NationStates Jolt Archive

Does guilt make any sense?

I've long held that it's not worth the effort to worry about things I can't avoid. If I can't avoid it, there's no benefit to me in getting all stressed out worrying about it.

So, guilt is supposed to appear after you've done something. You engaged in some activity, and afterward you feel guilty. This threat of guilt discourages some acts that would create guilt should you do them.

But, once you've done something, there's nothing you can do about it. It's done. You can't stop it from happening because it already happened. Events that took place in the last are necessarily events you can't avoid.

So why worry about them? Given that, guilt shouldn't ever occur.

Or am I wrong?

guilt is your self punishment for doing something wrong.

it keeps you from doing it again.

it is very valuable.

now some people feel guilt over things that they did not have any control over. that is useless guilt.

1) It's a deterrent

2) It's not rational or logical, it's an emotion. They don't have to be rational or logical.

2) It's not rational or logical, it's an emotions. They don't have to be rational or logical.

It's interesting to me that some people completely miss this simple fact and try to re-make themselves in the image of a Vulcan.

But in any case, what alternative mechanism would you propose, if any, Llewdor? Positive reinforcement?

It prevents people doing or repeating something they consider 'wrong'.

Feeling guilty over something you could not avoid is not particularly useful, but humans are not completely rational, our emotions rule us often.

-snip-
Yeah, but guilt is something you can avoid, by not doing something that you know is wrong and might make you feel guilty.

guilt is the feeling your hips/man udders give when you have had too many slices of cake ;)

I think I've only ever felt real guilt once in my life. I get vague sensations like it but they're mixed in with other emotions and are easily dismissed. Same with jealousy.

Does guilt make any sense?

I've long held that it's not worth the effort to worry about things I can't avoid. If I can't avoid it, there's no benefit to me in getting all stressed out worrying about it.

So, guilt is supposed to appear after you've done something. You engaged in some activity, and afterward you feel guilty. This threat of guilt discourages some acts that would create guilt should you do them.

But, once you've done something, there's nothing you can do about it. It's done. You can't stop it from happening because it already happened. Events that took place in the last are necessarily events you can't avoid.

So why worry about them? Given that, guilt shouldn't ever occur.

Or am I wrong?

Guilt should occur. It depends on the circumstances on whether you should feel guilt or not. If it was a situtation completely out of your control, then guilt makes no sense. If it was within your control, it'll keep you from performing the act again.

Feeling guilty over something you could not avoid is not particularly useful, but humans are not completely rational, our emotions rule us often.

I don't know about that. If I hit you with a Taser every time you did something "wrong," you'd probably stop doing it. Guilt works the same way.

EDIT: Actually, that's an interesting idea. Hook up a small, high ampere battery to the part of the brain where guilt occurs. Every time the person misbehaves, zap!

Yes, you can't change an action once you've done it. But you can make amends. You can repair some of the harm you've done. You can ensure you don't do it again.

I don't know about that. If I hit you with a Taser every time you did something "wrong," you'd probably stop doing it. Guilt works the same way.

I'm not sure how I said anything contradictory to this.

Does guilt make any sense?

I've long held that it's not worth the effort to worry about things I can't avoid. If I can't avoid it, there's no benefit to me in getting all stressed out worrying about it.

So, guilt is supposed to appear after you've done something. You engaged in some activity, and afterward you feel guilty. This threat of guilt discourages some acts that would create guilt should you do them.

But, once you've done something, there's nothing you can do about it. It's done. You can't stop it from happening because it already happened. Events that took place in the last are necessarily events you can't avoid.

So why worry about them? Given that, guilt shouldn't ever occur.

Or am I wrong?

In Our Time - Guilt; What is it good for? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20071101.shtml)[/radio4fanboy]

Does guilt make any sense?

I've long held that it's not worth the effort to worry about things I can't avoid. If I can't avoid it, there's no benefit to me in getting all stressed out worrying about it.

So, guilt is supposed to appear after you've done something. You engaged in some activity, and afterward you feel guilty. This threat of guilt discourages some acts that would create guilt should you do them.

But, once you've done something, there's nothing you can do about it. It's done. You can't stop it from happening because it already happened. Events that took place in the last are necessarily events you can't avoid.

So why worry about them? Given that, guilt shouldn't ever occur.

