Guilt & Shame
Why do I feel guilty?
We believe that the guilt we feel is generally tied either to self-betrayal (a violation of conscience) or to an amorphous self-concept (an identiy established on the shifting sands of what we do, rather than Whose we are). But that's our conclusion; it may not be yours. It may even fly in the face of some of what you've come to believe, especially if you've read much pop psychology. Given the thousands of possible difference between our backgrounds, in exploring feelings of guilt, let's start at the beginning:
I. In exploring feelings of guilt, it's important to ask, "Where do most perceptions 'come from?'"
A. Most perceptions come from us: we perceive.
B. For more information on how we perceive, click here to visit "Integral Learning™ & Sensory Perception."
II. In considering feelings of guilt, it's important to ask. "What are the practical ramifications if shame 'comes from' the same source—in every respect—as our other perceptions?" (The option of relativism)
A. If shame "comes from" the same source—in every respect—as our other perceptions, the only standards by which we can judge would be individual or cultural—and either would be both relative and changeable.
B. If I can set my own, individual standards, then I can dismiss shame.
1. I can assert a value system of my own creation in which I'm not really guilty after all.
2. If I'm not guilty, then shame is an irrational feeling, and I can dismiss it.
3. Practically, however, this rarely eliminates all shame: we still feel guilty—for a while—when we do wrong.
C. If cultures set their own standards, then on what grounds do we condemn genocide? (If all cultures were to approve genocide, would it then be okay?)
D. Whether on an individual or cultural level, when we stop feeling guilty, it's not necessarily a good thing.
1. Some actions—like Stalin's imprisonment and murder of millions—clearly are shameful. Stalin is guilty of… something.
2. If some actions are shameful, why not other actions? Why not ours?
E. Practically, we need standards after all.
III. In considering feelings of guilt, it's important to ask, "What are the practical ramifications if shame 'comes from' an entirely different source—in every respect—than our other perceptions?" In other words, "What if there are Absolute, unchanging Standards that apply equally to all situations?" (The option of Absolute ethics)
A. Situations in which we have to choose between proposed Standards, however, aren't uncommon. Consider "Thou shalt not lie." vs. "Love your neighbor as yourself."
1. A friend asks you, "How does this new dress look—really?"
2. You spouse says, "I feel ugly and fat. Do I need to lose weight?"
3. A friend presses, "It's my birthday this weekend. I overheard Jenny and James talking about me yesterday, and they hushed right as I got in the room. Do you think they're planning a surprise party?"
B. Sometimes, the choices are even more serious. Consider a Dutch Christian's choice in World War II between "Thou shalt not lie." vs. "Thouh shalt not kill": Nazis knock on the door and ask, "Have you seen any Jews" or "Are you harboring any Jews?"
C. To make use of any Absolute standards that may exist, we would at least practically need flexible criteria that would guide us in applying them.
IV. In considering feelings of guilt, it's important to ask, "What are the practical ramifications if there are Absolute, unchanging Standards, but we must apply them differently to different situations?" (The option of situational ethics)
A. Weighing standards and their applicability may be possible, even if it is often difficult.
1. We have a self-justifying tendency that can reduce situational ethics to relativism.
2. We have a self-preserving tendency that can reduce situational ethics to relativism.
3. Even if we check the above two tendencies, we often have insufficient objectivity—we lack the presence of mind—to consider the "situation at hand" adequately.
4. Even if we check the above two tendencies, we often don't think quickly enough—we lack sufficient mental processing speed—to consider the "situation at hand" adequately.
B. This approach wouldn't solve the problem of guilt: Even if most of the time we check the above tendencies and maintain sufficient objectivity and processing speed to consider most situations adequately before acting, we still end up feeling guilty—because we still end up guilty. We can't successfully do this all of the time. We still blunder.
C. In this approach, we still have to answer: "By what criteria—by what new set of standards—do we determine which Absolute standards are most relevant?"
1. If the criteria by which we determine which standards to apply are purely individual or cultural, we're still stuck in the morass of relativism.
a. On what grounds, for instance, do we judge the friend who prioritizes honesty over tact as an insensitive clod? Imagine…
1) "Yes, that new dress really does make you look fat. Now, let's enjoy our evening." or
2) "Yes, you do need to lose weight. You might feel ugly and fat because that excess weight is really unattractive."
3) "Yes, Jenny and James are planning a surprise party for you this weekend. They invited me, and I'm planning on being there. I know you'll have a great time."
2. Practically, we still need standards… but where do they come from, and how do we become aware of them?
a. By what mix of moral Absolutes and cultural norms are we able to pass judgments?
b. By what mix of moral Absolutes and cultural norms are we judged currently by peers?
c. By what standards might we eventually be judged by God?
V. Ultimately, we must account for what appears to be a supracultural conscience—a sense of right and wrong that supersedes cultural differences.
A. When we violate standards, we are guilty, and we feel shame. But which standards ought to cause shame?
1. Clearly, addition to standards occurs.
a. Some standards seem to be universal; e.g., "Thou shalt not kill."
b. Some standards seem to be added; e.g., "Thou shalt not play cards on Sundays."
2. Any moral code formed exclusively by addition ends up being cultural or individual—and returns us to the morass of relativism. If culture-bound individuals contribute standard after standard, and if the entirety of our moral code is formed this way, the whole is no more than the sum of its individual, culture-bound parts: still fallible, and still relative.
3. Thus, in order to avoid relativism, we must acknowledge a moral code formed at least in part by subtraction. We must affirm a process by which each culture subtracts from universally known Standards in an attempt to justify their own—indeed, our own—actions, while maintaining the ability to condemn the atrocious actions of others.
a. We begin with Standards, then we ignore, minimize, or attempt to invalidate any that we want to violate or are already in the habit of violating.
b. If we ignore, minimize, or attempt to invalidate Standards that we share with the culture at large, we may fit in: our culture doesn't judge us as deviant… yet often, we still feel guilty, because we are.
c. If we ignore, minimize, or attempt to invalidate Standards that we do not share with the culture at large, we may not fit in: the dominant culture judges us as deviant. Sometimes, we may "fit in" among a counter-cultural minority, but deep down, when we're honest with ourselves… we still feel guilty, because we are. We've violated those Standards.
B. You might note that we haven't proved the existence of Standards, nor have we proved or demonstrated how we come to know them. Rather, we've simply affirmed:
1. Everyone acknowledges standards.
2. Everyone persists in self-justification… yet still feels some shame.
a. Some shame might come from breaking added standards that we have unwittingly accepted; e.g., "Thou shalt not play cards on Sundays."
b. We would do well, however, to think twice about dismissing "guilt feelings," because if there truly are Standards—and there must be for us to condemn some things as absolutely bad, as the very fiber of our being testifies they are—we might have "guilt feelings" because we truly are guilty.
3. Do you acknowledge what the very fiber of your being testifies:
a. That there are Standards?
b. That you're guilty of breaking some of them?
You can visit NeedGod.com for more information and help.