Yes, the United States Department of the Treasury has a Conscience Fund. The fund was started in 1811 when the Treasury received $5 from an anonymous donor who wanted to make restitution for some undisclosed deed. The name of the fund came from a letter received by the Treasury during the Civil War from a former quartermaster in the Army. The letter included $1500 for previously misappropriated funds. The letter stated, “Suppose we call this a contribution to the conscience fund and get it announced in the newspapers, and perhaps we will get more.” And more they got.

The Conscience Fund has received more than $6 million to date with individual donations ranging from $0.09 to $155,502. The 9 cents came from someone who had reused a 3-cent stamp more than once. There was no reason given for the large donation. The donations come in cashier’s checks, money orders, through attorneys and clergy, and cash in envelopes. One $1300 donation came in to make restitution for tools, leave days, and other things stolen from the Navy from 1962 to 1967. One donor sent in handmade quilts to settle her tax bill. Another sent a letter saying, “I have not been able to sleep at night because I cheated on last year’s income tax. Enclosed find a cashier’s check for $1,000. If I still can’t sleep, I’ll send you the balance.”

Not all donations are motivated by guilt for things done. One man sent in money because federal welfare offices helped him and his family when he was a kid. He wanted to repay the kindness so he sent in $1,000 and said he would try to send more later. Of course, donations of gratitude are by far the exception. Most all come in to assuage a guilty conscience such as this note that was sent in signed “an ex-GI”: “I am sending $10 for the blankets I stole while in World War II. My mind could not rest. I want to be ready to meet God.”

The Conscience Fund got me to thinking about the words conscience, restitution, and, even forgiveness. Where did our conscience come from? What is the purpose of our conscience? What does restitution mean? Is restitution required if you are sorry? Is restitution required by law? Is restitution required by God? What about forgiveness? Does forgiveness wipe the slate clean or remove the need for restitution? The Aged Sage will try to answer those questions.

It would not be accurate to say that theories abound about where our conscience comes from. There is even a dearth of entries in dictionaries and encyclopedias of psychology and sociology about the conscience. Psychiatry does not deal with the conscience because it cannot be treated with drugs. That leaves the human sciences and religion. Psychologists seem to focus more on the conscience than does sociology. That is due in large part to the theories of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who is credited with being the founder of psychoanalysis.

The simple definition of conscience given in the American Psychological Association Dictionary of Philosophy is, “an individual’s sense of right and wrong or of transgressions against man and values.” That would be fine if it had left it there. It continues by introducing Freud’s theory of the superego, or ethical component of personality. The superego restricts the actions of the ego (the part of the human personality that mediates between the aggressive and sexual drives, or id). For Freud, the superego, or conscience, was guided by parental and social values. That would be fine if parents and society were sources of objective standards of morality rather than majority opinion, and if human beings did not have a spiritual aspect to their being.

Psychology says the conscience is of a psychosocial construct. Neuroscience has a different theory. Patricia Churchland captures the theory rather well in the book, Conscience: The Origins of Moral Intuition. Her contention is the way our brains developed over the course of evolution causes the attachment between mother and offspring to expand to include other close relationships and eventually to our own society as a whole. Why? Because it was better for the long-term survival of human beings. A few years ago, scientists from Oxford University claimed to have identified the area of the brain where the conscience is located. It is called the Ventrolateral Frontal Cortex, an area of the brain that is not found in other primates. There you have it!

The theories of psychology and neuroscience do have one thing in common. They both recognize that what informs, or educates, the conscience of human beings comes from sources external to the human. The sciences say the source is parents and society; religion says the source is God. Only God’s standard of morality can be objective for human beings.

Making retribution is the reason the Conscience Fund exits. Again, restitution does not seem to be a major concern in psychology and sociology, and certainly not a neuroscience issue. The word restitution comes from the Latin restituere, meaning to restore. The idea is to make things right that you made wrong (theft, fraud, damage to reputation, etc.). My opinion is that such an act does make a person feel much better about themselves, and should be a major concern for the psychosocial sciences. But it is not.

However, it is a big issue in law and in religion. In law, the United States has the Mandatory Restitution Act of 1996 by which victims are to receive restitution for all provable losses caused by unlawful acts of others. In the United Kingdom, the English law of Restitution provides for restitution for unjust enrichment (at the victim’s loss); restitution for wrongs; and restitution to vindicate property rights.

In western religions, almost all have restitution as a requirement for forgiveness. The Mormons say restitution has always been part of the gospel plan. St. Augustine said, “As long as one who has wronged his neighbor refuses to make reparation, though he entreats the Divine pardon with tears, though he seeks to appease the Divine justice by fasts and penances, his sins will not be remitted.” The Catholic doctrine says, “If a man is unable to work because of injuries and not provide finances to pay restitution, his salvation is at stake.” Islam says, “If someone sins against another person, restitution is required.” For the Jews, the Law of Moses addresses the issue in Leviticus 6:2-5. The Hebrew laws require restitution for all things taken unlawfully plus more: “He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it.” Billy Graham says, “Yes, God has forgiven all your sins, but He also wants you to do whatever you can to heal any hurts or undo any damage you’ve caused.” Therefore, I would say, yes, donations to the Conscience Fund are good for the psyche but maybe not for the soul.

That brings us to forgiveness and its role in human well-being. Once again, psychology and sociology generally fail to recognize its importance. Freud did not write directly about forgiveness, with the implication that he did not consider it an important ingredient in psychoanalysis. The APA Dictionary of Psychology is the only one I could find with an entry for forgiveness. It reads, “willfully putting aside feelings of resentment toward an individual who has committed a wrong, been unfair or hurtful, or otherwise harmed one in some way.” It goes on to say, “it involves a voluntary transformation of one’s feelings, attitudes, and behavior toward the individual, so that one is no longer dominated by resentment, and can express compassion, generosity, or the like toward the individual.” This can happen without demanding restitution. From a psychological standpoint, what better reasons could you find for encouraging people to forgive? Civil law courts would be empty.

And that brings us to my own thoughts on the subject of conscience, restitution, and forgiveness. I go with the simple explanation of why we have a conscience. It is found in Genesis 2:17 and 3:6 and refers to our first parents eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Psychology and neuroscience have come up with other, more complicated explanations of the conscience. All are equally unprovable. According to Occam’s razor, whenever there is more than one explanation for an occurrence, the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct. God said it; Occam’s razor confirms it. That should satisfy most everyone.

Restitution is a good thing, a lawful thing—unless you are a Christian and you are the one wronged. Jesus Christ is pretty hard in the area of restitution for his followers. In the Sermon on the Mount, admired by all, he says, “If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic….if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.” That pretty much takes away the moral requirement to demand restitution for followers of Jesus.

We can do that because of the nature of forgiveness. Even the American Psychological Association recognizes that forgiveness cancels the demand for restitution. Jesus taught that we should forgive each other as God has forgiven us. God’s forgiveness does not demand restitution. Forgiveness means the one doing the forgiving absorbs the loss incurred by the act of the one being forgiven. When a bank forgives a debt, the bank absorbs the loss of the money loaned. No wonder forgiveness is good for the soul and the psyche.  They are cleansed of resentment and a good work is done. That is God’s way and it is good for everyone concerned. It clears the conscience and eliminates the need for restitution. We should go and do likewise.