Meeting on "guilt"

We had our Ideas Cafe meeting yesterday on guilt.

There were a number of significant points that emerged out of the discussion.

1.  Guilt is an emotional response.  It is a fast reaction to and judgment of one's response to a situation.

2.  Like anger and other emotional reactions, these snap reactions alert us to pay attention to the situation but perhaps are not always the most accurate take of the situation.  The logical side of senses should be called into the picture to analyze, then confirm or question if this is the proper response.

3.  Guilt for our mind is like pain to our physical body.  Without pain, we will not be alerted to parts of our body that are being hurt and require attention.  Similarly, the guilt response focuses our attention to the implications of our action or inaction to a situation.

4.  Chronic pain can be counterproductive to healing of our physical body just like lingering guilt becomes useless in motivating us to do the right thing.

5.  Early administering of pain killers can dull our senses to our real physical condition that may require more attention.  Early brush off of a guilt response as "lesson learned, time to move on" may lull us into trivializing the experience and continue to commit the same transgression again.

6.  Guilt is judged by moral standards so ingrained in us by our parents or other powerful figures in our early life that we don't know where it came from and accept it as "innate".

7.  Chronic guilt is alleviated by examining and perhaps changing the moral standard used to judge the past event causing the guilt.  It is all in the psyche and how we look at the event without ever changing the facts of the event.

The discussion was very lively with several people mentioning that they often feel uneasy and "guilty" when crossing the border or when talking to a policeman.

Interesting enough, transgressors of customs rules at the border or traffic rules often justify to themselves that the rules are nonsensical and therefore feel no guilt at all in breaking those rules.

There is also the questionable association of pleasure with guilt and whether that indicated a particular type of upbringing we had.

When citing examples of guilt, cheating on one's spouse was the example that was used over and over again.  There has to be some strong association between sex and guilt and that should be topic for a great discussion some day!

10/30/2013 Guilt

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing guilt.

The Wikipedia definition of guilt is an emotion that occurs when a person believes that they have violated a moral standard that they themselves believe in.

Note that the person has to believe that they have violated a moral standard and it has to be a standard that they believe in.

Modify any of the two beliefs and the guilt status will be changed.

Note that because guilt is based on the two beliefs, that it is an emotion and internally felt.  An oppressor cannot make us feel guilty with force unless they convince us to change our beliefs.

Guilt comes from doing something one believes should not be done or not taking action when one believes that action should be taken.

It is therefore all encompassing as a result on how we pass judgement on our everyday actions and decisions.  Therefore, pivotal to whether we live a happy, carefree life or one burdened with guilt.

Where do these beliefs come from?

Our parents and other authority figures central to our upbringing likely have the biggest influence on our moral standard.

Once accepted, these foundations are seldom questioned and become "inherent" in our judgement of right and wrong.  Is this where we get the emotional feeling that something just feels "right" or "wrong"?  And then use logic to justify that initial feeling?

On top of which, many of us believe in our "true inner self", that we must trust how we feel.  If we feel guilty, we must be guilty!

A well defined moral standard helps in deciding guilt. The religious have their holy books and messengers from god to help them determine where guilt exists.

But what about intent versus consequences?

Is the incompetent murderer intending to kill but did not succeed more or less guilty than the masterful executioner who kill with precision but not personal premeditated intent?

We don't punish murderers who bungled and ended up not hurting anyone. Is that "right"?

Can we live in a world without guilt?  How will be be motivated to fulfill our "obligations"?

Or are obligations just another form of guilt in disguise?

Is guilt the glue that holds social communities together?

Should we change our beliefs when we feel guilty and talk ourselves out of our guilty feelings?

Let's hear your thoughts on Wednesday!