I highly recommend this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame/201305/the-difference-between-guilt-and-shame — David Mo

That is one way to look at it, another is that "guilt" imposed internally, regardless of the social situation, and that shame involves feeling towards others. Hence, "guilt" is usually related to religion, while shame is not.
That is the distinction between Western "guilt culture" and Japanese "shame culture" that Ruth Benedict makes in her famous book "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword". Old, but still relevant imho.

That is one way to look at it, another is that "guilt" imposed internally, regardless of the social situation, — Nobeernolife

If I define guilt as responsibility towards others based on a moral code, I do not know how I can be understood to be avoiding my responsibility in a social context.
And if I define shame as the de-valuation of self, I don't know how it can be moral.

Morality implies a relationship with someone who has been harmed.

Religion has used the concept of guilt as harm to God through others, but also that of shame in the eyes of the all-seeing God. In reality we owe to religion the perverse union of both. You are guilty because you are bad by nature: humble yourself before God who alone can forgive you.
Religion mixes morality with God. Should we abandon the concept of morality because of it? The psychological analysis of both concepts does not have to be mixed up with these manipulations.

In the same way, the psychological analysis is not the social anthropological one. The invention of cultures of shame and cultures of guilt is often attributed to Ruth Benedict who highlighted the fact that these categories do not exist in isolation. All cultures deal with guilt and shame.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but this appears as a misinterpretation to me. There are no people other than Adam and Eve. Eve has come into possession of "the secret", and reveals the secret to Adam. So the supposed "shameful" act here is the revealing of the secret. Once the secret is out, there is no attempt to hide it from future generations. The problem is that they are supposedly "shamed" for revealing the secret, but what are the feelings which led Eve to reveal? — Metaphysician Undercover

The ‘secret’ is that we are a fragile, vulnerable existence - what did you think it was? We can barely admit this to ourselves even now, let alone share it with future generations, and so the same continues. No one ‘shames’ them for revealing any ‘secret’ - they ‘were ashamed’ at this revelation that they were not what they believed they ought to be.

If I define guilt as responsibility towards others based on a moral code, I do not know how I can be understood to be avoiding my responsibility in a social context.
And if I define shame as the de-valuation of self, I don't know how it can be moral. — David Mo

Well yes, you can do that. What I pointed out is that Ruth Benedict uses a different definition, which I find more useful. In her definition, guilt is internal and shame is external. To put it simply, you feel guilt towards a god figure, wheres you fell shame towards society.

That is proven by cases of absolutely impassive criminals who know they have done wrong but feel no guilt at all.They lack the emotion. (There are brain damages that produce this effect). — David Mo

This is the key to understanding my point. The person who has done wrong and knows oneself to have done so, does not necessarily feel guilt. Therefore the feeling which you are calling "guilt" has no direct or necessary relationship to knowing that one has done wrong, and "guilt" cannot be defined as the feeling one has when one knows oneself to have done wrong. You assume that this person simply lacks that emotion. But people don't simply lack emotions, they learn how to suppress and control their emotions so that the person doesn't develop the emotion which another person would develop in the same situation. So there are numerous different emotions involved with knowing that one has done wrong, such as shame, and fear of being caught, pride in one's capacity to successfully do wrong, etc.. There is no one single feeling called "guilt", that is an over-simplification. The person you speak of, the "impassive criminal", cultivates and encourages the good feelings involved in doing wrong, while suppressing the bad feelings. But there is no such thing as a type of feeling which you call the feeling of "guilt".

A person who feels guilty about hitting his child does not need to imagine being watched. — David Mo

Let me analyze this particular point you make. The person recognizes himself as having done wrong, so he recognizes that he has made a mistake. Do you agree with this? What you call feeling "guilt" is a matter of recognizing one's own mistake, to have done the wrong thing in the situation, rather than having done a different thing or a number of other possible different things which would have been better. The fact is that the wrong thing was done and the person recognizes that the wrong thing was. done.

Can we call this feeling "regret"? Notice that there are many mistakes which do not involve guilt, but nevertheless involve "regret". When the person feels regret, with an associated guilt, there are a number of ways that one might deal with the feeling. One might feel the urge to apologize, to confess. Or, one might decide that hiding the occurrence of that incident from others, pretending it didn't occur, is the thing to do. Notice the difference between the two. If the person apologizes, then we can forget the incident and get on with our lives. Confession and apology relieves the bad feelings so that the incident may be put aside (forgive and forget). If the person decides to hide and conceal evidence, then there is a secret which must be kept. The need to keep that secret prevents the person from forgetting, and this is what you call the feeling of "guilt".

So what you call feeling "guilt" is just a matter of remembering the mistakes you have made which have had a negative affect on others. If we confess and apologize, this is the move toward forgetting, relieving the guilt. If we do not, we remain conflicted, should I confess and apologize, or should I keep on hiding the incident. The criminals whom you say "lack the emotion" have developed ways to look at what they are doing as good. They have no need to apologize or forget what they have done because they are proud of it.

I'm not the one who's mixing the two. It's you. Shame always has an external source, real or imagined: let's call it public opinion, for short. Without being seen or imagining yourself being seen doing the wrong thing in the wrong place, there is no feeling at all. Therefore, the source of shame is always external and restricted to local circumstances.

