If Greek philosophy laid the theoretical foundations for the rupture between the human being and truth, authority—in all its historical forms—took over that separation and turned it into a tool of control. From that moment on, the person who listens to their conscience became, in the eyes of any system of power, a dangerous anomaly: someone who cannot be fitted into a mold, cannot be predicted, cannot be subdued.
Authority does not accept conscience.
It accepts only compliance.
Regardless of its form—religious, political, military, academic, or familial—authority functions through impersonal rules, formulated in the name of a “greater truth” than the human being himself. This truth is always:
- established from above (by an elite, a sacred text, a constitution, a doctrine),
- formulated as objective (independent of what a person thinks or feels),
- legitimized through consensus, tradition, or force.
Conscience, however, is the exact opposite of this model:
- it is not formulated by someone else, but arises from within,
- it is not imposed, but lived,
- it does not demand submission, but truth.
Therefore, the person who follows their conscience cannot be “adjusted” by authority. And for any system, this is a structural problem. Conscience is a silent prohibition against the abuse of power—and no power can truly tolerate it.
Why Authority Invokes “Objectivity”
Because it needs a legitimizing mask.
No form of authority can say openly:
“I demand that you abandon what you feel, see, and know to be true.”
That would be too brutal, too obvious. Instead, it says:
“We hold the objective truth. You are too involved, too subjective, too personal. You must submit to our truth—for the good of all.”
This invocation of objectivity is the key to all justifications:
- religion says: “It is divine revelation, not negotiable.”
- the state says: “It is the law. Your moral view is irrelevant.”
- institutional science says: “The data are objective. Your conscience does not matter.”
- the traditional family says: “This is how things are done. Your feelings have no value.”
In all cases, truth is externalized, and the human being is treated as wrong simply for being human.
Conscience Is the “Crime” That Cannot Be Forgiven
The person who refuses to submit because they cannot live against their conscience is immediately:
- suspected of rebellion,
- accused of subjectivism,
- marginalized as unwise, uneducated, or “outside the norm,”
- excluded from the system (religious, political, institutional),
- or, in harsher forms, punished legally or symbolically.
Such a person is viewed as a “problem” not because they do harm, but because they do not align.
They are not “wrong” in any objective sense.
But they are inconvenient for the system.
And any system that wants to be infallible cannot accept the inconvenience of living conscience.
Why the Person of Conscience Is Incompatible with Power
Power operates on predictability:
- fixed rules,
- stable hierarchies,
- control mechanisms.
But the person of conscience is not predictable.
They do not respond to authority, but to truth.
They cannot be fooled with words, nor forced without inner crisis.
They are not loyal to the system, but to reality as they perceive and assume it.
That is why they are:
- difficult to integrate,
- impossible to manipulate,
- and, in the eyes of power, dangerous.
Who Evaluates “Objectivity” and Why It Is Not Legitimate
All systems validate one another:
- theology justifies religious authority;
- science justifies technocratic authority;
- law justifies political authority;
- academia justifies formal education.
But none of them begins with conscience.
All begin with an imposed, external “framework,” within which conscience is tolerated only as long as it does not interfere.
In other words: objectivity is only a consensus among powers. It is not a lived truth.
Conclusion
All forms of authority violate the right to conscience because they have no way to control it.
And this abuse is justified through the myth of an “objectivity” that only the system is allowed to define.
The person who follows their conscience to the end cannot be accepted without the system losing its authority.
This explains why such people are excluded, marginalized, and discredited.
Not because they are dangerous in themselves,
but because they refuse to replace living truth with a dead structure.