Shame as a feature of morality

[S.A.M.]

If anyone wants to discuss the topic of the OP feel free to pop in.

I'm interested in the proposition that a lack of shame is indicative of a lack of conscience and hence identification of any behaviour as ethical or unethical.

Some more background, to clarify my meaning:

Shame is usually derived from an external source, ie appropabation from family, school and peer.

Shame is the recognition of personal failure to meet expected standards.

Although some psychologists see shame as similar to guilt, I prefer Erikson's evaluation of the two as separate.

The way I see it, shame requires an external agency, but guilt does not.

Guilt is an internal phenomenon that arises from a self assessment based on internalised moral precepts.

However, I do believe that shame and guilt are linked in that they both require a recognition that moral precepts exist.

I believe it is possible to feel guilt without shame, and shame without guilt.

I disagree with Erikson that shame results from an inability to resolve psychosocial issues in childhood, I think thats a cop out.

I think its more that realism leads to an acceptance that moral precepts are flexible and often conflict with goals and can hence be set aside.

For some people this realism is combined with an idealism where such precepts are descriptive of desired characteristics of a moral being and hence in company where such precepts are considered necessary to civilised society the idealist would feel shame.

What happens though, when the entire social milieu is based on the "so what" morality? When the moral precepts are only mouthed but not followed? In such a milieu the desired characteristics become superficial and there are other priorities which gain precedence. Then, it is unlikely that there would be shame. e.g. when it is acceptable that people commit mass murder for righteous ends, then for all those who prescribe to this morality, there is no shame in murder, in fact, there is recognition of who is good at it and such men may well sit down and recount stories of their exploits.

To extend this decline of shame to a blurring of the line between ethical and unethical, we can take other issues that have changed over time, either way, i.e. become more shameful or less.

More shameful:

- it was at one time considered not shameful to engage in sodomy with young boys.

- in Greek societies and perhaps Roman ones [as well as many others] deformed children were discarded as unacceptable

- a belief in the superiority of one caste/race over others


Less shameful:

- being a homosexual in Christian societies

- aborting a child

- having sex before marriage

- Letterman's admission of having sex with his co-workers


So once again, does shame define what is considered moral? Does a decline in shame precede a decline in ethics?

Does a lack of shame indicate an inability to differentiate between ethical and unethical?

Readings:

Psychosocial Theory: Erikson

Guilt, shame and morality [requires subscription]

Psychological foundations of moral education and character development [excerpts provided by Google books]

When the Conscience Falls Silent and Shame Dies Out [translated from the Russian]

Top 10 reasons why David Letterman's sex saga is not funny

 

[James R]

So once again, does shame define what is considered moral?

Personally, I think it is the other way round. The morals come first. Good people feel ashamed of acting immorally.

 

[ejderha]

You are reducing and sterilising a complicated, messy, socio-cultural concept to the point of zero, by the means of scientific sources and dictionary definitions. Again.

What's a 'shame' in one culture simply not in an another. It's a live, changing concept. Not only what we feel, but what's considered as.

'Shame' from another angle:

In my country and in most of the underdeveloped countries, 'honour killings' are a very big problem. I hate use the word honour related this subject, but there is not another term I am aware of. Anyway, probably most of you are familiar with the situation. It's a murder of a young female by his close male relatives (mostly brothers and fathers could be uncles, husbands...) as punishment for bringing any family 'shame'. Those sick fucks claim that they do not feel any shame or regret, because they actually did it to 'clean' their 'names' from 'shame'. In some rare occasions if a the chosen male refuses to do the deed or help the woman, he is murdered too. Now most of the governments cannot do much about it, because they don't get the needed sanction in or out of the prison. And no, it's not just a simple problem of making the laws applicable. It's encouraged by society and the culture. It's a 'shame' this cannot be stopped.

Another horrible one. In some countries, girls are circumsized in the name of tradition and religion. Again, how can the word 'circumcision' be in use for this, I have no idea. Their genitals partly crippled at early age, so they wouldn't have pleasure from sex and be a faithful mothers/wifes for the rest of their lives. It's a 'shame' for girls and their families not go under this -I don't know what to call it- this blood freezing event, even though, it's been illegal now in some countries for more than 10 years. Again, no, you cannot stop this by laws. It's a 'shame' this cannot be stopped.

