Guilt - Revision history

Pestergaines: +link

2014-02-04T23:16:18Z

+link

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 4 February 2014
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==References==		==References==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}

			==Links==
			* {{w\|Guilt (emotion)}} on Wikipedia

	[[Category:Concepts]]		[[Category:Concepts]]
	{{Stub}}		{{Stub}}

Pestergaines: Polished, removed some editorializing; +stub

2014-02-04T23:12:25Z

Polished, removed some editorializing; +stub

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 4 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Guilt''' or '''remorse''' is an emotion that occurs when a person feels that his behavior has fallen short of what his own ethical principles called for him to do (or not do). It is a form of regret. [[Ayn Rand]] placed a great deal of emphasis on guilt as a means of controlling people, and titled chapter 19 of ''Atlas Shrugged'' "The Face Without Pain or Fear or Guilt." One of her characters stated, "The worst guilt is to accept an undeserved guilt".		'''Guilt''' or '''remorse''' is an emotion that occurs when a person feels that his behavior has fallen short of what his own ethical principles called for him to do (or not do). It is a form of regret.

	~~It is not possible for~~ a ~~person to cause another person to feel~~ guilt~~, except by getting that person to both (1) accept a moral precept~~ as ~~valid and (2) believe that he has fallen short of that standard. This is a quite different matter from impelling a person to feel regret that does not involve~~ a ~~sense~~ of ~~guilt. A government can, for instance~~, ~~punish a person for smoking cannabis~~ and ~~thereby, in some cases, impel him to feel regret for using the drug (~~or ~~at least, for getting caught)~~. ~~However~~, ~~the government cannot make him feel guilty without getting him~~ to ~~believe that what he did was wrong~~.		==Interpretations==
			[[Ayn Rand]] placed a great deal of emphasis on guilt as a means of controlling people, and titled chapter 19 of ''Atlas Shrugged'' "The Face Without Pain or Fear or Guilt." One of her characters stated, "The worst guilt is to accept an undeserved guilt".

	George H. Smith, in ''Atheism: The Case Against God'', writes that people can be controlled by either physical or psychological sanctions: "A physical sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of fear. A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt. A man motivated by fear may still retain an element of rebelliousness, of determination to strike back given the opportunity. A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question."<ref>{{cite book\|title=Atheism: The Case Against God\|author=Smith, George H.\|pages=173\|chapter=Religious Morality\|url=http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/SMITH_The_Case_Against-God.htm}}</ref>		George H. Smith, in ''Atheism: The Case Against God'', writes that people can be controlled by either physical or psychological sanctions: "A physical sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of fear. A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt. A man motivated by fear may still retain an element of rebelliousness, of determination to strike back given the opportunity. A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question."<ref>{{cite book\|title=Atheism: The Case Against God\|author=Smith, George H.\|pages=173\|chapter=Religious Morality\|url=http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/SMITH_The_Case_Against-God.htm}}</ref>
Line 16:		Line 17:

	[[Category:Concepts]]		[[Category:Concepts]]
			{{Stub}}

FormerContributor-78162cb3: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/SMITH_The_Case_Against-God.htm

2014-02-03T06:56:10Z

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/SMITH_The_Case_Against-God.htm

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:56, 3 February 2014
Line 3:		Line 3:
	It is not possible for a person to cause another person to feel guilt, except by getting that person to both (1) accept a moral precept as valid and (2) believe that he has fallen short of that standard. This is a quite different matter from impelling a person to feel regret that does not involve a sense of guilt. A government can, for instance, punish a person for smoking cannabis and thereby, in some cases, impel him to feel regret for using the drug (or at least, for getting caught). However, the government cannot make him feel guilty without getting him to believe that what he did was wrong.		It is not possible for a person to cause another person to feel guilt, except by getting that person to both (1) accept a moral precept as valid and (2) believe that he has fallen short of that standard. This is a quite different matter from impelling a person to feel regret that does not involve a sense of guilt. A government can, for instance, punish a person for smoking cannabis and thereby, in some cases, impel him to feel regret for using the drug (or at least, for getting caught). However, the government cannot make him feel guilty without getting him to believe that what he did was wrong.