The source of the feeling of guilty is inner. Even in an isolated island you would feel guilty to have done the wrong thing. It is unconditioned and universal. — David Mo

So, I disagree with this external/internal portrayal of shame/guilt, completely. I think you are attempting a simplification which just doesn't work. What I think is required to understand these feelings is to analize in relation to time, past and future. Some aspects of one's psyche are directed toward the future (anticipation), and some are directed toward the past (memory). The two are very much tied together and intertwined.

"Regret" clearly is based in memories of the past, as is what you call the feeling of "guilt". But "shame" reflects both memories and anticipations, and this is why it is extremely difficult to apprehend its character. You say "Shame always has an external source, real or imagined." But the "imagined" is obviously an internal source, and that's why your portrayal is faulty. The imagined shame is the anticipation of consequences. So shame exists right in the present, as regret concerning the past, and anticipation of future consequences, all tied together.

I propose a simple case for analysis: — David Mo

I can't see the point of your example. It appears to me like you are attempting to create a separation within the feeling of "regret", between different types of mistakes. A mistake which hurts another person you are proposing as different from a mistake which hurts oneself. The former causes "guilt", the latter does not. I agree that there is such a difference, but the difference is in relation to one's future actions, one's anticipations, not in relation to one's current repentance. I have made a mistake, I have done wrong, is no different, whether it hurt myself or it hurt another, though there are differences in the magnitude of the error.

But if we take mistakes of equal magnitude, one hurting oneself, and the other hurting another, the consequences and therefore future action required, are completely different. It is this requirement, for future action, the apology, compensation, which characterizes the feeling of guilt. If there was no need for this future action, the two mistakes would be equivalent, except the hurt to oneself would have more lasting pain. It is the need for the expression of an apology and to compensate, which is an outward expression, which characterizes guilt. So again, your internal/external dichotomy is a misrepresentation.

I wonder if anyone can relate to just a very simple realisation that one has been inconsiderate, say, and the rejection of that as a way of life for the future. Something a child might do on their own, without pressure from anyone. I think this is the capacity that is exploited to produce a conformist, when we would do better to raise kind and thoughtful individuals who do not need to be told what to be ashamed of. — unenlightened

I'd like to say that I was a bit inconsiderate earlier in the thread. I said some things before completely understanding what you said, and misrepresented what you had said. I suppose there was pride and confidence which led me to say what I did, and some shame followed when I realized the mistake.

But I really don't think that a child, or anyone, can determine what being inconsiderate is, without learning that. We can easily learn hurtful actions which hurt oneself, because we feel the pain. But how can we learn the actions which hurt another, without being shown the pain? We have the golden rule which we are taught, so we know that the same type of action which would hurt oneself would also hurt another. But what about all the different feelings which different people have developed in different ways? Don't we need to "conform", to have the same feelings, and therefore know when we might be hurting another?

And of course there are paths that lead to freedom from shame (at least on the conscious level).
— frank
Maybe. But different paths from guilt. Can you specify? — David Mo

Guilt, from Old English gylt has a dual meaning. It can mean crime and it can mean remorse. It's true that a person can have guilt without feeling remorse, so I guess you have to look to context.

It overlaps with shame, which can mean the feeling of guilt, but it can also mean dishonor or disgrace. A person can definitely feel disgraced without feeling guilt.

There's a scene at the end of Suspiria, where the incarnated witch tells a German man that the world needs shame, but it doesn't need his, so she erases his memory of having abandoned his wife in Berlin when the allies invaded. She frees him of remorse by freeing him of his memory. And then we wander back to a tree with the couple's initials carved in it. It's disconnected from human events because no one remembers the love this couple shared.

Guilt and shame are how events are carried forward into the future. They're an aspect of memory.

Just rambling.

To put it simply, you feel guilt towards a god figure, wheres you fell shame towards society. — Nobeernolife

Internal and external are also in the common definition I have provided here makes some comments. I would like not to introduce God here. The Genesis narrative is confusing. Notice that Adam and Eve hide from Yahweh's gaze because they are naked = shame. The concept of God in the Bible is anthropomorphic.
I think Benedict's concept of shame is similar to mine. I'll check my notes. My memory is not very good.

Internal and external are also in the common definition I have provided here makes some comments. I would like not to introduce God here. — David Mo

"God" here is simply meant as something that you can not hide from or lie to. I did not imply Yahweh, Allah, or any of that sort, although in the context of Benedicts book she obviously referred to the Christian god.

The person who has done wrong and knows oneself to have done so, does not necessarily feel guilt. Therefore the feeling which you are calling "guilt" has no direct or necessary relationship to knowing that one has done wrong, and "guilt" cannot be defined as the feeling one has when one knows oneself to have done wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

Knowledge of the consequences of your action is a necessary but not sufficient condition to feel guilty.

So there are numerous different emotions involved with knowing that one has done wrong, such as shame, and fear of being caught, pride in one's capacity to successfully do wrong, etc.. There is no one single feeling called "guilt", that is an over-simplification. — Metaphysician Undercover

Many emotions may be involved in a case but this does not mean that they are the same. Guilt and fear - which you mention - are not the same emotion. They arise from different motivations and have different consequences. Fear does not imply a victim and fear does not produce remorse. Guilt does. Therefore, you can distinguish guilt from fear or shame, even if they are entangled in some cases, not all.

Notice that there are many mistakes which do not involve guilt, but nevertheless involve "regret". — Metaphysician Undercover

That guilt produces -sometimes- regret doesn't mean that everything that produces regret is guilt. You are falling in a fallacy. What defines guilt is the set of features. Not one alone.