Or am I wrong?

Quite.
It's a bit like trying to argue that if you find out that the love of your life doesn't love you back, you should stop loving him/her, cause what's the point?
Or like saying that since chocolate will make you fat and drill holes in your teeth, you should simply stop liking the taste.

See, you fell for the assumption the human behaviour can be entirely governed by logic, and that humans don't have emotions or instincts that most of the time are very, very hard to control indeed.
Guilt is one of those mechanism that we aquired during our evolution into social animals. Any social group needs a certain range of behaviour from all of its members in order to function; for example, it will need the stronger members to provide for the weaker ones, it will need to have socially weaker members to submit to socially stronger ones to avoid constant conflict, etc. In the same line, it will need something in place to reward members who do something for the group rather than themselves, and it will need a system of punishment for members who act exceedingly selfish.
Now, to avoid being punished, an individual needs to recognise that a certain action might resort in punishment when others find out about it. That emotion can't be a nice one, that would be counter-productive. It needs to make the individual feel bad, and we call it guilt.
If the action cannot be hidden, seeing the individual showing regret and guilt also has a calming effect on others, which in turn makes the punishment less severe.

Humans aren't the only animals to experience guilt, either. Chimps have been caught lying to prevent their misbehaviour being found out, and everybody who ever saw a dog who just misbehaved knows what I'm talking about here.

Can't say I have ever felt particularly guilty about anything - which probably makes me a saint or a borderline sociopath.

It's interesting to me that some people completely miss this simple fact and try to re-make themselves in the image of a Vulcan.

I don't know if this happens anywhere else in the world, but in the USA there is usually a stage of young adulthood during which the individual will decide that they aren't going to feel guilty any more, because, like, why should they? They're totally going to live without regrets and stuff. You can't change the past, man, you just gotta live, man.

Of course that happens everywhere. Pretty much, usually about the same time as lots of :fluffle: and :upyours: with a heathy sprinkling of :confused:

Of course that happens everywhere. Pretty much, usually about the same time as lots of :fluffle: and :upyours: with a heathy sprinkling of :confused:
In all my time on NSG, I have never before read a post in which the full meaning was best communicated using smilies.

My hat is off to you.

1) It's a deterrent

2) It's not rational or logical, it's an emotion. They don't have to be rational or logical.
Emotions happen for reasons. If I'm angry, I know why.

Guilt appears to happen for no reason at all.

Guilt should occur. It depends on the circumstances on whether you should feel guilt or not. If it was a situtation completely out of your control, then guilt makes no sense. If it was within your control, it'll keep you from performing the act again.
But once the guilt happens the situations are all out of your control. They've already happened.

Yes, you can't change an action once you've done it. But you can make amends. You can repair some of the harm you've done. You can ensure you don't do it again.
But you already did it - for some reason, presumably.

You could already make amends if you wanted, but this simply makes you want to even though there's no benefit to you (save the expectation of being treated better should your guilt-inducing behaviour be discovered, but that motive doesn't require guilt to exist).

guilt is a useless emotion.

guilt is your self punishment for doing something wrong.

it keeps you from doing it again.

it is very valuable.

now some people feel guilt over things that they did not have any control over. that is useless guilt.Self-punishment is nonsense at best. How does it help whomever or whatever has been failed? Quite simply, it doesn't.

Working towards resolving the issue, minimizing or reversing the damage does - and why would you do that? Because of your ideals and values - the ones that in someone with a sense of ethics of some kind lead to the triggering of guilt when you go against them. And even without guilt, those remain, so why not simply do what you'd consider right accordingly without bringing useless self-punishment into it all?

That said, there are some people motivated to "do good" solely by guilt - you could say that they are people kept from psychopathy solely by their emotions. In these cases, others would naturally be better off with them keeping their guilt. But I'd hope, at least, that these people are in a minority.

guilt is a useless emotion.
And as such, people shouldn't bother experiencing it.

See, you fell for the assumption the human behaviour can be entirely governed by logic, and that humans don't have emotions or instincts that most of the time are very, very hard to control indeed.
Emotions aren't hard to control. I've never understood that.