	George H. Smith, in ''Atheism: The Case Against God'', writes that people can be controlled by either physical or psychological sanctions: "A physical sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of fear. A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt. A man motivated by fear may still retain an element of rebelliousness, of determination to strike back given the opportunity. A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question."<ref>{{cite book\|title=Atheism: The Case Against God\|author=Smith, George H.\|pages=173\|chapter=Religious Morality}}</ref>		George H. Smith, in ''Atheism: The Case Against God'', writes that people can be controlled by either physical or psychological sanctions: "A physical sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of fear. A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt. A man motivated by fear may still retain an element of rebelliousness, of determination to strike back given the opportunity. A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question."<ref>{{cite book\|title=Atheism: The Case Against God\|author=Smith, George H.\|pages=173\|chapter=Religious Morality\|url=http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/SMITH_The_Case_Against-God.htm}}</ref>

	Shame and guilt sometimes, but not always coincide; either can exist independently of the other. A person can feel ashamed of an act that he regards as foolish but not morally wrong, without feeling guilt. He can also feel guilty about committing an immoral act without feeling shame, for example if he does not care about the opinion of others or if others do not know about the act that he committed.		Shame and guilt sometimes, but not always coincide; either can exist independently of the other. A person can feel ashamed of an act that he regards as foolish but not morally wrong, without feeling guilt. He can also feel guilty about committing an immoral act without feeling shame, for example if he does not care about the opinion of others or if others do not know about the act that he committed.

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Courts */

2012-08-11T11:43:55Z

Courts

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:43, 11 August 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:
	In some jurisdictions, governmental courts can consider a defendant's remorse (or lack thereof) as a factor relevant to sentencing for criminal offenses. It could be considered relevant to his risk of re-offending; if he is likely to commit a new crime, then the court might deem it appropriate to protect society by imprisoning him for a longer period of time.<ref>{{uscsub\|18\|3553\|a}}</ref> Of course, there can be epistemological problems involved in determining the defendant's level of remorse; for example, he might make an insincere statement of regret in allocution. Sometimes his remorse or lack thereof can be inferred from his behavior, such as attempting to make amends for his behavior or engaging in similar criminal behavior. However, these actions too could be done with the intention of giving the court a certain impression, rather than out of genuine remorse.		In some jurisdictions, governmental courts can consider a defendant's remorse (or lack thereof) as a factor relevant to sentencing for criminal offenses. It could be considered relevant to his risk of re-offending; if he is likely to commit a new crime, then the court might deem it appropriate to protect society by imprisoning him for a longer period of time.<ref>{{uscsub\|18\|3553\|a}}</ref> Of course, there can be epistemological problems involved in determining the defendant's level of remorse; for example, he might make an insincere statement of regret in allocution. Sometimes his remorse or lack thereof can be inferred from his behavior, such as attempting to make amends for his behavior or engaging in similar criminal behavior. However, these actions too could be done with the intention of giving the court a certain impression, rather than out of genuine remorse.

