Guilt and Philosophy
Guilt is a complex notion, mostly utilized in psychology to describe an emotion or passion apparently related to an agent’s ascribing to herself moral blame for having performed an action. Interestingly enough, and on a par with several other psychological attitudes, the guilt can arise with respect to all sorts of circumstances: some people may feel guilty of having accomplished actions for which no one would ever dream about blaming them.
The topic of guilt is best discussed in connection with the idea of some controlling entity, be it psychological or institutional, that blames or allegedly would blame the agent. We shall deepen this aspect, after having pondered to a greater extent what guilt is.
Guilt: Emotion or Passion?
Typically guilt is regarded as an emotion. However, emotions are typically fleeting and short-lived, while some forms of guilt can last for a lifetime. If, instead, we take the term passions in accordance with its original Latin root – from patire, that is to suffer – then guilt may result a state that a being suffers: you end up feeling guilty regardless of whether you would want to be in such a state or not.
I find useful, indeed, to regard guilt as a sort of passion, in the sense just specified. In this way, indeed, we can explain the complexity of some states of guilt, that may last for a long time and deserve being cultivated and approached on a par with what we do for long-term attitudes. We shall, at once, remind that there is another manner to use the term passion: according to it, a passion is that which a person actively and selectively cultivates, such as a passion for California cheeses, which one suffers to a much milder or less dramatic extent than a state of guilt.
Guilt and Moral Judgment
The very existence of guilt, which recurs in children of young age as well as in many other primates and animals, does by itself bear witness to the existence of some form of moral conscience. Guilt is born out of a moral judgment, that a subject arrives at self-attributing. Three categories of judgments are of interest here: they can be distinguished based on the source of their normativity. (i) Some judgments are validated solely by a personal (that is, a psychological) assessment: A concludes to be guilty of having performed a certain action based merely on some standards set by A. (ii) On the other hand, some judgments are first originated in society: to make a petty example, if A’ parents teach her not to put her fingers in the nose, she may feel guilty when she does so, as she judges that someone will disapprove of her. Or, if the law says you should not speed while driving, you feel guilty if you are doing so, even if no one is there judging you at the moment. The most comprehensive judging authority, in this category, is the one of the gods: be it the case of monotheistic religions or that of polytheism, the typical attitude of the gods is to judge people’s deeds, so that each person may live feeling judged at any moment in her life. (iii) A third, interesting category, is comprised by those judgments whose source of normativity originates in society, and that are however transformed by individuals. Thus, the interpretation of the punitive attitude of a god may vary from individual to individual. Some may even suggest that all cases of guilt are of this sort: an agent judges her action as blameworthy based on her interpretation of some rules and norms ultimately originated in her society.
The Politics of Guilt
The few considerations here made on guilt should suffice to reflect the civic importance of guilt. A society whose members would be incapable of feeling guilty, may be problematic; a society whose members feel constantly guilty for their actions, is ultimately repressive. The gloomiest conceptions of political science have it that every society is repressive and it couldn’t be otherwise.
The topic of guilt is best discussed in connection with the idea of some controlling entity, be it psychological or institutional, that blames or allegedly would blame the agent. We shall deepen this aspect, after having pondered to a greater extent what guilt is.
Guilt: Emotion or Passion?
Typically guilt is regarded as an emotion. However, emotions are typically fleeting and short-lived, while some forms of guilt can last for a lifetime. If, instead, we take the term passions in accordance with its original Latin root – from patire, that is to suffer – then guilt may result a state that a being suffers: you end up feeling guilty regardless of whether you would want to be in such a state or not.
I find useful, indeed, to regard guilt as a sort of passion, in the sense just specified. In this way, indeed, we can explain the complexity of some states of guilt, that may last for a long time and deserve being cultivated and approached on a par with what we do for long-term attitudes. We shall, at once, remind that there is another manner to use the term passion: according to it, a passion is that which a person actively and selectively cultivates, such as a passion for California cheeses, which one suffers to a much milder or less dramatic extent than a state of guilt.
Guilt and Moral Judgment
The very existence of guilt, which recurs in children of young age as well as in many other primates and animals, does by itself bear witness to the existence of some form of moral conscience. Guilt is born out of a moral judgment, that a subject arrives at self-attributing. Three categories of judgments are of interest here: they can be distinguished based on the source of their normativity. (i) Some judgments are validated solely by a personal (that is, a psychological) assessment: A concludes to be guilty of having performed a certain action based merely on some standards set by A. (ii) On the other hand, some judgments are first originated in society: to make a petty example, if A’ parents teach her not to put her fingers in the nose, she may feel guilty when she does so, as she judges that someone will disapprove of her. Or, if the law says you should not speed while driving, you feel guilty if you are doing so, even if no one is there judging you at the moment. The most comprehensive judging authority, in this category, is the one of the gods: be it the case of monotheistic religions or that of polytheism, the typical attitude of the gods is to judge people’s deeds, so that each person may live feeling judged at any moment in her life. (iii) A third, interesting category, is comprised by those judgments whose source of normativity originates in society, and that are however transformed by individuals. Thus, the interpretation of the punitive attitude of a god may vary from individual to individual. Some may even suggest that all cases of guilt are of this sort: an agent judges her action as blameworthy based on her interpretation of some rules and norms ultimately originated in her society.
The Politics of Guilt
The few considerations here made on guilt should suffice to reflect the civic importance of guilt. A society whose members would be incapable of feeling guilty, may be problematic; a society whose members feel constantly guilty for their actions, is ultimately repressive. The gloomiest conceptions of political science have it that every society is repressive and it couldn’t be otherwise.