When men in power makes decisions of 'conscience'.

So, the judging of both ourselves and others has consequences for our performance - as is the case with the supposed prime minister.

The prime minister’s subject data may include his inclinations or choices or even his inactions. As in thoughtful prayer, this supposed prime minister may introspect before making his decision. If he is a good prime minister, he will accept his ignorance or knowledge of the area on which he has to decide; he will also endeavour to be honest about his attitudes towards someone or something which may be affected by his decision. Of course all this will not achieved in one sitting as it were.

The prime minister has to make a judgement and as he explains to the electorate, it is his conscience that finally dictates his decision to go to war. 

But what of that conscience; that subjective data known intuitively, interpreted as a direct self-knowledge and not based on phenomenal mental or physical data, but given - as if God given. 

In such a moment, all the electorate can hope is that in making this momentous decision the minister will be aware that his subjective certainty will have an outcome. They might also hope that he has proceeded by trial and error to a clear and full evaluation. They also may trust that the elements of doubt the minister experienced in successive intuitions, attenuated by repeated experience, were not too quickly sidelined by the certainty of his conscience. 

Indeed in the luxury of hindsight the electorate may hope that the dictates of the minister’s conscience may not seem as perspicuous as at first visitation. And in looking back, our prime minister might question himself and as to why he was so certain about his decision. He may even realise that his pattern of decision making in the past was not God-given certainty, but simply inductive construct. In short, in future he may not rely so much on the dictates of his ‘conscience.’