	The courts' giving defendants extra prison time for lack of remorse could be considered an infringement of [[freedom of thought]]. As mentioned above, a defendant could quite easily feel regret, but not remorse, for his crime. His fear of future punishment might suffice to deter him from further lawbreaking. A defendant could also feel genuine remorse and yet still re-offend, if he succumbs to temptation or changes his mind about his ethical principles later. In a libertarian judicial system, the plaintiff might consider his perceptions of the defendant's level of regret in deciding how strict or forgiving to be in exacting restitution.		The courts' giving defendants extra prison time for lack of remorse could be considered an infringement of [[freedom of thought]]. As mentioned above, a defendant could quite easily feel regret, but not remorse, for his crime. His fear of future punishment might suffice to deter him from further lawbreaking. A defendant could also feel genuine remorse and yet still re-offend, if he succumbs to temptation or changes his mind about his ethical principles later. In a libertarian judicial system, the plaintiff might consider his perceptions of the defendant's level of regret in deciding how strict or forgiving to be in exacting restitution.<ref>{{cite book\|quote=Assuming the aggressor could not make immediate payment of his entire debt, the method used to collect it would depend on the amount involved, the nature of the aggression, the aggressor's past record and present attitude, and any other pertinent variables.\|title=The Market for Liberty\|chapter=Rectification of Injustice\|pages=101\|author=Tannehill, Morris and Linda\|date=1970}}</ref>

	==References==		==References==

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 11:40, 11 August 2012

2012-08-11T11:40:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:40, 11 August 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Shame and guilt sometimes, but not always coincide; either can exist independently of the other. A person can feel ashamed of an act that he regards as foolish but not morally wrong, without feeling guilt. He can also feel guilty about committing an immoral act without feeling shame, for example if he does not care about the opinion of others or if others do not know about the act that he committed.		Shame and guilt sometimes, but not always coincide; either can exist independently of the other. A person can feel ashamed of an act that he regards as foolish but not morally wrong, without feeling guilt. He can also feel guilty about committing an immoral act without feeling shame, for example if he does not care about the opinion of others or if others do not know about the act that he committed.

	In some jurisdictions, governmental courts can consider a defendant's remorse (or lack thereof) as a factor relevant to sentencing for criminal offenses. It could be considered relevant to his risk of re-offending; if he is likely to commit a new crime, then the court might deem it appropriate to protect society by imprisoning him for a longer period of time.<ref>{{uscsub\|18\|3553\|a}}</ref> Of course, there can be epistemological problems involved in determining the defendant's level of remorse; for example, he might make an insincere statement of regret in allocution. Sometimes his remorse or lack thereof can be inferred from his behavior, such as attempting to make amends for his behavior or engaging in similar criminal behavior. In a libertarian judicial system, the plaintiff might consider his perceptions of the defendant's level of regret in deciding how strict or forgiving to be in exacting restitution.		==Courts==
			In some jurisdictions, governmental courts can consider a defendant's remorse (or lack thereof) as a factor relevant to sentencing for criminal offenses. It could be considered relevant to his risk of re-offending; if he is likely to commit a new crime, then the court might deem it appropriate to protect society by imprisoning him for a longer period of time.<ref>{{uscsub\|18\|3553\|a}}</ref> Of course, there can be epistemological problems involved in determining the defendant's level of remorse; for example, he might make an insincere statement of regret in allocution. Sometimes his remorse or lack thereof can be inferred from his behavior, such as attempting to make amends for his behavior or engaging in similar criminal behavior. However, these actions too could be done with the intention of giving the court a certain impression, rather than out of genuine remorse.

			The courts' giving defendants extra prison time for lack of remorse could be considered an infringement of [[freedom of thought]]. As mentioned above, a defendant could quite easily feel regret, but not remorse, for his crime. His fear of future punishment might suffice to deter him from further lawbreaking. A defendant could also feel genuine remorse and yet still re-offend, if he succumbs to temptation or changes his mind about his ethical principles later. In a libertarian judicial system, the plaintiff might consider his perceptions of the defendant's level of regret in deciding how strict or forgiving to be in exacting restitution.

