is it a form of vanity?
and shame??????

It's your humanity rising above the surface of self-interest.

Dylan wrote:It's your humanity rising above the surface of self-interest.

This sounds too much like guilt is an inherent human characteristic. This is simply not the case. It is a product of conditioning, and is, therefore, relative to one's own experiences. People who exist in a different moral universe (i.e. serial killers, mentally ill people, politicians, etc...), whom you would, by your definition, consider "guiltless," are still human. People can learn to forget fellings of guilt as easily as they acquired them in the first place. Conversely, someone who never was taught "right from wrong" (if such a thing exists) would live their life according to his/her self interests alone, and would be no less "humane" than Mother Teresa herself. It is a much larger metaphysical argument than I can allot time for here at work, but I can say with great certainty that the word "humane" is interpreted differently by everyone, and cannot be used in defining guilt.

I would say "guilt" is the way your conscience tells you, you're being a hypocrite.

I feel guilt when I do things that are in conflict of how I perceive myself and how I would "theoretically" handle a given situation or problem.

I do not feel guilty for anything else.

Empathy...now that's different.

jupiter wrote:

Dylan wrote:It's your humanity rising above the surface of self-interest.

This sounds too much like guilt is an inherent human characteristic. This is simply not the case. It is a product of conditioning, and is, therefore, relative to one's own experiences. People who exist in a different moral universe (i.e. serial killers, mentally ill people, politicians, etc...), whom you would, by your definition, consider "guiltless," are still human. People can learn to forget fellings of guilt as easily as they acquired them in the first place. Conversely, someone who never was taught "right from wrong" (if such a thing exists) would live their life according to his/her self interests alone, and would be no less "humane" than Mother Teresa herself. It is a much larger metaphysical argument than I can allot time for here at work, but I can say with great certainty that the word "humane" is interpreted differently by everyone, and cannot be used in defining guilt.

Guilt is inherent inasmuch as humanity is inherent. Whether you choose to ignore the guilt or act on it in another matter. We are all born with a certain amount of humanity. It can manifest itself in as little as self-preservation. We find as we age that it becomes harder to define what is "good" behaviour and what is "bad". To some, stealing is justified. To others, murder. Guilt is the little voice in the back of your mind that reminds you that you may have betrayed your own sense of humanity (which is constantly shifting for each of us). So we agree. However, I do not think that a serial killer or a mentally ill person lacks a sense of humanity. It may be different or difficult to see, but it's there, as is the guilt.

Dylan wrote:
Guilt is inherent inasmuch as humanity is inherent.

Neither are inherent. They are both taught. The only degree of humanity that one is born with is his/her physiology. Any mind, left unnurtured, turns to its survival instinct, and focuses all faculties on needs dictated by physiological necessity. The fact that we as humans, are, tentatively, the most intellectually superior species on this planet allows us only one unique concession: The pursuit of truth via. logical thinking. Some people are genetically more apt than others. Many people choose to direct their thought toward the pursuit of truth, while others use it exclusively to satisfy their body's desires.


I think the cap'n was on to something in referring to vanity, though. Guilty feelings manifest under the assumption that the doctrine that you follow is, in fact, the correct one. This is most common in religion. From a third-person religious perspective, one may say that guilt aids in keeping people from acting on instinct, and should thereby contribute to the "brotherhood of man." Upon holistic examination, I find it does the opposite. When a group of people share a religious doctrine, there is little room for change because, even though they are based on fundamental logical conclusions about they way we should behave and interact, they are, in most cases, never subject to amendment. They then go one step further and decide that, since they are "right", everyone else should be held accountable by their own definition of guilt. Then they feel it is their responsibility, or worse yet, duty to make everyone else subscribe to their definition. Then they impose, in most cases, with force. So, not only is that vain, but also potentially destructive.

The sad truth is that no one knows for sure the degree of significance our lives entail, and therefore have no reason, other than societal conditioning, to ever feel guilty about any of their thoughts or actions.

good work, Jupiter.

But, how is guilt different than shame? Are they both vanity?

Where do the feelings of guilt come from ultimately if not from our biology and evolution? Sure, guilt as we think of it is a cultural construct, but it may spring from an instinct that predates human culture. There is evidence to support the idea that altruism is an instinctive behavior. It is exhibited in other primate species and may be a survival trait for the species as a whole because it benefits the group even if it does not immediately benefit the individual or its offspring. In this light maybe what we call guilt is intended to guide us toward altruistic behavior. I don't deny that in many cases it's just a conditioned response that we feel when we break social norms, but I think it might fit into a bigger evolutionary scheme.

I had no idea we were allowed to drop acid and post what we're talking about.