Now, 'shame' is something you need to teach to your child along with the means to have conscience.
People learn what's 'shameful' or not by seeing adults acting-reacting under certain circumstances when they are children.

I don't want to even talk about raped women & children who survived to continue lives in every country & culture.

And most these victims wouldn't know what to do and feel 'shame' and 'guilty' as a result if they survive.
Please do not tweak my sentence to ask me how would I know what they feel? It's a compilcated human feeling, and it's not something we feel only related to other members of the society or solely related to them. We cannot claim to have no 'shame' as a result of decision. Nor we can claim to have it by philosophical inquiry.

 

[S.A.M.]

I know shame is different in different societies. I am not talking about specific instances of shame. I am talking about shame as a feature of morality and how a decline in shame can be representative of decline in moral accountability. Does that clarify it?

To give a more relevant example, think about yourself. The things which other people in your society feel shame about and you don't, does this mean that your ability to distinguish between good and bad is out of sync with your society? It is different? You do not see as shameful and hence you do not see it as bad or good?

Also do you see as shameful something that your society does not? Would you feel shame even if they did not? Does this mean you identify it as bad and hence feel shame?

 

[ejderha]

I've been thinking about this.I don't know

shame as a feature of morality and how a decline in shame can be representative of decline in moral accountability.

Again, too much culture dynamics in the way.

I have almost zero tolerance to the people practising religions. Especially women. I don't respect them in the sense of caring about their political or social thoughts. But I do care about every human being in the sense of humanity and defend their rights, again including those women.

I am not ashamed of myself. I claim, it's not a shame. But as in general morality, it's a shame that I don't respect them. Am I considered unreliable? Does my 'decline' of shame is an example of "representative of decline in moral accountability"?

 

[S.A.M.]

I've been thinking about this.I don't know



Again, too much culture dynamics in the way.

I have almost zero tolerance to the people practising religions. Especially women. I don't respect them in the sense of caring about their political or social thoughts. But I do care about every human being in the sense of humanity and defend their rights, again including those women.

I am not ashamed of myself. I claim, it's not a shame. But as in general morality, it's a shame that I don't respect them. Am I considered unreliable? Does my 'decline' of shame is an example of "representative of decline in moral accountability"?

Do you feel accountable for the things you no longer feel shame about?

I don't know either that is why I am asking [if you recall, I am a shameless hussy]

 

[ejderha]

Do you feel accountable for the things you no longer feel shame about?

I don't know either that is why I am asking

(Are you in love with a white American Jew? )


If you can see every angle, you might judge yourself and feel bad about it but also accept yourself as it is.

Well, there is a certain morality accepted to a person. But to make a comparison between the personal and the communal one, we need to set a general concept.

Perhaps, it's about the means of being an individual. And how your opinions/feelings contradict to yourself and to the society.

 

[ejderha]

I like shameless hussy people. It's good to contradict yourself. I am a mountain of contradiction. If I don't feel contradiction about the world, regarding any sides, I would be a bigot. How can you concretely be in one side or one sort of behaviour?

 

[S.A.M.]

(Are you in love with a white American Jew? )

Several, starting with Phil Weiss. Whats the connection?

If you can see every angle, you might judge yourself and feel bad about it but also accept yourself as it is.

You mean even though you're not ashamed, you're still able to feel bad?
Hmm doesn't sound familiar. I usually get pissed and then figure I should find a solution or fuggeaboutit

Well, there is a certain morality accepted to a person. But to make a comparison between the personal and the communal one, we need to set a general concept.

Perhaps, it's about the means of being an individual. And how your opinions/feelings contradict to yourself and to the society.

How would that work? For example, I've lived in Asia, the Middle East and the US. As a Muslim who has her own notions of Islam, I often come into contact with other Muslims who disagree with me. Luckily after heated debates most of them agree to disagree [I am not illiterate either about Islam or the Qur'an]

So the general reaction has been, okay, do what you want. How does that work in your notion of shame and morality?

 

[ejderha]

Several, starting with Phil Weiss. Whats the connection?

I was jokingly imply that could be your contradiction. I am bad at trying to be funny.

You mean even though you're not ashamed, you're still able to feel bad?
Hmm doesn't sound familiar. I usually get pissed and then figure I should find a solution or fuggeaboutit

Why? It's not black or white. I genuinly feel the contradiction in my previous post. I feel bad about it. Heck, I live it.