But "shame" reflects both memories and anticipations, and this is why it is extremely difficult to apprehend its character. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is an interesting fact that doesn't nullify the other features.

But the "imagined" is obviously an internal source, and that's why your portrayal is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Guilt and shame are moral emotions. They happen inside man. But shame has an external source. Even imagined, you suppose an external observer that triggers your shame. You feel as if you were observed.
This is probably the most debated feature of the shame/guilt distinction. But it is generally considered useful.

But if we take mistakes of equal magnitude, one hurting oneself, and the other hurting another, the consequences and therefore future action required, are completely different. — Metaphysician Undercover

You do not realize that the difference is not primarily in the present or the future but rather the nature of the damage and how to repair it. When you "hurt" yourself you are destroying your self-confidence, you are degrading the idea you have of yourself as a person. Even partially, it is an erosion of self-esteem. In guilt you hurt another person in different ways that do not necessarily involve his or her self-esteem. In the first case there is no punishment or repair that can restore your self-esteem because it affects your being. In the second case, reparation is possible in the form of material compensation, punishment or regret. Therefore, the treatment of both damages is different. So different that one can be legally penalized and the other cannot.
You can see that we are talking about two very different things, let's give them the name you want.

And of course, it has nothing to do with the magnitude. You can inflict a slight damage on a person and feel it, and you can inflict a devastating damage on yourself without a trace of remorse. It is the type of harm and the subject who suffers it that makes the difference between the two.

Guilt and shame are moral emotions. They happen inside man. But shame has an external source. Even imagined, you suppose an external observer that triggers your shame. You feel as if you were observed.
This is probably the most debated feature of the shame/guilt distinction. But it is generally considered useful. — David Mo

Agree.

It can mean crime and it can mean remorse. — frank

I'm not talking about guilt in the legal sense (crime). I am talking about a feeling that almost always leads to remorse, although not always. Many criminals do not have the slightest feeling of guilt for their crimes. And some criminals feel guilt but not remorse because they think their crimes have been necessary or caused by a greater evil.

A person can definitely feel disgraced without feeling guilt. — frank

Indeed. Because to feel guilty one has to have hurt someone, while shame comes from the idea of being hurt. But without specifying the different natures of both harms we do not move forward.
Your example is confusing guilt and shame. This is very common. Even Primo Levi, who lived his whole life obsessed with the shame of surviving Auschwitz, does so.

I did not imply Yahweh, Allah, or any of that sort, although in the context of Benedicts book she obviously referred to the Christian god. — Nobeernolife

Well, I read Benedict's book on Japan: The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. She didn't speak much about Christianity. But the biblical example is very well analyzed by Agnes Heller, who maintains that the distinction between guilt and shame is not as drastic as is usually claimed. She has her share of reason.

Well, I read Benedict's book on Japan: The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. She didn't speak much about Christianity. — David Mo

No, but the context of her book was to contrast Japan`s society vs American one. And in the West, the moral system is linked to Christianity of course. Benedict was not comparing Japan to i.e. India or China, in which case she would have written the book slightly differently.

But I really don't think that a child, or anyone, can determine what being inconsiderate is, without learning that. We can easily learn hurtful actions which hurt oneself, because we feel the pain. But how can we learn the actions which hurt another, without being shown the pain? — Metaphysician Undercover

One can learn without being taught. One sees quite easily when one has hurt someone, and one quite naturally regrets it and seeks to comfort. This sensitivity can be seen in quite small children, and doesn't take any religious or moral training.

And that really is the beginning and end of it. How shall we live together? We need to communicate, so we need to be truthful and honest, we are vulnerable so we need to look after each other, we need to cooperate and share to survive and thrive. And these thing are such obvious truths that they are built into the genes and do not need justification from philosophers or prophets, nor do they need a special training scheme. But we have devised a whole system to convince ourselves of the opposite, and to replicate the opposite in each other. And we call that morality, and justice, and civilisation. And it is destroying us.

It is such a shame.

The victims and the liberators, Levi argued, were ashamed and felt guilty of having been unable to prevent injustice; the perpetrators and their accomplices were not ashamed.

What's the difference between shame and repentance? Are the two inseparable in that we can't have one without the other? I wonder which is preferable, in the sense of being a better way of making amends for your actions? Perhaps both shame and repentance, together, constitute what is a "proper" response for a perpetrator of an evil deed.

I would like not to introduce God here. The Genesis narrative is confusing. Notice that Adam and Eve hide from Yahweh's gaze because they are naked = shame. The concept of God in the Bible is anthropomorphic. — David Mo

"God" here is simply meant as something that you can not hide from or lie to. I did not imply Yahweh, Allah, or any of that sort, although in the context of Benedicts book she obviously referred to the Christian god. — Nobeernolife

This is an issue which relates to David's internal/external division which needs to be cleared up, so we can't dismiss God so easily.

God is thought of as someone, or something, which you cannot hide anything from, God knows. If God is just like another person, a person which you cannot hide anything from, then imagining God as knowing is an instance of imagining an external person who is watching, and knows. The problem here is that the person imagining God as watching, is just assumed to be imagining that God is watching from an external view point. However, God cannot be seen, and God's view point cannot be seen. So, it is equally possible that God is within everyone,, and is watching from that internal view point.