I find that if I say something that offends someone terribly, they get really upset. But, let's suppose I didn't say what they think I said, so they're upset in error. Once corrected, and told that I didn't actually say that, the emotion often doesn't go away (right away or entirely). That's absurd. Since the emotion was uncovered in error, correcting the error should eliminate the subsequent emotional response.
Guilt is one of those mechanism that we aquired during our evolution into social animals.
Be that as it may, we need not cling to it.
Any social group needs a certain range of behaviour from all of its members in order to function; for example, it will need the stronger members to provide for the weaker ones, it will need to have socially weaker members to submit to socially stronger ones to avoid constant conflict, etc. In the same line, it will need something in place to reward members who do something for the group rather than themselves, and it will need a system of punishment for members who act exceedingly selfish.
Sure, but my guilt alone has a negligible marginal impact on society, so there's no harm in me not having any. As long as most people still have guilt, there's no problem.

This is the relevant similarity assumption, again. I've seen that a lot in some other threads, of late.
Now, to avoid being punished, an individual needs to recognise that a certain action might resort in punishment when others find out about it. That emotion can't be a nice one, that would be counter-productive. It needs to make the individual feel bad, and we call it guilt.
Fear of punishment is fear. Guilt arises when you feel bad or doing something in and of itself. That's what I'm complaining about.

Fear of discovery makes perfect sense. Fear of punishment makes perfect sense. These are part of why I encourage a strict and inflexible legal system.

But guilt doesn't make sense.
If the action cannot be hidden, seeing the individual showing regret and guilt also has a calming effect on others, which in turn makes the punishment less severe.
Cynical contrition is not guilt.
Humans aren't the only animals to experience guilt, either. Chimps have been caught lying to prevent their misbehaviour being found out, and everybody who ever saw a dog who just misbehaved knows what I'm talking about here.
Again, that's fear of consequences. Not guilt.

You could already make amends if you wanted

Yes, of course you could. But then, you always can do anything. Emotions just help push us in the right direction.

Self-punishment is nonsense at best. How does it help whomever or whatever has been failed? Quite simply, it doesn't.

Working towards resolving the issue, minimizing or reversing the damage does - and why would you do that? Because of your ideals and values - the ones that in someone with a sense of ethics of some kind lead to the triggering of guilt when you go against them. And even without guilt, those remain, so why not simply do what you'd consider right accordingly without bringing useless self-punishment into it all?

That said, there are some people motivated to "do good" solely by guilt - you could say that they are people kept from psychopathy solely by their emotions. In these cases, others would naturally be better off with them keeping their guilt. But I'd hope, at least, that these people are in a minority.


you write as if people choose to feel guilty.

they dont.

a mentally healthy person feels guilty when they do something they consider wrong. and everyone does wrong now and then, its a part of being human.

im not interested in theoretical perfectly moral people. they dont exist. for the rest of us guilt reminds us that we have moral standards and that we have violated them. it reminds us not to do it again or to make some kind of amends for it.

Emotions aren't hard to control. I've never understood that.

I find that my emotions are easy to control as well.

Why exactly do you think that just because emotions are easy for us to control, the same should apply to everyone?

Emotions aren't hard to control. I've never understood that.

I find that if I say something that offends someone terribly, they get really upset. But, let's suppose I didn't say what they think I said, so they're upset in error. Once corrected, and told that I didn't actually say that, the emotion often doesn't go away (right away or entirely). That's absurd. Since the emotion was uncovered in error, correcting the error should eliminate the subsequent emotional response.

Be that as it may, we need not cling to it.

So nobody hasn't ever offended you? Nobody has ever made you feel angry, or aggressive? Or did you just turn the emotion off as soon as you noticed it?
You've never snapped at anyone because you were upset about something that had nothing to do with them in first place?
Congratulations, your perfect job career would be "Saint in the Catholic Church".


Sure, but my guilt alone has a negligible marginal impact on society, so there's no harm in me not having any. As long as most people still have guilt, there's no problem.


Guilt has a massive impact on society, as guilt has an enormous influence on the behaviour of individuals towards each other.
And that's basically what defines society.


Fear of punishment is fear. Guilt arises when you feel bad or doing something in and of itself. That's what I'm complaining about.

Fear of discovery makes perfect sense. Fear of punishment makes perfect sense. These are part of why I encourage a strict and inflexible legal system.