Don't you think, it's possible that you feel conflicted overall, because you are Muslim? And what's wrong about feeling that?

How would that work? For example, I've lived in Asia, the Middle East and the US. As a Muslim who has her own notions of Islam, I often come into contact with other Muslims who disagree with me. Luckily after heated debates most of them agree to disagree [I am not illiterate either about Islam or the Qur'an]

How do you manage that? It's not related to being illiterate about the religion, nor the book. I personally cannot relate to it, because it's accepted as divine word from the creator. I honestly can't understand this. It's undebatable. And I am not conflicted by this, because it's not something to discuss. But if you believe it's debatable, for me it's so normal that you wold feel contradicted. Them, agreeing to disagree is a self defense mechanism Sam. Every theist and religious people do that. Or curse you to hell.

So the general reaction has been, okay, do what you want. How does that work in your notion of shame and morality?

"Do what you want" is something completely different. Me being contradicted doesn't allow me to step over basic humaine laws and rights. I don't respect a fascist/racist, I don't respect a sexist no matter how honest, hard working person she/he is.
But when I feel a sudden violent urge like "kill that excuse of a human being" in face of a horrible event, I am contradicted, because that puts me in the same place with the one I hate. It's my feeling. It's not a thing to define me, nor my morality.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't respect a fascist/racist, I don't respect a sexist no matter how honest, hard working person she/he is.
But when I feel a sudden violent urge like "kill that excuse of a human being" in face of a horrible event, I am contradicted, because that puts me in the same place with the one I hate. It's my feeling. It's not a thing to define me, nor my morality.

The way I see it, its perfectly normal to feel like that [see thread "What would it take for you to kill without guilt?"]

Seeing an act of extreme violence against an innocent. If I had a weapon in my hand, I would use it without remorse. Of course, I would have to be very very pissed.

 

[ejderha]

Originally Posted by S.A.M.
Seeing an act of extreme violence against an innocent. If I had a weapon in my hand, I would use it without remorse. Of course, I would have to be very very pissed.

I don't believe it's that easy, no matter how I wish it was.

Could we know that, any of us, without being in the exact situation?

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't believe it's that easy, no matter how I wish it was.

Could we know that, any of us, without being in the exact situation?

Well I haven't killed anyone yet, but I thrashed a helluva lot of morons, in my hey days.

And no I never felt any shame or remorse. I'd do it again, but I'm older and not as easily pissed nowadays.

/sigh

note: I have to say though, that on all of those occasions, I was supported by the people around, including the cops when I called them. So its not exactly an act that would have casued shame since it wasn't considered wrong to bash assholes who sexually harassed girls/

 

[ejderha]

I feel like I could do something horrible if I witness a horrible thing happening to a child. My only experience is throwing perverts out of a dolmuş or a bus. (Dolmuş, a little bus like vehicle) And felt no remorse.
I don't believe that 'I'd kill' felt in an extreme situation is something definite to say without being in the situation. To feel that way and to do is at least that I believe must be all together different.
May be not shame, but you can perfectly feel remorse, disgust. It could be actually a perfect example for the OP questions. It's an organic thing. Ending a life. I can't even imagine it, Sam.

 

[S.A.M.]

I agree with you.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

Speak for yourself. There are certain actions I have taken in the past of which I am ashamed. No one criticised me for them at the time, or in truth even noticed what I had, or had not done. However, since those actions, or inactions were contrary to my prefered behaviour I feel shame when I reflect on them. Your statement may apply to you, but it is certainly not a universal.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

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

I think it's the other way round. A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong can feel no shame because he can never realize that he has done something shameful.

Shame is nothing more or less than an unpleasant emotion resulting from the knowledge that one has done something wrong. So shame and the sense of right and wrong are inextricable.

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

Don't get caught up in human hubris. Many pack-social species have at least a rudimentary sense of right and wrong because it's essential to the survival of the pack. Dolphins and wild Canis species commit acts of selfless heroism often enough to be documented.

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

I'm not going to get caught up in this argument over the definition of utilitarianism--I've resisted the temptation to even look it up in the dictionary, much less Wikipedia.

But depending on the details of your particular psychosis, you might, for example, feel a sense of respect or gratitude toward the organism we call civilization, without having similar feelings toward the cells that comprise it, i.e., us. So you might dutifully recycle your trash but feel no shame after absentmindedly running over the trashman on your way out of your driveway.

