Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The dangerous allure of guilt

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The topic of Howard Zinn

Here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20773&pid=266547&st=0&#entry266547

got me to thinking about something that I've often wondered about, but not for some time.

What is the allure of guilt?

We know why collectivists and altruists want people to feel guilty. We know that it gives power.

But I think an important question, rarely discussed, is- "what is so attractive about guilt?"

Young people from affluent or at least comfortable families especially seem to feel drawn to teachings that accuse them of some form of unearned guilt- often in the form of a collective guilt. "White Europeans" and so forth.

If you look around you at high school through college age youth you see all sorts of people drawn like moths to a flame at groups, philosophies and political organizations that first fill them with shame and guilt- with the promise that certain actions can then mitigate the guilt or cleanse it away.

I'm interested in what opinions others here have on just what draws young people to groups that will assign them blame.

I'm going to reserve my own speculation on the matter for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it has to do with finding a concrete justification for guilt coming from subconcious sources such as a faulty metaphysical orientation that stymies healthy coping with reality. Most people can't effectively correct such deep-seated flaws without disintegrating their own identities (an experience comparable to dying) so they latch on to these trend causes as a stop-gap measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first guess is it's a kind of counter-intuitive attempt at a shortcut to self-esteem. Somebody tells you something about you having some kind of guilt, being bad, but then if you accept this, there's typically a relatively simple way included to lessen your guilt and be a more moral person. Steps include things like 1) Condemning yourself and others like yourself 2) Expressing pity for some group you've supposedly wronged by being in the group you're in 3) Possibly giving up some time and money to charity and/or legal efforts that force others in your group to donate to the group you accept as having been wronged by your group. That's actually fairly simple and easy compared to something like creating and running a multi-national corporation as a way to try to get self-esteem. Also, because it is simple, it has become popular and traditional, so one gets lots of approval from others this way too to try to further try to short-cut their way to self-esteem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's also partially because we're taught it's not nice to brag, that each person is good in his own way, that we aren't better than anyone else, etc etc. Accepting that you're guilty of something is an extension of this. You aren't claiming to be guiltless, are you? What kind of arrogant individualist are you to claim innocence? By claiming unearned guilt you immediately put yourself near the bottom of the pile, thus immune to criticism from those around you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people lack self esteem and know on some level that their flawed philisophy is at the root of their failures, they feel guilt.

When they see that others are able to live happy lives, their guilt turns to envy.

The Original Sin myths of religionists, socialists, environmentalists, etc. are the percieved solution: turn the tables and make guilt a standard of value, and you suddenly have something which all the people you envy do not.

The false joy that comes from truly believing your guilt renders you a saint will attract more people who want the same Something for Nothing that you seem to have.

As your fellow evaders make themselves more and more miserable, they become envious of all those who seem to enjoy the lifestyle, and so they become more and more dedicated to ritual self-hatred,

and their self destruction fuels yet more guilt (the real kind). The longer this goes on the more dependent one becomes upon believing in it and pretending it works.

Even when people realize the vicious cycle they've fallen into, there is no alternative but to climb all the way out of the hole, and many just become spiteful and give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the guilt that is so attractive? It is certainly pervasive. Reason is not generally formally taught, it is at best absorbed from the Aristotilian influence that is still around us in the form of common sense. Stemming from this is a more foreboding sense of purposelessness. Without purpose, inner conflicts usually arise. If the source of the conflict cannot be identified, a gnawing sense of disease arises. Unanswered, it is like a void, to filled by something or anything. Feeling defenseless against an unknown source of guilt heightens the susceptibility and receptiveness to something or anything which can serve to identify it.

As reason and purpose are prerequisites to self-esteem, this may certainly be viewed as a shortcut.

As to unearned guilt?

Substituting actual unearned guilt, such as the "White Europeans" mentioned earlier, for an earned guilt, if indeed this is the case, at best can only camouflage it thus becoming more difficult to later detect and correct.

edited for spelling.

Great question!

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many people experience feeling guilty as a form of righteousness, especially as compared with those around them who do not feel guilty for the same things. If I feel guilty for what Europeans did to the Native Americans, that automatically makes me superior to my neighbor, who does not accept that he deserves any guilt for what happened hundreds of years ago.

It is a very interesting question indeed.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that guilt can be a shortcut to self-esteem, at least by the people who aren't high level producers on the level of Bill Gates for instance. Why would people who run multi-national corporations need easy self-esteem if they at least demonstrated ability to succeed? I think the reason for that is because guilt is strongly connected with an egalitarian motive.

Condemning yourself, expressing pity, or altruistically giving to charity are all really actions relating to equalizing people throughout society. In each of these cases, someone is being given something based on need rather than justice, that's the only context in which they'd occur. Usually that'd only happen because the person believes they don't deserve extra money or living a better life, and the other person somehow deserves some only on account of being human. People who don't think beyond an immediate concrete level would get some satisfaction out of this by thanks given or expressed gratitude, and prided themselves in being a little selfless. There's your easy self-esteem.

Consider, though, why people accept unearned guilt in the first place? Why did the first feelings of guilt really ever develop? It is likely because many people are focused on the short-term and love to compare themselves to the people who have more, especially prevalent in time periods long before the industrial revolution. Many times, that desire is so strong that the “have-nots” would go as far as to steal or use force against the “haves”. That much is clearly still true today. Some people advocate government force to acquire things like welfare or other handouts, explicitly taking from the “haves”.

Rather than get physically harmed by the irrationally envious people – which certainly number higher than those who seek to earn their rewards – the “haves” prefer to give away something material. To rationalize giving up possessions, guilt is useful as a sort of defense mechanism from grabbing hands. In a way, it maintains social order, making sure the majority are satisfied enough to not revolt. And at times when not enough is given back, things like the French Revolution occur. The development of Christian guilt further solidified the role of guilt as counter-intuitively protecting the “haves.” In the short-term, the sense of guilt and corresponding need to give back leads to easy self-esteem, but in the long-term, people maintain that kind of moral outlook because of an ever present demand for everything in life to be equalized. The “have-nots” always desire to receive more, and guilt is a tool to exploit in order to forcibly equalize anything possible.

If no one saw social relations as a matter of “haves” and “have-nots”, then guilt described here would certainly go away.

One quick literary reference regarding guilt is to think of Hank Rearden. Why did he give money to his family? He didn't exactly believe that his family should get his money, or that it was his duty. He basically acted as he did so his family would just leave him alone. And it worked at the cost of his self-esteem in the long-run. Others rationalize such behavior as the “right” thing to do, avoiding the whole personal conflict that Hank went through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...