But guilt doesn't make sense.

You think guilt isn't fear? Seriously? *lol
Just cause we differentiate between different sorts of fears doesn't mean that guilt, jealousy, etc are no longer forms of the same emotion, fear.

It's interesting to me that some people completely miss this simple fact and try to re-make themselves in the image of a Vulcan.
It is a good control mechanism, i think, that when someone recognises that their actions and concerns are emotion-based instead of reason-based, they attempt to extract themselves somewhat from the subjective vulnerability of the situation and try using stoicism and impartiality as a guide.
Doesn't mean they'll be that successful. Doesn't mean it's the only approach.
It does however allow an important reevaluation to take place, perhaps just for that particular issue, perhaps for other ones that are encountered in the future (perhaps recognisable earlier on because of it).

Guilt over what you are responsible for and can (or could have) changed, reminds you of your mistakes and makes you a better person (whatever "better" in this case means, subjective to your mental definition) by making it unlikely that you will repeat the error.

Guilt over things you have no power over is worthless.

Guilt is the main way of ensuring your personal moral code remains enforced; without guilt after committing a wrong action, you're not going to be dissuaded from doing it again no matter how much you try to convince yourself on a rational level that it's wrong. Emotions are a lot more powerful when it comes to regulating behavior than any amount of rational thought.

Now, misplaced guilt or guilt over things you have no control is not a good thing; it causes undue emotional stress and may preclude you from making the right decision, or even worse make it easy for others to manipulate you for their own ends.

G.U.I.L.T.?

They're part of human emotions, and natural. Should used them...

People who experience no guilt are often the same people that we call "sociopaths."

Guilt is a necessary and important mechanism in allowing us to function as social animals. It is a self-enforcement mechanism to keep members of the group from doing things they consider wrong, many of which involve mistreating other members of the group. Having a mechanism that causes an unpleasant emotional result for mistreating another member of one's group reduces the occurrence of acts that diminish group cohesion and order. It also is a mechanism for damage control once someone has done something that weakens bonds between him/her and another group member. I.e., if you do something that is wrong to your friend, your guilt will kick in and encourage you to try to make amends for whatever it was you did, if possible.

Here's an example. Say I'm having a shitty day, and because I'm irritable, my housemate sets me off unintentionally over something minor, or I jump to conclusions and blame her for something she didn't do, and whatever the reason was, I snap at her. Later in the day, since I am feeling guilty and bad for yelling at her when she didn't deserve it, I apologize and our friendship is back to normal and the problem has been resolved.

Guilt is the main way of ensuring your personal moral code remains enforced; without guilt after committing a wrong action, you're not going to be dissuaded from doing it again no matter how much you try to convince yourself on a rational level that it's wrong. ...Only if your moral code stands in opposition to your fundamental goals, ie. you are conflicted in your basic thoughts and actions. If you use a code of ethics integrated with your basic goals in life and you mean your actions to be in accordance to those, then it would be plainly self-contradictory and irrational to consciously perform an act that you'd consider "wrong". Hence, remaining "moral" becomes a simple question of willpower.

No doubt, as all people, you'll mess up in some way or another from time to time, but it will be in your interest to eliminate those faults.

you write as if people choose to feel guilty.

they dont.

a mentally healthy person feels guilty when they do something they consider wrong. and everyone does wrong now and then, its a part of being human.

im not interested in theoretical perfectly moral people. they dont exist. for the rest of us guilt reminds us that we have moral standards and that we have violated them. it reminds us not to do it again or to make some kind of amends for it.People feel guilty due to mental habits - more or less automatically thinking along the pattern that triggers guilt. They can choose to work towards not feeling guilty if they can bring themselves to look closely enough at their thoughts. Once the thought structure behind guilt is dismantled, it is no longer felt. Or so it worked for me, at least.

It is perfectly "bad enough" to know that you will or have failed your goals to serve as motivation - no need for emotional self-flagellation. Which guilt amounts to, seeing as it's your very own thoughts - thought by yourself - that trigger it, and you apparently find it in order to harm yourself. You purposefully perform a mental act with the result of emotional pain.

Emotions happen for reasons. If I'm angry, I know why.

Guilt appears to happen for no reason at all.

