German-American political theorist, one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, Hannah Arendt, saw something much more disturbing: not a fanatic, not a sadist, but a gray official who acted without hatred, but simply «following orders.» It was this contrast between the scale of the crime and the ordinariness of the person that made her talk about the «banality of evil» — a situation in which the lack of conscience becomes part of the deadly mechanism. That is, conscience was considered as a rudiment that does not interfere with functioning in the regime of evil.
In Ukraine, there are enough examples when conscience disappeared not only because of fear, but because of the habit of silence. During the Holodomor of 1932–1933, some rural activists themselves seized grain from their neighbors, knowing that this would doom them to starvation. During the Second World War, they betrayed their own, surrendered to partisans, worked as policemen, etc. For them, conscience was like a shadow that they did not want to see.
In 1972, the Ukrainian poet and dissident Vasyl Stus came to the defense of the arrested Valery Marchenko, knowing that this would threaten him personally. The KGB had a whole card file of «morally unstable» people in whom conscience appeared as a «dangerous sign.» The paradox of the era was that conscience did not disappear, but they tried to displace it in everyday life, in daily trifles and for their own benefit. To be conscientious in a system that punishes independence was to put oneself at risk.
Conscience in modern Ukrainian society
Conscience in modern Ukrainian society is a topic about which, for some reason, everyone is silent not because of its complexity, but because of its inconvenience. It does not appear in political programs, is rarely heard in the parliamentary walls, is not the object of PR campaigns or national initiatives. It is not customary to talk about it in a loud voice, because it does not bring ratings. In the public space, it is much more convenient to measure values in terms of benefit, pragmatism, the ability to «find a scheme» or «solve an issue.» Conscience here looks like naivety — an archaic quality that is supposedly incompatible with «successful adaptation.»
Now benefit has become the new norm. The principle «I see the goal, I don’t see the obstacles» is popular today not only in business or politics, but also in everyday ethics. The goal is to earn, survive, gain, rise. Means are not too important. During a full-scale war with Russia, difficult moral situations constantly arise, she very clearly showed who is who. Do all Ukrainians have it? Obviously, not everyone has it. For those who break the law during war, talk of conscience is surprising — it is either replaced by cynicism, or counted only within the limits of the criminal code. Corruption in public procurement for the army long ago crossed the line of occasional episodes — it became a systematic practice. Purchase of low-quality bulletproof vests, inflated prices for weapons, clothing and products for military units, «limousine» acts of acceptance of fortifications that do not exist in the area. Mastering budgets in the dugout, which are drawn up on paper. Humanitarian aid that ends up in commercial stores or private warehouses — with the tacit participation of «their own» in military administrations.
Tender schemes are generally a separate reality. One-day firms win million-dollar contracts with no work experience and the right connections. Contracts for the construction and repair of bomb shelters and roads, which are not checked by anyone. Reconstruction of medical facilities that exist only in documents. And in parallel — our deputies who either do not appear at the session, or turn their mandates into a business tool: deriban of communal property, land issues, lobbying of companies with which they have a direct interest. At the same time, space salaries, bonuses, company cars, status trips are kept in full.
There are also judges — those who should guarantee justice. They form «closed clubs of inviolability». Cosmic salaries, extra payments, housing, pensions are calculated not for years of service, but for belonging to the system. The pension of the judge, who retired at the age of 42, exceeds the monthly salary of dozens of teachers. There are also prosecutors who sign suspicions selectively, taking into account not the law, but political or financial weight.
TCCs have turned into a space of fear and chaos. Arresting people in public places, without serving a summons, without explanations, in violation of procedures. At the same time, thousands of cases about fictitious certificates, booking of «necessary» persons, bleached medical histories. That is, formal compliance with the law — with a real bypass of everything related to equality.
We should also mention officials of all levels, who, as well as judges, during a full-scale war, buy estates abroad, arrange luxury cars for relatives, register businesses through fictitious persons. Managers of state-owned enterprises, who do not stop writing out bonuses against the background of losses and cuts. The workers of the structures responsible for the reconstruction, who agree on the prices, are incompatible with the economy of wartime. Mayors of cities who simultaneously head several charitable foundations and manage land. Audit services that record violations but do not pass them on to law enforcement. This list is not exhaustive. And none of these episodes indicate a complete lack of conscience. Moreover, if they all are reminded of her, it will cause loud laughter.
And here the question is not only who has a conscience, but why its absence does not entail responsibility. Why is theft at public procurement for the Armed Forces still not a «black mark» that puts a person outside the community? Why do those who sign inflated «fortification» tenders continue to hold office? Why does humanitarian aid — things that are given with the hope of salvation — end up in private cars or go for resale?
However, not only officials have no conscience. There are also those who surrender the positions of the Armed Forces to the enemy — on purpose, for a fee or with the desire to «re-insure». People who transmit artillery coordinates, merge routes, open gates to the rear, knowingly agree to the fact that someone will die. At the same time, they are not mistaken, but consciously make their choice. They don’t just have a conscience, but there is no sense of the line between what can be experienced and what is unforgivable. There are also those who live abroad on social benefits and in free housing, but rent their apartments in Ukraine to migrants who have lost everything for large sums. And this is not about survival, but profiting from someone else’s loss, when some lose their homes under shelling, and others count how much they will get «in dollars at the exchange rate.»
But in modern Ukrainian society, there are many people who have not lost their conscience and are not guided solely by profit, fear or submission. These are soldiers who, after being rotated and wounded, return to the front, because they know that there will be no one to cover the area in their place. These are the commanders who refuse to leave the wounded, although they have every chance to evacuate. These are the paramedics who pull fighters out from under fire when seconds count. People who take risks not because someone ordered them, but because they cannot do otherwise. These are medics who work in stabilization points under the front line, often without full protection, without guarantees of safety. They do not ask unnecessary questions and do not shoot videos for social networks. They simply remove the debris, stabilize it, and pass it on — dozens of times a day. They don’t have time to be outraged by the schemes that at this very moment someone is implementing behind the scenes, writing off millions for fictitious purchases. But it is these people who hold the line every day — literally.
They are also those who hand over ammunition, medicines, and cars to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, bought at their own expense. These are doctors who take the wounded away in their own cars at night, when there is no «ambulance». These are teachers who do not stop their work, although they receive meager salaries. All of them, and not only them, are not public, not vocal, not invited to government or supervisory councils. But they are the ones who make decisions every day, in which the conscience is not taken out of parentheses. It is a way of living in conditions where lies, profiteering and double standards have become all too common. And it is they who hold the state on their shoulders, but, paradoxically, do not manage it.
Therefore, conscience is not a universal resource, it is not automatically distributed among citizens, it cannot be included in laws, approved by a government decision, or stimulated by grants. It appears only when a person is confused even by the fact that no one will see. When in the dark, without cameras and witnesses, without coercion and external control, a person does something for which he will not be ashamed to look in the eyes of those around him.
However, the problem is that this principle is «not fashionable» today. That’s why they don’t talk about conscience, but this is exactly the symptom of our society. That is why it is high time to turn to the topic of conscience not as a symbolic concept, but as a concrete criterion for daily decisions — personal, professional and political. Its absence is noticeable not only in individual abuses, but in an atmosphere where violation of laws and moral norms has become part of the usual order. If the officials in power in the country have no conscience, and a part of the society lives according to the same principles, it turns into a territory without rules. Trust, responsibility, and a sense of community are gradually disappearing there. No one will want to serve a state that only serves itself. And in the end, it is left with laws, but without order and without citizens.