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

The typical pointless wisdom we can expect from professional philosophers.

Pleasure is the second-order effect of things that happen or things we do, to ourselves, to others, or to any other components of the universe. To say that I desire pleasure is to say nothing meaningful, merely that I didn't come out of the factory wired wrong so that I prefer physical or emotional pain to pleasure.

Woo hoo, such useful dialog. How did we ever get along without philosophers?

The important question is, what things give me pleasure? Is there a social dimension to it? Am I pleased by people liking me, by my friends and family being happy, by people I don't know being happy? Or am I a psycho who is indifferent to the feelings of others?

Ya see, preferring pleasure to pain doesn't really even settle the question of whether I'm wired right!

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?

It's been said that left-liberals aren't fully happy so long as there's one child suffering somewhere on Earth. Even for less extreme individuals, it's the act of exploiting others that causes us displeasure (and ultimately shame), not just the consequences of that act. If I take advantage of someone and I happen to be lucky because it ends up not causing him any harm, I am still ashamed of myself for doing it!

I'm interested in the proposition that a lack of shame is indicative of a lack of conscience and hence identification of any behaviour as ethical or unethical.

You're splitting hairs. The difference between "shame" and a "pang of conscience" is academic. It's essentially the same thing out here in the real world.

Shame is usually derived from an external source, ie appropabation from family, school and peer. Shame is the recognition of personal failure to meet expected standards. Although some psychologists see shame as similar to guilt, I prefer Erikson's evaluation of the two as separate. The way I see it, shame requires an external agency, but guilt does not. Guilt is an internal phenomenon that arises from a self assessment based on internalised moral precepts. However, I do believe that shame and guilt are linked in that they both require a recognition that moral precepts exist.

Well then go for it, girl, but I'm not interested in counting the angels on that pinhead.

Your system does not take into account the pack-social instinct which is a strong motivator in our psychology as a pack-social species, rather than a solitary or herd-social species. Each of us instinctively and intuitively recognizes our role as members of a community and realizes that our individual welfare cannot be completely disentangled from the welfare of the community, because we cannot be self-sufficient.

Only a psycho doesn't feel that. Or a child who was so poorly parented that he never outgrows his infantile assumption that the world exists to serve him.

The questions are:

• How strong is the pack-social instinct in any individual?
• How poor (or easily ignored) is his time-sense, so that he can ignore the consequences of an antisocial action--just long enough to perform it?
• How strong is his alpha instinct, so he thinks he deserves just a little bit more pleasure than his fellows?

I believe it is possible to feel guilt without shame, and shame without guilt.

Well, you're defining your words (or letting some overpaid philosopher do it for you) so you get to draw your own conclusions. I think you're making this much too complicated and it's not accomplishing anything.

What happens though, when the entire social milieu is based on the "so what" morality? When the moral precepts are only mouthed but not followed?

What's more important is: How did the society get this way? You've got an entire community of parents who did not do their jobs. Sounds a little bit like the USA, where children are raised by TV sets and by nannies who don't speak English.

In such a milieu the desired characteristics become superficial and there are other priorities which gain precedence. Then, it is unlikely that there would be shame. e.g. when it is acceptable that people commit mass murder for righteous ends, then for all those who prescribe to this morality, there is no shame in murder, in fact, there is recognition of who is good at it and such men may well sit down and recount stories of their exploits.

And where, pray tell, does war fall in your model of human morality? We pacifists pretty much define it as "mass murder for righteous ends," although the most extreme among us warn that you probably won't actually achieve your righteous ends anyway. Yet entire nations fight wars, and the vast majority of the population on both sides honestly believes that it's they who are the moral ones.

My model, built around the pack-social instinct, says that war is simply a reversion to the Paleolithic era, when there was no food surplus so the much smaller packs of the time had to compete for scarce resources. Some archeologists, after examining the condition of skeletons, say that murder was the leading cause of death.

Our instincts cannot evolve fast enough to keep up with the changes we make in our environment. There's been a worldwide food surplus since the Agricultural Revolution eleven thousand years ago--the same revolution that brought multiple packs of nomads together into permanent settlements, to live as one super-pack. We keep increasing the size of our pack, until now it includes people on the other side of the planet who are nothing but abstractions to us.

