Guilt/Culpabilty

[August1991]

"Ethics" is defined as a social code, a code among people.

"Morals" is defined as an individual code, a personal code of conduct.

What happens in a society if individuals don't feel guilty or culpable?

[Argus]

I dunno. You're the Quebecer. You tell us.

[sharkman]

Argus, that's a racist remark, you're better than that.

August, are you asking what will happen to a society that doesn't have the capacity to feel guilty or responsible?

[BubberMiley]

Good question, sharkman. August, are you asking what will happen in a society if individuals don't feel guilty or culpable?

[kimmy]

(I'm wondering if this was inspired by Quebec municipal politics, Wall Street, or both.)

-k

[BubberMiley]

(I'm wondering if this was inspired by Quebec municipal politics, Wall Street, or both.)

-k

Careful. Some people might call you racist for such a question.

[Traveller]

"Morals" is defined as an individual code, a personal code of conduct.

What happens in a society if individuals don't feel guilty or culpable?

As negative examples of the above, I direct your attention to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson, to name three examples.

[Pliny]

"Ethics" is defined as a social code, a code among people.

"Morals" is defined as an individual code, a personal code of conduct.

What happens in a society if individuals don't feel guilty or culpable?

In what dictionaries? I know morals and ethics are often confused with definitions being used to define each other and the debate abut them continues and will continue until they are separated as two different things.

Morals can and do become laws. Such as no showing your ankles in public. Morals are general rules that society has learned and incorporated for its sustainability, such as don't eat pork, or don't be promiscuous, or no spitting on the sidewalks or do not steal, or children should not work, these are consdiered to be moral questions.

Ethics, are more a personal standard of acceptable behavior one considers he should maintain for himself or is expected of him from a group. They are usually quite general such as "Do no harm." It is left up to the individual to determine what is harm, although a tribunal may sit and determine whether it violates its code of conduct or not.

If a person does not feel guilty or culpable for harmful acts for which he is responsible I would say he would be a criminal. I believe society today has trouble determining both responsibility and criminals. As right and wrong are being made fuzzy things under the banner of moral relativity and such that only lawyers, and civil rights groups are allowed to determine.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Pliny

[sharkman]

A conversation I had about behaviour during the recession in 1980(1981?) might reveal the mindset of 30+ years ago, at least in northern Alberta. A co-worker who said in his younger days he was quite ruthless at times in his efforts to gather wealth. Then the recession hit and blew his house of cards down. A lawyer was helping direct his affairs as he tried to avoid bankruptcy. Some of his debts were being forgiven and it amazed him, but he wanted to go after those that owed him, and the lawyer became enraged that he would wipe other people out when he had been spared. Apparently forgiving debts was not uncommon during that time, at least in smaller communities. The experience was a turning point for my co-worker.

During that time I was a young kid and was sent to visit a friend in northern BC. I didn't realize that they were under serious financial strain as the father's new trucking company was in serious trouble(it later failed). I was young and stupid and at the supper table ate a ton while others declined. It was only later I put two and two together and realized that there wasn't much food in that home with four kids. Macaroni and tomato sauce, tomato sandwiches, I always felt bad about that.

What would a society with no morals or ethics look like? Surely there have been such nations or empires in history, but I don't think we learn enough from history or from an inner conscience.

[dre]

What happens in a society if individuals don't feel guilty or culpable?

Youre describing a typical sociopath... Theres lots of people like that in every society...a lot of them wind up in jail.

What would a society with no morals or ethics look like? Surely there have been such nations or empires in history, but I don't think we learn enough from history or from an inner conscience.

Every society has ethics and morals.

[sharkman]

I suppose in its way Hitler's Germany had them, yet something went entirely wrong, didn't it?

[Pliny]

I suppose in its way Hitler's Germany had them, yet something went entirely wrong, didn't it?

Yes, Hitler's Germany had them. What was wrong with them was that they excluded application to the rest of mankind who were held to be scientifically and genetically inferior to the Aryan race. It was tacitly understood they were somewhat less than human which infers that they were expendable.

Portraying anyone or any group as less than human makes it easier to condemn them, can you imagine what would happen if they offerred resistance to their superiors? It would be justifiable to make war on them, kill them, enslave them, experiment on them or send them to Death camps.

Of course, Hitler posed a threat to the rest of the world who decided he needed to be taught a lesson in ethical behavior.

[sharkman]

I think it was worse than that. Hatred and genocide for other races was enshrined in the ethics of the nation. It was politically correct to hate Jews, etc., and then it grew from there. Much where many Arab nations are today. And the PC hatred seems to be growing in the West.

I submit that ethics/morals that say it's okay to hate another race are not ethical or moral at all.

[Pliny]

I think it was worse than that. Hatred and genocide for other races was enshrined in the ethics of the nation. It was politically correct to hate Jews, etc., and then it grew from there. Much where many Arab nations are today. And the PC hatred seems to be growing in the West.

There was not much love for Jews in Europe as well as North America so Hitler was able to carry his agenda to a lethal level before there was any indignance shown. The SS St. Louis was turned away from Canada and the US just months before the war.

You cannot get men to fight wars, let alone kill adversaries if they can't hate the enemy. The enemy has to be propagandized as inferior dullards with evil and destructive intent.

But Hitler had another reason to dislike the Jews - a lot of them were members of the communist party. Hitler thought communism was a Jewish plot that threatened German sovereignty.

I think that today the hatred is at least trying to be contained to "extremists" and a whole nation or religion is not being painted with a broad brush.

I submit that ethics/morals that say it's okay to hate another race are not ethical or moral at all.

