I’m looking for counterarguments. The only way I am going to discover the truth is through your ideas. This is a thought in progress. I don’t presume to be right. If you are religious, substitute God for Nature.
At the beginning of my thoughts on guilt, I was looking for its purpose. I believe that all life is balanced. Everything adds up to zero. Physics has suggested that nothing is created or destroyed. I don’t believe that we have evolved beyond the principles of Nature. We are continually subject to them. Since this isn’t a discourse on balance, please read this with the assumption that the previous statement is true. If everything is in balance, what is guilt balancing, and what is it replacing?
Guilt is self-induced emotional abuse. When we hurt someone, we hurt ourselves as penance for doing wrong. We balance the scales by punishing ourselves for our poor behavior. Once the act of guilt has been initiated, we are justified and blameless until we hurt another. Something about guilt makes us feel better. It makes us feel that we are going in the right direction.
I would like to make the argument that guilt is a substitute for change. Instead of changing our behavior, we feel bad about it. If punching a wall hurts our hand, most people stop hitting the wall. There is no reason to feel guilty for hitting the wall. It happened once. It hurt. We stopped. We may be ashamed of acting so foolishly, but people seldom feel bad for hitting the wall once. The realization that “it hurts” is all we need to change. Without argument, without elaborate excuses, we change. It is amazing.
However, if we don’t know that our hand is being damaged because of internal nerve damage, we may start to enjoy hitting the wall. Friends and family tell us that we are hurting ourselves and that wall-hitting is wrong. We don’t want to be rejected, so Mr. Hand Ondawall starts to hide his wall-hitting sessions. Feeling guilty about his secret obsession, he repents when he gets caught or stops but fantasizes about hitting the wall. The guilt is the natural balance for a life unchanged. Mr. Ondawall tells himself that everyone else is right, but he doesn’t believe it, or he would stop.
Rushing through the argument, I believe that guilt is an acknowledgment that others believe they were hurt, but not an acknowledgment that the guilty person believes they have hurt others.
I would like to attack guilt from another front. Guilt comes from the belief that we control the world around us. In other words, the wall feels pain, and our hitting caused it. It is true. We feel bad about the impact of our actions. Guilt is the feeling that we control the world. However, as far as impact goes, I don’t think humankind matters much in the scheme of the universe. It is more like a friend you met last Friday. Yeah, they were cool, but if they moved away, you wouldn’t care. If we went extinct, the universe would quickly forget us, perhaps never to remember us again.
Additionally, we cannot affect anyone who doesn’t let us affect them. It is pretty bold to say that we can affect anybody considerably. Some people can say anything they want to me, and I will ignore them. When kids throw temper tantrums and try to hurt me, sometimes I choose to ignore them because I don’t have time to teach them. The truth is that they cannot hit hard enough to matter. What I am saying is that some people are above me, and I can barely affect them because I cannot hit hard enough to matter. I can affect others without knowing they are there. We choose to be affected. We do not choose whom we affect.
Realizing your place in the order of things lets you understand your ability to affect others. However, we can just as quickly be forgotten if we are not careful to improve ourselves. Great character creates great people who are in tune with the world and have a higher probability of making an impact. However, great impact is kind of the luck of the draw. Even a novice can draw a straight flush. Though the professional is still more likely to win, he will sometimes lose.
A friend recently countered with this statement: “If one’s intentions are malicious and one has no guilt, then one has no conscience.” First off, malicious is a term used to attack those with whom we disagree. That same person could be seen as a hero to someone else. However, the statement implies that guilt is the main vehicle of change. The statement raises the question, “Is guilt the main motivator for doing good?”
I think rejection and pain are more natural motivators. Rejection and pain are inflicted by the world around us, not self-inflicted like guilt. The community, I believe, is a better judge than our self-proclaimed truths. When someone rejects you, you figure out why. Then you have to decide if you want them to like you. If so, change. Life is simple. If you want to learn to swim, get in the water. If not, stay on the land. Don’t feel guilty if you choose to learn to fly instead. If someone doesn’t like you and you feel guilty because they don’t, you are implying that you caused them to dislike you. You are condemned before you ever really knew them. Instead of enjoying the learning process of life, the guilt-driven person is condemned by the learning process, making everyone close to them feel miserable and judged.
I would like to take it a step further. Guilt is the direct result of narcissism. I would like to suggest that acknowledging our “negative impact on others” is narcissism. The truth is that we are hurting ourselves and our ability to function in the world. Our poor behavior helps truth seekers learn to deal with weak-minded people. Those around us could become better people because of our poor decisions. Giving oneself too much credit for affecting others is an issue of pride. The reason not to do wrong is because it is bad for the individual, not because it is bad for the group. The wrongdoer doesn’t matter in a world that has rejected him. No one is so bad that the world will be unable to readjust around them. We don’t matter that much.
The question is, do we want to work with Nature or spend our whole lives trying to prove Nature wrong? Nature deals with what it has. Nature always wins. People who blame others refuse to grow. People who blame themselves have the same issue.
I believe that the only way to learn is through adversity. A great philosopher stated that “iron sharpens iron.” The statement implies that our growth can come only through friction. Under this assumption, wrongdoing helps everyone sharpen their skills. Those who are learning become stronger, and those who refuse to learn get hurt. I know this assumption is a dramatic one, and I would like to avoid trying to prove it and stay on the topic of guilt.