If this is the case, that God is watching from within, then the "shame" or what David calls "guilt", which a person feels when they do something wrong in the presence of no other people, but are still concerned about God, is internally sourced. David wants to dismiss the fact that such imaginary scenarios are internally sourced, by saying that the person or thing imagined as knowing, is necessarily an external thing. But if God's observation point is imagined to be within, and the reason why one cannot hide from God is because God can see what you do from within yourself, then David's internal/external division is decisively refuted. And, since we are talking about imaginary exposure, the proof that God actually is within, is not required for that refutation. All that is required is that one imagines one's own actions to be revealed to God from within, and this is sufficient for the refutation.

Many emotions may be involved in a case but this does not mean that they are the same. Guilt and fear - which you mention - are not the same emotion. They arise from different motivations and have different consequences. Fear does not imply a victim and fear does not produce remorse. Guilt does. Therefore, you can distinguish guilt from fear or shame, even if they are entangled in some cases, not all. — David Mo

You keep talking about "guilt" as if it is a feeling. I've disputed this claim. And the fact that people can knowingly do wrong without feeling guilt is evidence that guilt is not the "feeling" associated with knowingly doing wrong. So unless you can describe to me what type of feeling "guilt" is supposed to be, there is no point in continuing to talk about it as if it is a feeling. There is no validity to your claim that "guilt" is a feeling.

Guilt and shame are moral emotions. They happen inside man. But shame has an external source. Even imagined, you suppose an external observer that triggers your shame. You feel as if you were observed.
This is probably the most debated feature of the shame/guilt distinction. But it is generally considered useful. — David Mo

My example above, of God as an imaginary internal observer, is sufficient to refute this claim that all shame (including imaginary sourced shame) is always externally sourced.

ou do not realize that the difference is not primarily in the present or the future but rather the nature of the damage and how to repair it. When you "hurt" yourself you are destroying your self-confidence, you are degrading the idea you have of yourself as a person. — David Mo

This is not at all true. We learn from our mistakes, so the experience of hurting oneself is often turned into a confidence building experience. Whether the self-hurt destroys ones confidence, or builds one's confidence depends on one's view toward the future. So in athletic training for example, one must intentionally hurt oneself to build strength (no pain, no gain). The hurting experience actually builds confidence.

Despite the fact that you are arguing against this scenario you seem to already recognize it when you refer to "how to repair" the damage. Clearly this is a view toward the future. So your argument here is completely off base. Even if hurting oneself is sometimes an act of damaging one's self-esteem, there is always the question of reparation, and this is a view toward the future, just like restitution is a view toward the future when another is hurt. .

So the point which I made still stands. The act which causes hurt to oneself is essentially the same sort of act, as the act which causes hurt to another. It is a mistake. Therefore the "feeling" associated with these two acts, when viewed in the past, as a memory, is essentially the same feeling. It is a recognition of mistake, and a feeling of regret. The distinction which you are trying to make, that the latter is the feeling of guilt, and the former the feeling of shame, is unjustified. It is only when we take into account the actions which one takes starting immediately after the mistaken action, that we proceed in two distinct directions.

The fact that there are two distinct directions is due to the difference in who was hurt by the action, oneself or another. This difference is a manifestation of how we choose future actions at that time, immediately after the mistake occurs. If the hurt is on another, we immediately apologize and offer to do whatever we can to help in the healing. We proceed toward restitution. If the hurt is on oneself, all we need to do is work on the healing, reparation. The feeling of "shame" or "guilt" relates directly to the past, mistaken action, regardless of who was hurt. If "guilt" is a feeling, I can feel guilty for an act which hurt myself. The feeling here, more properly called shame than guilt, is directly related to the recognition of mistake, and is characterized by regret. There is no difference between "shame" and "guilt" here, but one is a better choice of words. However, when we look toward future actions, after the occurrence of the mistake, recognizing a difference is necessary.

One can learn without being taught. One sees quite easily when one has hurt someone, and one quite naturally regrets it and seeks to comfort. This sensitivity can be seen in quite small children, and doesn't take any religious or moral training. — unenlightened

I think "hurt" is a lot more complicated than that. We hurt people emotionally, and sometimes the hurt is not evident. Failing to keep a commitment for example, hurts the other, and sometimes the commitment might not even be explicit, but implicit, and the person who doesn't hold their end might not even notice the hurt to the other. Further, there are such "little hurts" which we might actually learn to ignore because they're so little. And that's the problem with learning, so much is learnt, that if we stop teaching good habits there will be a hole in that learning, where learning something is required, which could be filled with learning a bad habit. We can learn bad behaviour just like we can learn good behaviour. To return to the example of commitment, if I view "the contract" as something there to protect my rights, then I am only seeing half. And if I am only seeing that half, I'll learn to use the contract for my advantage. Then cheating is fair game, I make sure the contract allows me to cheat, and as much as possible closes the door to cheating from the other side. Cheating is learned behaviour.

And that really is the beginning and end of it. How shall we live together? We need to communicate, so we need to be truthful and honest, we are vulnerable so we need to look after each other, we need to cooperate and share to survive and thrive. And these thing are such obvious truths that they are built into the genes and do not need justification from philosophers or prophets, nor do they need a special training scheme. But we have devised a whole system to convince ourselves of the opposite, and to replicate the opposite in each other. And we call that morality, and justice, and civilisation. And it is destroying us. — unenlightened

Look at what you say here, "we have devised a whole system". If we can devise systems, then the system ought to be just as much a part of the solution as it is a part of the problem. Notice, "the system" is an inanimate thing, it doesn't recognize hurt, like a child does, the system is indifferent and it can go either way depending on the will of the people who devise it, their successes and failures. The system consists of institutions of law, education, etc., and since it can go either way it actually does need justification from philosophers, etc..