I agree. Thinking in generalities is not healthy. But today I think that we can recognize that no race or group of people is inferior - unless you are a politically correct secular humanist - then Christians are stupid or anyone that believes in a Supreme being is obviously of a lower intellect.

Although the Secular humanist would probably never admit to it, I doubt that there is one that hasn't had the thought that true believers of all faiths should perhaps be sacrificed to save the planet from ruinous population levels and incessant wars that we know are all caused by religion.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Pliny

[dre]

I agree. Thinking in generalities is not healthy. But today I think that we can recognize that no race or group of people is inferior - unless you are a politically correct secular humanist - then Christians are stupid or anyone that believes in a Supreme being is obviously of a lower intellect.

Wow... and here we have it... out of the blue. An indirect comparison between secular humanists and Nazis.

:lol:

[Pliny]

Wow... and here we have it... out of the blue. An indirect comparison between secular humanists and Nazis.

:lol:

Not an indirect comparison at all!

[dre]

Yup! Clearly doubting the existance of a supernatural creator = gassing jews.

[BC_chick]

Portraying anyone or any group as less than human makes it easier to condemn them, can you imagine what would happen if they offerred resistance to their superiors? It would be justifiable to make war on them, kill them, enslave them, experiment on them or send them to Death camps.

You cannot get men to fight wars, let alone kill adversaries if they can't hate the enemy. The enemy has to be propagandized as inferior dullards with evil and destructive intent.

Alanis Morissette should've taken your words as her inspiration instead of....

It's like rain on your wedding day

It's a free ride when you've already paid

It's the good advice that you just didn't take

Who would've thought... it figures

[cybercoma]

Thinking in generalities is not healthy. But today I think that we can recognize that no race or group of people is inferior - unless you are a politically correct secular humanist - then Christians are stupid or anyone that believes in a Supreme being is obviously of a lower intellect.

"Thinking in generalities is not health..." then you go on to make generalities about atheists and humanists being Nazis.

You don't speak for secular humanists (atheists) and what you wrote is pretty insulting. In fact, secular humanists don't speak for secular humanists, since they have very little in common with each other. They have about as much in common with each other as everyone in the group of people that don't believe Poseidon is actually real.

And as far as your ridiculous generalization goes, I consider myself an atheist and I don't think Christians or people that believe in a God are stupid (at least not simply for believing in God). They're wrong, but that doesn't mean I think they're stupid. Some of the smartest people I know have faith in divinity. It really says something about you when you can't separate the idea of thinking someone is wrong from thinking they're stupid.

[Pliny]

Yup! Clearly doubting the existance of a supernatural creator = gassing jews.

Actually, it was scientific genetic research that created a superior race and inferior people not "doubting the existance of a supernatural creator". That's for later.

"Thinking in generalities is not health..." then you go on to make generalities about atheists and humanists being Nazis.

You don't speak for secular humanists (atheists) and what you wrote is pretty insulting. In fact, secular humanists don't speak for secular humanists, since they have very little in common with each other. They have about as much in common with each other as everyone in the group of people that don't believe Poseidon is actually real.

And as far as your ridiculous generalization goes, I consider myself an atheist and I don't think Christians or people that believe in a God are stupid (at least not simply for believing in God). They're wrong, but that doesn't mean I think they're stupid. Some of the smartest people I know have faith in divinity. It really says something about you when you can't separate the idea of thinking someone is wrong from thinking they're stupid.

Generalities are indeed generally wrong. Glad to see you remain a tolerant and understanding individual, that like myself recognizes that no race or group of people is inferior and do not ascribe to such statements as religion has been the cause of all wars or that Christians are spreading all kinds of nonsense on the internet and that needs to be stopped. Are those generalities true? Have you ever taken issue with them?

Unfortunately, I believe that most athiests/secular humanists do see religionists as intellectually challenged and I stand by that statement.

While we should be able to voice our opinions, our likes and dislikes and even make general statements about those with differing views, it being a matter of freedom of speech, they become a real problem when they are politicized. That is what we have to be vigilant about and I see both sides of the religion/anti-religion debate becoming somewhat political.

You do not know that someone believing in a God is wrong, by the way. Or am I just being stupid?

And by the way, some of my best friends are secular humanists.Ha Ha.

[dre]

Unfortunately, I believe that most athiests/secular humanists do see religionists as intellectually challenged and I stand by that statement.

I dont think its an intellect thing as much as its a process thing. Clearly an awful lot of Christians are extremely intelligent.

I just find doctrinal thinking to be intellectually lazy. Its a waste of intellect not necessarily the absence of it.

[Pliny]

I dont think its an intellect thing as much as its a process thing. Clearly an awful lot of Christians are extremely intelligent.

I just find doctrinal thinking to be intellectually lazy. Its a waste of intellect not necessarily the absence of it.

Doctrinal thinking, as in the acceptance of secular humanism?

I think most people think there is more to life than just the existence of the body and atheism is not an acceptable alternative. As you say, it may be due to intellectual laziness, at least in part, but I think we are at a transitional point. Intellectually, organized, established old world religions are becoming less relevant and are not satisfying but an absence of any spiritual life is not satisfying either.

[The_Squid]

Doctrinal thinking, as in the acceptance of secular humanism?

No. Secular humanism is a reasoned philosophy, not something taken on faith. There is a massive difference.

[Argus]

Argus, that's a racist remark, you're better than that.

Sharkman, maybe you should read up on what constitutes racism before writing things which indicate your ignorance.

I'll help you along, though. Quebecers are not a race.