Instead of reversing Freud's (1923) decision to merge conscience into the superego, mainstream psychoanalysis has preferred to distinguish a “mature” superego from an “archaic” one, failing to recognize that it is only by the standards of conscience that this distinction can be made. While refusing to recognize conscience as the fourth element in the structural theory of the mind, we have unwittingly relied on it to inform us in what directions the superego needs to be modified. Our retreat from Freud's, Alexander's and Ferenczi's calls for the “demolition” of the superego is a symptom of our continued subservience to internalized authority, as is the widespread conception of the Oedipal resolution as renunciation of incestuous and parricidal wishes instead of their symbolic fulfillment through creative sublimation. Three case vignettes are presented to illustrate the importance of distinguishing superego and conscience in order to better comprehend moral conflict in the minds of both analysands and analysts.