Shame as a feature of morality

[S.A.M.]

What happens when there is no sense of shame?

Can some one who feels no shame at his or her actions ever understand the difference between right or wrong?

If there is no shame, is there any sense of guilt or wrongdoing?

In the absence of shame, is anything unethical?

 

[John99]

one person alone would not experience shame. once there are at least two people then the individual can experience shame.

conscience is a singular attribute. alone and no shame is, i believe normal, alone and no conscience is not normal.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Surely you need a conscience to feel shame?
Any evidence to support your contention?

 

[John99]

i think that shame is artificial, it is a front to portray to others and humans dont really care about shame. look at when you are alone, barring anything extreme shame is not even taken into consideration.

alone i would still have a conscience. but shame is meaningless when alone. and it also depends on how much we care about the other individual who is present when we would feel shame.

artificial is not really accurate though.

 

[John99]

sure, shame is someone else holding you back and conscience is yourself holding you back when you should be held back.

 

[John99]

i can teach an animal shame but never could i teach an animal to have a conscience. it just isnt there.

 

[James R]

What happens when there is no sense of shame?

Then you have a sociopath.

Can some one who feels no shame at his or her actions ever understand the difference between right or wrong?

Intellectually, yes. But I doubt they can internalise any reason for why they ought to do right rather than wrong, other than at the level of self-interest.

If there is no shame, is there any sense of guilt or wrongdoing?

I doubt it.

In the absence of shame, is anything unethical?

Sure. Take the utilitarian view, for example. That only looks at outcomes. Intentions and emotions are irrelevant.

 

[S.A.M.]

i can teach an animal shame but never could i teach an animal to have a conscience. it just isnt there.

I don't think you can teach an animal shame. You can teach an animal that certain actions have consequences but the animal won't feel shame, just try to accomodate you so as to avoid the consequences

If there are no consequences, you cannot really teach an animal that bad dog = wrong deed

Sure. Take the utilitarian view, for example. That only looks at outcomes. Intentions and emotions are irrelevant.

Exactly. So if I want to make a lot of money, everything is justified. Even war and torture. I can also make sure I use my power to make myself unaccountable to law.

Self interest before justice

 

[Dywyddyr]

i think that shame is artificial, it is a front to portray to others and humans dont really care about shame.

You think?
Any evidence?

look at when you are alone, barring anything extreme shame is not even taken into consideration.

Wrong.

shame is meaningless when alone.

Wrong.

i can teach an animal shame

I doubt it.

 

[quadraphonics]

Exactly. So if I want to make a lot of money, everything is justified. Even war and torture. I can also make sure I use my power to make myself unaccountable to law.

Self interest before justice

That is pointedly not the utilitarian view of ethics that James was referring to.

 

[James R]

So if I want to make a lot of money, everything is justified. Even war and torture. I can also make sure I use my power to make myself unaccountable to law.

Self interest before justice

That's a strange use of the word "justified". It certainly is not morally justified, so I guess you're using the term in some other sense. The sociopath may think it is justified, so if that's what you're talking about we don't disagree.

 

[Slysoon]

What happens when there is no sense of shame?

When there is no sense of shame, there is no sense of honor. As H. L. Mencken once said, "Honor is simply the morality of superior men".

 

[S.A.M.]

That is pointedly not the utilitarian view of ethics that James was referring to.

Really? Who determines what the utilitarian view is for me?

That's a strange use of the word "justified". It certainly is not morally justified, so I guess you're using the term in some other sense. The sociopath may think it is justified, so if that's what you're talking about we don't disagree.

By whose standards? The world's? I see my definition more applicable then yours. How come?

 

[quadraphonics]

Really? Who determines what the utilitarian view is for me?

The philosophers who spent their careers figuring it out determine the content of utilitarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

If you want to come up with some alternative system of ethics, well, that's fine. But you can't call it "utilitarianism," since that word is already taken.