We cannot cast shame on the system, blame the system, claiming that the system has taken a turn for the worse, and hope that the system feels shame and fixes itself, because it doesn't make sense to blame that inanimate thing. And we can't say that the system's all messed up so let's just get rid of it all and have no system, living like children with no authorities, trying to observe each other to see what works the best, because bad habits are just as likely, or more likely, to reign, as are good habits. So a system is needed.

Inevitably, mistakes are made. We relate "shame" to the occurrence of such mistakes and attempt to assign guilt. But "shame" goes even deeper, such that we are ashamed of the mistakes of nature, chance occurrences, and this is the real reason why we need to separate shame from guilt. There are many things occurring which are wrong, not right, and those things need to be addressed. We ought to feel ashamed of these things regardless of the guilty party, there may not even be a guilty party. Therefore we ought not seek to blame and cast shame, hoping that others who are responsible for creating the wrongs will fix the wrongs, we need to feel the shame ourselves, regardless of guilt, and we do feel that shame, and so are inspired to fix the problems.

So "shame" involves no boundaries between individuals in the thing which causes the shame, it simply describes how an individual relates to a deprived situation.

I think "hurt" is a lot more complicated than that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, sometimes one cannot see it, as sometimes it is dark. But in the first place, one does not need to be taught.

Inevitably, mistakes are made. We relate "shame" to the occurrence of such mistakes and attempt to assign guilt. But "shame" goes even deeper, such that we are ashamed of the mistakes of nature, chance occurrences, and this is the real reason why we need to separate shame from guilt. There are many things occurring which are wrong, not right, and those things need to be addressed. We ought to feel ashamed of these things regardless of the guilty party, there may not even be a guilty party. Therefore we ought not seek to blame and cast shame, hoping that others who are responsible for creating the wrongs will fix the wrongs, we need to feel the shame ourselves, regardless of guilt, and we do feel that shame, and so are inspired to fix the problems. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly! Once you remove the (m)other who projects shame onto you, there is simply the response to the world, and the responsibility for the world.

When I talk about system, I mean really this endless projection of responsibility onto others. The child is 'naughty' because he is brought into a supermarket filled with delights and expected to understand the nonsense of property rights and so on. That is what is taught, and it drives us mad.

David wants to dismiss the fact that such imaginary scenarios are internally sourced, — Metaphysician Undercover

And the fact that people can knowingly do wrong without feeling guilt is evidence that guilt is not the "feeling" associated with knowingly doing wrong. So unless you can describe to me what type of feeling "guilt" is supposed to be, there is no point in continuing to talk about it as if it is a feeling. — Metaphysician Undercover

When we refer to external vs. internal we do not mean that the causes of a feeling are on the outside or the inside. We refer to the fact that a particular emotion arises from the subject's belief in being under the gaze of a real or imagined external observer. Whether the sources are in the Oedipus complex or in social pressure is another matter. We are now at the level of description not causal analysis. In the Bible God is not internal to Adam. He is an external gaze of an external entity from whom Adam and Eve try to hide themselves.

Everyone knows that there are criminals who feel no guilt. Everyone knows there are libertines who feel no shame. This is banal. But it does not invalidate the fact that shame and guilt exist and are different things. You do not distinguish between the necessary and the sufficient condition. Some cognitive processes are a necessary but not sufficient condition of moral emotions. That is, without them the emotion doesn't exist, but they alone are not enough to produce it. That explains your false objection.

Of course I have given you enough descriptions of the difference between shame and guilt, but you don't want to call them so. That's why you're never satisfied. Have you read the articles I recommended - at least the first two? If you had, you wouldn't be asking me for examples of guilt. There is a lot.

One can learn without being taught. One sees quite easily when one has hurt someone, and one quite naturally regrets it and seeks to comfort. This sensitivity can be seen in quite small children, and doesn't take any religious or moral training.

And that really is the beginning and end of it. How shall we live together? We need to communicate, so we need to be truthful and honest, we are vulnerable so we need to look after each other, we need to cooperate and share to survive and thrive. And these thing are such obvious truths that they are built into the genes and do not need justification from philosophers or prophets, nor do they need a special training scheme. But we have devised a whole system to convince ourselves of the opposite, and to replicate the opposite in each other. And we call that morality, and justice, and civilisation. And it is destroying us. — unenlightened

Exactly! Once you remove the (m)other who projects shame onto you, there is simply the response to the world, and the responsibility for the world.

When I talk about system, I mean really this endless projection of responsibility onto others. The child is 'naughty' because he is brought into a supermarket filled with delights and expected to understand the nonsense of property rights and so on. That is what is taught, and it drives us mad.

I'm trying to fit all these things together:

Shame is necessary as a social glue. It's bad to hurt others and we know that naturally, and don't need to be taught. Kids don't know not to take whatever they want at the supermarket, and its a symptom of a broader problem that we hold them accountable for it. Shame is about taking responsibility, but we shouldn't shame people for not taking responsibility for things they don't know not to do.

At the limit, I suppose we could hold accountable the birth of agriculture which led directly to civilization and its discontents, but the birth of agriculture is well-insulated from shame.