What are you talking about? The reason guilt happens is because you are ashamed of what you have done. If people didn't feel ashamed of anything they do, then there would probably be chaos since people would be doing whatever the fuck they want regardless of how it affects others. Why is that so difficult?

What are you talking about? The reason guilt happens is because you are ashamed of what you have done. If people didn't feel ashamed of anything they do, then there would probably be chaos since people would be doing whatever the fuck they want regardless of how it affects others. Why is that so difficult?
They'd still have cause to fear the consequences of their actions, but those consequences need to be external. From legal punishment to social ostracism, there would still exist forces to encourage some forms of behaviour over others.

But guilt is an entirely internal event. Shame, also, doesn't make any sense.

Does guilt make any sense?

I've long held that it's not worth the effort to worry about things I can't avoid. If I can't avoid it, there's no benefit to me in getting all stressed out worrying about it.

So, guilt is supposed to appear after you've done something. You engaged in some activity, and afterward you feel guilty. This threat of guilt discourages some acts that would create guilt should you do them.

But, once you've done something, there's nothing you can do about it. It's done. You can't stop it from happening because it already happened. Events that took place in the last are necessarily events you can't avoid.

So why worry about them? Given that, guilt shouldn't ever occur.

Or am I wrong?

I don't think you're wrong. Alot of Buddhist writers address this issue, and how it's tied to whether anything really inherently exists or not in relation to time and space.

I recommend Cheri Huber and Steven Hagen. Any books by either of them. Cheri Huber is more accessible then Hagen is and is the better writer, I think. Hagen is great, but the Buddhist thing may be laid on a bit too heavy for some.

People say we need guilt to prevent ourselves from doing harm or mischief. Well, to that I say that's why we have a conscience. Guilt also has alot to do with self esteem and self worth. Which then leads into issues with the 3 major abrahamic religions and that . . . . . is. . . . . .well kinda a topic for another thread, eh?

guilt is your self punishment for doing something wrong.

it keeps you from doing it again.

it is very valuable.

now some people feel guilt over things that they did not have any control over. that is useless guilt.

This is based on a false dichotomy; you need a more nuanced understanding of good and evil to understand guilt properly. Guilt doesn't occur simply from doing something wrong, since it can also occur from doing something not as well as you could have done. A soldier who earns the Medal of Honor for pulling 5 guys out of a firefight while wounded might well feel guilt not because he didn't do a very valorous thing but because he's consumed by the fact that he could have gotten one or two more of his comrades out of danger if he'd run a bit faster, pushed himself a bit harder, or done something to avoid being wounded in the first place. The critical factor isn't "doing bad when you should have done good", it's an internally accepted counterfactual that "If I had managed to prevent x, y would have been averted". The difference between "proper" and "improper" guilt is whether or not this counterfactual is true or false or irrelevant.

As for why it's valuable: guilt pushes you to do more next time and gives you hope for redemption. It's a pretty sad state of life to tell yourself "This is all I will ever be"; by definition guilt implies that the next time, I will do and be better as a consequence of this error.

They'd still have cause to fear the consequences of their actions, but those consequences need to be external. From legal punishment to social ostracism, there would still exist forces to encourage some forms of behaviour over others.

But guilt is an entirely internal event. Shame, also, doesn't make any sense.

Well, if you don't accept sympathy towards other people is enough. There are many theories that explain where guilt came from, from evolutionary genetic causes to Freudian beliefs (the superego being created from your desires being restricted when you're a toddler).

I'm not sure how I said anything contradictory to this.

Sorry, I didn't see the modifier. Guilt over something you can't control makes as much sense as tasing you for something you can't control; my mistake.

They'd still have cause to fear the consequences of their actions, but those consequences need to be external. From legal punishment to social ostracism, there would still exist forces to encourage some forms of behaviour over others.

But guilt is an entirely internal event. Shame, also, doesn't make any sense.

If you do something you know, according to your personal moral or ethical code, is wrong, you should feel bad about it. If you steal from a friend, you should feel bad, you should feel like shit. You deserve to. And feeling guilty over it may prevent you from doing it again or lead you to try to make up for it.

If you do something you know, according to your personal moral or ethical code, is wrong, you should feel bad about it.
But why do you?

And really, if the action is wrong "according to your personal moral or ethical code", isn't that enough to stop you from doing it?