So each of us is waging a constant battle between the Stone Age instinct to only trust and care for his extended family of a couple of dozen pack mates, and civilization's overlay that brings him tremendous cultural and economic benefits (i.e., "pleasure") in return for trusting and caring about hundreds of millions of "virtual pack mates."

Some days you feel more civilized, some days you feel more Paleolithic. It's as simple as that.

I know I haven't answered your question but I've tried to frame it in a way that drills down to the fundamental issue:

• Inside this house built by people from El Salvador,
• in front of this computer assembled in China,
• beneath these clothes made in Bangladesh and Egypt,
• next to this dog whose breed was developed in Tibet,
• between these loudspeakers playing music recorded in India, Cape Verde and Cameroon,
• sits a caveman who doesn't trust or care about anyone he hasn't known since birth.
• Some days he appreciates the immense bounty of pleasure that civilization bestows on him,
• but other days it's just too hard and he backslides.

- it was at one time considered not shameful to engage in sodomy with young boys.

In ancient Greece homosexuality was not considered wrong, and people were treated as adults at a much earlier age than they are today, much closer to the onset of puberty. Many or perhaps most of the relationships you refer to were, by the standards of the day, between consenting adults.

 

[ejderha]

I liked you post Fraggle Rocker. Especially:

Some days you feel more civilized, some days you feel more Paleolithic. It's as simple as that.

I know I haven't answered your question but I've tried to frame it in a way that drills down to the fundamental issue:
Inside this house built by people from El Salvador,
in front of this computer assembled in China,
beneath these clothes made in Bangladesh and Egypt,
next to this dog whose breed was developed in Tibet,
between these loudspeakers playing music recorded in India, Cape Verde and Cameroon,
sits a caveman who doesn't trust or care about anyone he hasn't known since birth.
Some days he appreciates the immense bounty of pleasure that civilization bestows on him,
but other days it's just too hard and he backslides.

As a person mostly conflicted about self issues and craving for inner peace, it's really refreshing. Thanks.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I don't think the definitions are outlined correctly. Shame is a feeling or condition directed at oneself. One feels shame about who and what they are (as a person), guilt is a feeling or condition that comes from an acknowledgement of wrongdoing vis a vis someone else. Shame is directed towards the self. In short I think Sam is really discussing guilt and not shame.

Pedophiles for example will not feel guilty about their victims because they believe it is a consensual interaction which is why they call it 'love' and 'a show of affection' and not 'rape' or 'abuse'. Some might feel shame about their perversions but as we have seen there are many who do not feel shame and can discuss it openly without a sense of shame as they do not associate their actions with perversion.

When Duch, a former math teacher turned Khmer rouge torturer of a death camp spoke at his trial and gave account of his activities he called them 'repulsive'.

"Duch’s testimony throughout the week evidenced his distaste and dissatisfaction with his assigned role at M-13. However, he portrayed himself as a hostage of the regime, forcefully saying, “At that time, in that regime, I saw no alternative other than to respect Party Discipline.” Significantly, Duch appeared to choke with emotion when confronted with an interview he had given while under judicial investigation on 3 October 2007. Judge Lavergne’s recitation of the interview, which evinces Duch’s ‘despair’ with his role at M-13, prompted the latter to explain that he sought comfort through his recital of a French poem. Notably, Duch intermittently drew sharp breaths throughout the proceedings, possibly revealing his anxiety and discomfort when faced with the gravity of crimes that routinely occurred under his supervision."

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~changmin/documents/KRT_Report_Week 3_Final.pdf

It appears that he feels 'guilt' but there is no sign that he feels any shame as he saw himself in a situation where there was zero margin to maneuver within a state system that would have had him killed. His moral dilemma would amount to kill or be killed, choose between his desire to survive and his desire to 'do the right thing' which would have surely meant his death so for that reason there is a lack of shame but a show of guilt.

The sociopath feels neither shame nor guilt, they know they hurt other people and either enjoy that fact or simply do not care.

 

[ejderha]

I don't think the definitions are outlined correctly. Shame is a feeling or condition directed at oneself. One feels shame about who and what they are (as a person), guilt is a feeling or condition that comes from an acknowledgement of wrongdoing vis a vis someone else. Shame is directed towards the self.

But surely, one feels guilt related to shame as a result. And that sense of guilt and at the beginning, that sense of shame effects our actions. It also controls them.