Is 'not taking from the supermarket' really part of a system, in the sense Anscombe is describing? (it seems to me like what's she doing is reframing modern utilitarian morality as rationalization (ala Macbeth & his lady on regicide) + Insurance math. 'Not taking from the supermarket' appears to be an implicit rule of conduct (otherwise who'd set up shop?) that developed organically and was later codified in law (and law-like moral systems). Isn't it true of all humans, in all times, that we're 'thrown' into a social reality in the process of development (both based on tradition and evolving) and that shame is a way of adjusting the person to that social reality, so they won't eventually have the greater shame (and life-threatening danger) of exile?

Is 'not taking from the supermarket' really part of a system, in the sense Anscombe is describing? — csalisbury

Yes, absolutely. The example I like is which side of the road one drives on. I seems not to matter which side it is, as long as everyone settles on one side or the other. It's not something one can know from birth. And one cannot know from birth that it's ok to take berries from the hedgerow but not apples from the orchard. But one knows without explanation to comfort the crying.

I think the upshot is that though you need an explanation of how a library works differently to a supermarket, and the protocol of communicating with air traffic control, you don't need any lessons in being ashamed. IOW. Shaming another is abuse, and manipulation.

Now this is true of anyone who has that social empathy that gives one a sense of shame when things go awry, and it is a fortiori true of anyone who lacks the capacity - the notorious psychopath. Because any attempt to manipulate the young psychopath is simply a lesson in manipulation, and as has been talked about here with some lack of clarity, there is no point at all in trying to shame someone who is incapable of that feeling. The psychopath is unashamed and unrepentant. The best bet therefore is to teach them that kindness works, which is easy because it does.

Yes, sometimes one cannot see it, as sometimes it is dark. But in the first place, one does not need to be taught. — unenlightened

I think that shame itself is not something that needs to be taught, but a person's response to it, is what is learned and developed over time. This is why I see the need to distinguish shame from guilt, in any attempt to understand these feelings, but it needs to be done in a way which does not constitute misunderstanding. And I think that the practise of confession was a start in that direction.. Not only does associating shame with guilt increase one's shame when the person has done wrong, but it also works the other way so that we can decrease our shame by assigning guilt to another person's wrongdoing.

To rectify this we need to allow shame, encourage the feeling to surface without prejudice, as it is those judgements of guilt we associate with shame, which cause shame to become unintelligible. Then when shame surfaces, we can deal with it by addressing the source of it, regardless of legal "responsibility".

When we refer to external vs. internal we do not mean that the causes of a feeling are on the outside or the inside. We refer to the fact that a particular emotion arises from the subject's belief in being under the gaze of a real or imagined external observer. Whether the sources are in the Oedipus complex or in social pressure is another matter. We are now at the level of description not causal analysis. In the Bible God is not internal to Adam. He is an external gaze of an external entity from whom Adam and Eve try to hide themselves. — David Mo

This doesn't address the issue, which is the issue of the internal observer. A person's own sense of God need not be describe by the Bible when we're talking about an imaginary observer, it might be described as schizophrenia. The argument was meant to show the logical problem with your internal/external division. But if that didn't help you, all you need to do is think about what we call "conscience".

If you recognize the reality of conscience you'll see that one's sense of wrong and right comes from within. Then you ought to also see that the feelings associated with the judgement "I have done wrong" are derived from this internal judgement. I believe that you already see this because you say that "guilt" is a feeling derived from such an internal judgement.

Now, you want to disassociate shame from conscience, as if shame is not derived from one's conscience, the sense of right and wrong, but is derived from one's fear of others. I have a fear of others, it's a shyness, a bashfulness, a timidity. But these feeling of shyness are completely unrelated to my feelings of shame. Shame is associated with my sense of what is right and what is wrong, and that is conscience. So I really believe that you are putting "shame" into the wrong category by classing it as a fear of others..

Everyone knows that there are criminals who feel no guilt. Everyone knows there are libertines who feel no shame. This is banal. But it does not invalidate the fact that shame and guilt exist and are different things. You do not distinguish between the necessary and the sufficient condition. Some cognitive processes are a necessary but not sufficient condition of moral emotions. That is, without them the emotion doesn't exist, but they alone are not enough to produce it. That explains your false objection. — David Mo

I am not denying a distinction between shame and guilt, I am saying that I think the way you have created the boundaries between them is incorrect. To see it my way, consider that feelings must be analyzed, and classified to be given a name. So we have a large group of unpleasant feelings involved with the recognition of something which is wrong, and we call this "shame". You are arguing that in some instances of feeling shame there is also a recognition that the wrong was caused by me, I have done wrong, and this you call the feeling of "guilt". But then you want to separate "guilt" from "shame" as if they are two distinct types of feelings, instead of one being a subcategory of the other, so you attempt to impose a faulty internal/external division between them.

But if you would simply analyze the feelings themselves, you would see that they are all internally sourced. And, you would see that the different feelings are assessed, analyzed, and judged. This act of analyzing and judging is what creates the categories of separation. So, we can see that shame involves a judgement that something is wrong, and that guilt involves a further judgement of that wrong thing, as to who is to blame for it. Neither of these requires external observers. The fact that shame can be amplified by external observes saying "guilty" is irrelevant. And, if there is a need to place a person in relation to other people (external observes), it would only come about in the second judgement, the judgement of guilt. So in reality we feel shame regardless of any individuation of different people, nor the determination of any external observers, and it is only in the determination of guilt that we need to separate ourselves from others, to assign guilt to the person who is to blame.