 

[Gustav]

And like any ethical theory, the application of utilitarianism is heavily dependent on the moral agent's full range of wisdom, experience, social skills, and life skills. (link)


so lets ask what sam's skills are

/snigger

 

[James R]

SAM:

You're tying yourself in knots with your knee-jerk responses. Take some time to work out what you want to say. When you're ready, try again and try to make sense.

 

[S.A.M.]

The philosophers who spent their careers figuring it out determine the content of utilitarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

If you want to come up with some alternative system of ethics, well, that's fine. But you can't call it "utilitarianism," since that word is already taken.

Since when has one gone back to the philosophers to understand morality?

Can you point out to an example of where utilitariansim has replaced shame without the necessary power play I described? Isn't philosophy also an understanding of what is, rather than what you think it should be? A definition created under a paradigm where shame is present may not be applicable once shame is discarded. We are assuming that lack of shame would result in the persistence of a recognition of wrongdoing or mutual good

Where is the evidence of that?

And like any ethical theory, the application of utilitarianism is heavily dependent on the moral agent's full range of wisdom, experience, social skills, and life skills. (link)


so lets ask what sam's skills are

/snigger

Indeed. What are these skills? What assumption makes them inherent? At what range of wisdom, experience, social and life skills do we say "There is a sucker born every minute"?

Mill's argument for utilitarianism holds that pleasure is the only thing desired and that, therefore, pleasure is the only thing desirable.

To what lengths would people go to maintain a system of pleasure? Would they look away from the consequences of their necessary exploitation of others? Perhaps even de-humanise them? Ban graphic representation of pain and suffering that interferes with their comfort? Avoid any mention of it in their day to day existence? Use words that undermine a recognition that real suffering is resulting elsewhere and block out any recognition of it so to convince themselves of the righteousness of their own position?

If one does not admit to the suffering and destruction one causes for others, did it happen?

Isn't ethical egoism a natural consequence of discarding shame and embracing overt individualism? link

 

[swarm]

What happens when there is no sense of shame?

S.A.M.

Can some one who feels no shame at his or her actions ever understand the difference between right or wrong?

She doesn't seem to.

If there is no shame, is there any sense of guilt or wrongdoing?

Doesn't seem to be

In the absence of shame, is anything unethical?

Of course. Simply because she doesn't understand, that doesn't mean that what she does isn't still unethical.

 

[quadraphonics]

Since when has one gone back to the philosophers to understand morality?

Since always, in my book. But the issue was more limited: we were talking about Utilitarianism, which is a specific theory of ethics created by philosophers. You don't get to redefine it, particularly without any apparent attempt at understanding its contents in the first place.

Can you point out to an example of where utilitariansim has replaced shame without the necessary power play I described?

You aren't making any sense.

 

[James R]

SAM:

Since when has one gone back to the philosophers to understand morality?

How else do you propose to understand it. It is a fundamentally philosophical question.

Can you point out to an example of where utilitariansim has replaced shame without the necessary power play I described?

You missed the point. Utilitarianism considers shame along with everything else in evaluating the outcomes of actions.

Mill's argument for utilitarianism holds that pleasure is the only thing desired and that, therefore, pleasure is the only thing desirable.
To what lengths would people go to maintain a system of pleasure? Would they look away from the consequences of their necessary exploitation of others? Perhaps even de-humanise them? Ban graphic representation of pain and suffering that interferes with their comfort? Avoid any mention of it in their day to day existence? Use words that undermine a recognition that real suffering is resulting elsewhere and block out any recognition of it so to convince themselves of the righteousness of their own position?

Go away and get yourself a basic understanding of what Utilitarianism is. Then you'll be able to easily answer your own questions.

Where's the rest of Mills' argument? I assume you extracted that quote from a fuller description of Utilitarian philosophy. Didn't you read the rest? Or did you not understand it?

Isn't ethical egoism a natural consequence of discarding shame and embracing overt individualism? link

You tell me. Do you understand ethical egoism to the same degree that you understand Utilitarianism? If so, I wouldn't place much stock in your assessments of it.