For the final round, I would like to propose that guilt is the perversion of self-awareness. If you are completely unaware of the world around you, guilt is unlikely to be felt. Therefore, guilt is a product of self-awareness. We feel guilty because others have blamed us for their pain. Acknowledging their rejection, we inflict the punishment of guilt on ourselves for the pain we caused. Instead of celebrating the process of learning to do good within the group, the guilty become withdrawn and ashamed.
The aggressor now claims to be hurt and then becomes a victim. The transition from aggressor to victim is common and perverse. The aggressor now needs consolation from the people they attacked. The suggestion is that the original victim was wrong and falsely accused the guilty person. Now the victim needs to forgive the guilty person so the guilt can be lifted. The whole process is so complicated.
The question isn’t, “Who is wrong?” The question is, “Did you get the desired result from your actions?” If you wanted those you hurt to leave, then you were successful. If you successfully protected your family, celebrate. If you lost those you love and gained nothing, you are an idiot. Stop hitting the wall and try to rebuild what has been destroyed. Wallowing in self-pity and guilt has never helped anyone. If your car breaks down, fix it. Don’t feel guilty about not changing the oil. Start changing your oil immediately, without exaggeration. Realize that there is going to be permanent damage to the vehicle, but life is not over.
I see no need for guilt, but everyone feels it. I believe it is possible only because of my inflated self-worth. In time, I will develop this argument further. I will acknowledge that it is possible that guilt is the first step in self-awareness. In the worst-case scenario, guilt is not a destination, only a village one passes through on the way to truth. We feel guilt because we are flawed, not because we are good. Guilt is a god complex.
I guess the next discussion should attack those who use guilt to control others . . . now that is really perverse.
I don't see guilt as something of substance that can bring balance. It can only bring balance if it counters the original action. Guilt is more like the sound a bell makes when it is struck. It is not the balancing reaction to the striking of the bell. The bell's vibration balances the strike. The sound is only a result of the vibration, and depending on a myriad of factors (material, force of the strike, proximity, etc...) the sound will affect those involved differently. It could be pleasing or painful.
ReplyDeleteGuilt can come from either internal or external sources. Either way, it is for the most part an inefective means for contolling (let alone changing) one's behavior. Mainly because it is only felt with enough severity to affect us immediately AFTER the results of our actions are revealed. It is a response, like an echo, often quickly fading. It is based on a relative or sliding scale that is often significantly different from person to person. Because of this, in the moment of decision, the feeling of guilt (if it even exists for that person and/or circumstance) rarely outweighs the prevailing emotion driving the action (ie desire, anger, etc...).... See more
In your example, hitting the wall produces guilt only if Mr. Ondawall believes that hitting the wall is wrong, but more importantly WHY is it wrong? Would hitting a heavy bag produce the same guilt as hitting the wall? Would hitting the wall wearing protective gloves produce the same guilt? It depends on why he believes hitting the wall is wrong. Guilt tends to only relate to the result of the action.
Knowing oneself comes not from controlling the results of your actions (managing one's guilt), but understanding the motivation behind the actions themselves. These must be measured against some standard or constant (truth). You know where I stand on what that standard is. Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, this entire discussion about guilt, and right and wrong is pointless if you don't believe in some form of absolute truth.
Just sayin'.....
Good points but I don't see a connection between guilt and truth. Many people have felt guilty for things that never happened. Or they have felt guilt (self inflicted) for empathetic reasons like burning firewood (tree killer). Therefore guilt must sit outside of truth.
ReplyDeletePeople don't feel guilt because of truth but because of external pressure and contextual reasons (do unto others). My daughter didn't show signs of guilt until I started making rules. Self inflicted guilt comes when we realize we don't want to be treated in the same way. However, I believe guilt compensates for change. Realizing one doesn't want to be treated the same way should involve an immediate change. The desire to continue in bad behavior is the cause of guilt.
Implying that I don't have a standard or belief in God first are both false. These are personal attacks on the writer and not the subject. These red herrings are typically used to bully your opponent when one is unable to express themselves.
Jack, I think I did a poor job stating my case earlier. I was kinda writing it "on the fly", and I don't think I chose my words properly. (or maybe it was the Guinness).
ReplyDeleteI never intened to imply anything about your beliefs or standards. My comments were directed at the subject, not "the writer".
The point I was trying to make was that guilt cannot exist without some standard to compare against. My choice of the word "truth" was unfortunate. Depending on what the specific circumstance is dealing with, the term "truth" may not apply, but "standard" does (I think).
Let me try another approach (note: after re-reading my original answer, I see the need to change my terminology a little so bear with me). I believe that guilt is imposed on someone from external sources when that person violates someone else's standard of "right and wrong" or "acceptable and unacceptable" behavior. Whether that is a court of law finding someone guilty of murder, or a third grade teacher finding Johnny guilty of pulling little Susie's pigtail, the principle applies. Governments have standards. Companies have standards. Families have standards and so do individuals. Everyone has a standard, and they are probably all different.
What I referred to as "self imposed guilt" is more accurately referred to as shame. That is what we feel when we violate our own code of ethics (standards). Sometimes, maybe often, these two overlap, and we experience them simultaneously. However they can also be experienced separately, depending on how much your convictions overlap with someone else's standard.
In my experience, guilt does little to help us to change. We may adjust our behavior (for fear of the consequences), but we don't actually change our motivation. Shame, however can lead to change because it is an internal conviction that we desire to conform to.
I'm just thinking this through as I type, so don't be too critical of me. I need a good night's sleep (or at least more than 3 hours), and I'll probably have more to add or revise later. BTW I'm enjoying the dialog.