If you want to go deeper, to analyze "shame" itself, we might find that this feeling is rooted in an even wider category of some sort of fear of others. But we really need to take a look at "conscience" first, because we haven't distinguished "good for me" from "good" in the wider sense, and this division is critical to your supposed import, within one's feelings, of external observers. So I'm not willing to go this way with you until we have worked out a proper relationship between shame and guilt. The point is that feelings are all internally sourced, so one feeling is sourced in another feeling, as a broader category, creating types or families of feelings. If we take one type of feeling, and relate it directly to something external, as you do with "shame", then we put an end to our capacity to further the analysis. This is why I propose that we relate feelings only internally, one feeling to another, and not get distracted by relating the feeling to some supposed external observers, until we have a satisfactory principle by which the external observer can be shown to be important..

and we call this "shame". — Metaphysician Undercover

I asked you the question before and I'm asking it again. You say that "we" call shame... What "we" do you mean? I have not found in my readings a philosopher or a psychologist who speaks or defines the concept of shame as you do. And, apart from the articles that I have recommended and that you don't want to read, I can quote you at least ten leading authors from Darwin to Nussbaum that you wouldn't understand because they talk about shame in the terms that I do, not yours. It is not my creation. It is what I have always readen.

Leaving aside other statements that you unduly attribute to me, I will ask you one more crucial question. There is a feeling that comes from the fact that my self-esteem has been damaged. Another feeling arises because I have hurt someone. Where is the difference?

Leaving aside other statements that you unduly attribute to me, I will ask you one more crucial question. There is a feeling that comes from the fact that my self-esteem has been damaged. Another feeling arises because I have hurt someone. Where is the difference? — David Mo

A loss of self-esteem is a loss of confidence, self-worth. This is associated with a lack of ambition and melancholy. Hurting someone results in all sorts of different feelings. That's what I've been trying to tell you, there are all sorts of feelings which may be associated with hurting someone, so it's a mistake to claim that there is this one feeling "guilt", which arises from hurting someone.

The child is 'naughty' because he is brought into a supermarket filled with delights and expected to understand the nonsense of property rights and so on. That is what is taught, and it drives us mad. — unenlightened

I've started on a TYLEC course (basically teaching English to young learners, abroad) and we are being taught about classroom management techniques and how 'a certain level of manipulation is needed' through reward and punishment, praise and criticism.

I don't really agree with this as I see a child be 'naughty' as something created by wider (mad) society. I think there is a better way than the reward and punishment route as I see this method as further imposing the ideals of society on the student. I just don't know what the better way is yet...

Sorry, I didn't ask "how many" but "what's" the difference. You admit there's a difference but you avoid saying what it is.

I ask you in another way: can you identify some of these feelings that, according to you, arise from the consciousness of having hurt someone? Fear, love, indignation, disgust... (You can see a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_emotions#Types_of_moral_emotion ) Which can produce remorse and desire for reparation?

I don't really agree with this as I see a child be 'naughty' as something created by wider (mad) society. I think there is a better way than the reward and punishment route as I see this method as further imposing the ideals of society on the student. I just don't know what the better way is yet... — Evil

If you want to start an education thread sometime, I'll likely be all over it. in the meantime, I'll just mention J Krishnamurti, A. S. Neil, Paulo Friere, Maria Montessori, as sources for varied better traditions, in case you don't already know them.

I ask you in another way: can you identify some of these feelings that, according to you, arise from the consciousness of having hurt someone? Fear, love, indignation, disgust... (You can see a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_emotions#Types_of_moral_emotion ) Which can produce remorse and desire for reparation? — David Mo

I don't quite know what you mean by "identify" some feelings. It seems like we disagree as to what the actual feeling is, which is signified by a name, so naming feelings is rather pointless. Therefore I've tried to describe the feelings. But then you disagree with my descriptions, claiming you've never heard anyone describe feelings in this way. I'm beginning to think that you've never heard someone describe feelings, that you've only seen them named in conceptual schemes.

As I suggested earlier, I have two broad categories of feelings, feelings related to the future, anticipations, and feelings related to the past, memories. So disgust and indignation would relate to the past, the act itself, which has already occurred. The desire for reparation relates to the future. The two types of feelings are distinct, so one does not produce the other, though they are intertwining and have affects on each other.

Here's an explanation of why these two types need to be understood as distinct. Suppose I act in a way which hurts someone, and I recognize that the act was a mistake. That's the first point, to recognize the mistake as a mistake. Please do not immediately assume guilt, because "mistake" necessitates that I did something wrong, which may be an innocent mistake. If I dwell on this mistake, referencing my memory of it, this may encourage feelings such as disgust, remorse, lack of self-esteem. These feelings are not pleasant, so I need to get beyond this mistake, and that requires a plan for the future. The goal now is to get the memory out of my mind, get rid of the unpleasant memory with those unpleasant thoughts, so I am now talking about anticipatory feelings. There are two distinct avenues I can take. I can apologize and offer compensation, so that the hurt person and myself, can both get on with our lives to the best of our abilities, or, I can pretend that the mistake never happened, walk or run away from it.

Notice that the two ways of dealing with the bad memory, the mistaken action, which in this case caused hurt to another, are completely different. One way is to face the mistaken act, understand it, and do whatever is possible to repair the damage. This produces a clear conscience, allowing the ugly aspects to slip from the mind. The other way is to ignore the act, get away from it as quickly as possible, so that it can slip from the mind this way. This is the action of a person lacking in conscience. You can see that "conscience" is concerned with how I relate things which have occurred in the past to what I ought to do in the future.