	==References==		==References==

FormerContributor-78162cb3: smith

2012-08-11T11:35:56Z

smith

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 11 August 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:

	It is not possible for a person to cause another person to feel guilt, except by getting that person to both (1) accept a moral precept as valid and (2) believe that he has fallen short of that standard. This is a quite different matter from impelling a person to feel regret that does not involve a sense of guilt. A government can, for instance, punish a person for smoking cannabis and thereby, in some cases, impel him to feel regret for using the drug (or at least, for getting caught). However, the government cannot make him feel guilty without getting him to believe that what he did was wrong.		It is not possible for a person to cause another person to feel guilt, except by getting that person to both (1) accept a moral precept as valid and (2) believe that he has fallen short of that standard. This is a quite different matter from impelling a person to feel regret that does not involve a sense of guilt. A government can, for instance, punish a person for smoking cannabis and thereby, in some cases, impel him to feel regret for using the drug (or at least, for getting caught). However, the government cannot make him feel guilty without getting him to believe that what he did was wrong.

			George H. Smith, in ''Atheism: The Case Against God'', writes that people can be controlled by either physical or psychological sanctions: "A physical sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of fear. A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt. A man motivated by fear may still retain an element of rebelliousness, of determination to strike back given the opportunity. A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question."<ref>{{cite book\|title=Atheism: The Case Against God\|author=Smith, George H.\|pages=173\|chapter=Religious Morality}}</ref>

	Shame and guilt sometimes, but not always coincide; either can exist independently of the other. A person can feel ashamed of an act that he regards as foolish but not morally wrong, without feeling guilt. He can also feel guilty about committing an immoral act without feeling shame, for example if he does not care about the opinion of others or if others do not know about the act that he committed.		Shame and guilt sometimes, but not always coincide; either can exist independently of the other. A person can feel ashamed of an act that he regards as foolish but not morally wrong, without feeling guilt. He can also feel guilty about committing an immoral act without feeling shame, for example if he does not care about the opinion of others or if others do not know about the act that he committed.

FormerContributor-78162cb3: Created page with "'''Guilt''' or '''remorse''' is an emotion that occurs when a person feels that his behavior has fallen short of what his own ethical principles called for him to do (or not d..."

2012-08-11T11:30:53Z

Created page with "'''Guilt''' or '''remorse''' is an emotion that occurs when a person feels that his behavior has fallen short of what his own ethical principles called for him to do (or not d..."

New page

'''Guilt''' or '''remorse''' is an emotion that occurs when a person feels that his behavior has fallen short of what his own ethical principles called for him to do (or not do). It is a form of regret. [[Ayn Rand]] placed a great deal of emphasis on guilt as a means of controlling people, and titled chapter 19 of ''Atlas Shrugged'' "The Face Without Pain or Fear or Guilt." One of her characters stated, "The worst guilt is to accept an undeserved guilt".

It is not possible for a person to cause another person to feel guilt, except by getting that person to both (1) accept a moral precept as valid and (2) believe that he has fallen short of that standard. This is a quite different matter from impelling a person to feel regret that does not involve a sense of guilt. A government can, for instance, punish a person for smoking cannabis and thereby, in some cases, impel him to feel regret for using the drug (or at least, for getting caught). However, the government cannot make him feel guilty without getting him to believe that what he did was wrong.

Shame and guilt sometimes, but not always coincide; either can exist independently of the other. A person can feel ashamed of an act that he regards as foolish but not morally wrong, without feeling guilt. He can also feel guilty about committing an immoral act without feeling shame, for example if he does not care about the opinion of others or if others do not know about the act that he committed.

In some jurisdictions, governmental courts can consider a defendant's remorse (or lack thereof) as a factor relevant to sentencing for criminal offenses. It could be considered relevant to his risk of re-offending; if he is likely to commit a new crime, then the court might deem it appropriate to protect society by imprisoning him for a longer period of time.<ref>{{uscsub|18|3553|a}}</ref> Of course, there can be epistemological problems involved in determining the defendant's level of remorse; for example, he might make an insincere statement of regret in allocution. Sometimes his remorse or lack thereof can be inferred from his behavior, such as attempting to make amends for his behavior or engaging in similar criminal behavior. In a libertarian judicial system, the plaintiff might consider his perceptions of the defendant's level of regret in deciding how strict or forgiving to be in exacting restitution.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Concepts]]