The feelings involved in any such situation often involve a confliction in the conscience. That is indecisiveness. There is often a natural tendency to recoil, get away from the horrible disgusting memory as quickly as possible, because it is painful to the mind, this is a tendency to hide my mistaken action. However, the conscience tells me to face it, and deal with it properly. So there is confliction, no decision, and therefore a need to resolve, or the bad memories persist. The confliction and lack of resolution produces feelings, urging me one way or the other, but the feelings themselves conflict, due to the contradicting possibilities for resolution.

Here's how I see the significant difference between your perspective and mine. I see conscience as the feature which makes a person judge oneself as guilty. And you might agree with this. But your description proceeds to make a person's apprehension, or imagination, of an external observer the root of shame. Recognition of an external observer causes shame. But I see this imaginary, external observer, as simply a reformulated conscience. You still need a true form of conscience to justify one's own feeling of guilt, then you propose a second form of conscience as one's perceived relationship with external observers.

Therefore, in your separation of guilt from shame you really have two forms of conscience, one from within, which validates one's feeling of guilt, and another form of conscience which is the person's imagined relationship to external observers. In my perspective there is just one conscience.

So disgust and indignation would relate to the past, the act itself, which has already occurred. The desire for reparation relates to the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

The distinction you make between different feelings is irrelevant. They all have references to the past and the future. You fear a dangerous man (past) and try to avoid them (future). You are ashamed of having been seen naked (past) and avoid being seen again (future). All feelings can be remembered consciously or buried in the unconscious. Time and consciousness are not defining characteristics.

The main difference between shame, pride, guilt and other feelings is that they affect self-esteem. This is why they are called "moral emotions".

Recognition of an external observer causes shame. But I see this imaginary, external observer, as simply a reformulated conscience. — Metaphysician Undercover

With respect to shame and guilt the main difference is that shame attacks self-esteem directly while guilt only affects self-esteem through a reconsideration of the harm I have done to another person. Therefore, there is not the possibility of remorse in shame because I have not done any harm to other person. Therefore shame can have a moral content or not. I can be ashamed of my bad English spelling, for example, and this is not moral. (Moral implies a relation with other).

It is under discussion whether shame implies a form of consciousness or not. Recent studies have shown that the shame pang is instantaneously and is possible in babies (I have some doubts). In the same moment that you perceive someone seeing you in a dishonorable situation you flushed and turn away your look. May be there is a non-reflexive consciousness that implies some social or biological code, but it seems different to reflexive consciousness that provokes remorse. I think so, but it is not very clear.

he distinction you make between different feelings is irrelevant. They all have references to the past and the future. You fear a dangerous man (past) and try to avoid them (future). You are ashamed of having been seen naked (past) and avoid being seen again (future). All feelings can be remembered consciously or buried in the unconscious. Time and consciousness are not defining characteristics. — David Mo

Yes, it's true that anticipatory feelings are tied together with memorial feelings, but that does not mean the distinction is irrelevant, it just means that feelings are difficult to understand because of this complexity.

Consider your example and my response. You have hurt someone (past). The inclination to walk away and hide from this, and the inclination to face the person with apology and repentance, involve completely different feelings which are derived from the very same event. The difference between these two distinct types of feelings is not related to that particular instance of hurting someone, yet both are derived from it. The difference is completely related to your future actions in relation to that instance, how you will respond.

With respect to shame and guilt the main difference is that shame attacks self-esteem directly while guilt only affects self-esteem through a reconsideration of the harm I have done to another person. Therefore, there is not the possibility of remorse in shame because I have not done any harm to other person. Therefore shame can have a moral content or not. I can be ashamed of my bad English spelling, for example, and this is not moral. (Moral implies a relation with other). — David Mo

It really makes no sense to say there is no shame in the recognition that I have hurt another person, that there is only guilt in this apprehension. That's nonsense, and it makes far more sense to follow my model in which there are both types of feelings involved here, feelings associated with shame, and feelings associated with guilt. Shame is involved with walking away from, or hiding the event, and guilt involves facing the event and addressing it. Both types of feelings are derived from the conscience in a consistent manner, but it is confliction within the conscience which causes conflicted feelings.

Also, the idea that there is shame without reconsideration of the event is consistent with what I've said, and it does not actually support your position. Shame is consequent upon the recognition that something is wrong, deprivation in the present situation, and it does not require a memory of the cause of this, or even an identification of exactly what it is that is wrong. That's why shame is involved with walking away from, or hiding from, a bad situation, which may be a mistaken action. In its naked form, shame is an innocence in the sense of an incomprehensible discomfort, within an unknowing naivety.

It requires a further judgement of conscience to produce guilt from shame. Guilt involves the recognition that the cause of shame, hiding the deprived situation, or hiding from the deprived situation, recoiling into one's own presumed innocence, or naivety, is itself something wrong, a pretense. That is what forms the relation between shame and guilt, the recognition that shame indicates hidden knowledge which it is wrong to hide, disguised as naivety.. Pretending that I didn't see what I saw, that I don't know what I know, or that I didn't do what I did, is judged as wrong, a self-deception, dishonesty, and this is the judgement of guilt which inclines us to face the problem. Therefore guilt is a possible, but not necessary, consequence of shame. And the two cannot be separated in the way that you suggest.

If shame is, as you say, involved with external observation, this itself, is a reconsideration of the event, and that's an inconsistency in your description..