The Philosophy of Guilt

Nobody likes to feel guilty. I could cite a few research projects done into the matter, pull a book or two about guilt, or just point to the obvious that anybody with a basic understanding of humans and how they function would know. This makes guilt one of the most powerful emotional weapons available, especially in the hands of a skilled sophist. It is also arguably the most widely used weapon of that type in this day and age. But what makes it a weapon, exactly? Several things.

Use of guilt as a weapon is no new occurence. Many religions (most prominently Christianity) have used it as a driving force of their faith. The core tenet of Christianity is that we are born into sin and are ascribing to be Christlike and free of sin. It is the most predominant religion in the first world countries, in the United States, and in many European countries. But why am I noting this in a post on the philosophy of guilt? Because it is a religion that gives man an impossible ideal, and preaches that he should feel guilty and humble for his entire life that he cannot attain it. It gives an ideal state that one can only reach in death, and the renouncement of many of the benefits of being alive. Until the last few centuries, the Christian church was easily one of the most powerful forces in the entire world. Its rule was dictated by fear, and guilt. If you were not a devout Christian and a member of the Church for entire centuries of the world's history, you were a horrible human being undeserving of life. How did the Church encourage you to stop feeling guilty? Give your time and life to the Church and to God. And those that disagreed or were positioned to weaken its power were summarily removed from society by excommunication or execution in witch burnings. How convenient. Christianity, it is worth noting, is not the only religion that used this tactic. Many did, some moreso than others.

That hasn't changed much today, even if a lot of the pressure is no longer from religion. Today, there's a new type of guilt. The guilt of being successful and not starving. When you watch TV, there are television stories abound about how evil it is not to give to others if you have more than them. When you listen to music or artists, they sing or tell you about all the people who have less than you. Parents tell their kids that "starving kids in Africa would kill for this food" on a regular basis. If you are not giving your free time and money to others, you are immoral. If you think of yourself, you are immoral. If you are rich or wealthy, you are immoral and a thief by default.

No matter what, you are immoral and should feel guilty. If you're smarter than someone, better looking than someone, better at chess than someone else, you should feel guilty for showing it and be modest (I'm not advocating for being a jerk about your superiority at a particular thing) about it- its immoral to show off. I'll put here in blunt terms what communists and socialists won't, because they refuse to face what the ultimate end of their philosophies dictate. What we set as moral, in short, is a person who thinks nothing of themselves, strives to be the same as everybody else, and has nothing more than anybody else. If you do not fit the above, you are guilty.

But wait. NOBODY is the same as anybody else, regardless of situation. Nobody has the exact same amount of wealth as anybody else. Furthering this, let's suppose that everybody fit the wealth requirement. That's still not taking into account that some will be harder workers than others. So the harder workers will be expected to feel guilty, and to repent for this by working harder for other people. And finally, no living human can NOT think of themselves. Setting things like this as a moral standard sets up the population who falls for it for a horrible existance spent in guilt. And guilty people don't like feeling guilty- demagogues and politicians know this. Its only a short leap from here to convincing the people that they are in the wrong for simply existing, and that the only way to repent and not be guilty is to give your life for society.

If we had followed these core morals from the start, the human race would never have attained the point it did today. We would have stoned the Carnegies, Rockefellers, and Vanderbilts before they got anywhere. But wait, we DO stone them today. Their images, great heroes of the American dream that brought us affordable trains, cheaper fuel, gas, and oil, and affordable high quality steal are tarnished by claims that they were exploiters, thieves, and robber-barons. Expounders of the philosophy of guilt will never admit that the end result of their philosophy is to dispose of these industrial heroes, of our Ralph Lauren's, John Paul DeJoria's, and Richard Brannson's, and return to a tribal way of life. It is the only logical conclusion and way to follow such a moral code to its core. But to admit this requires them to renounce all the nice things that made their conclusions possible to begin with, and all the results of self interest that they used to write these down. Like the printing press, computers, etc. It doesn't stop them from controlling the population via guilt, however.

I've seen these commercials on TV more and more, lately, where some celebrity or other person is in a poor province of Africa, India, or another country that is not yet industrialized. They talk about how horrible the life of those children are. The spokesman or spokeswoman claims you should empathize with these children, but that's not their actual goal. Their actual goal is to make you feel guilty of having more, so that you give your money to the organization in question. The amount of money that ever actually reaches those children is irrelevant- it is enough for this particular discussion that they use guilt tactics.

The logical end of a philosophy and lifestyle built on guilt like ours is that we feel guilty for existing. A prime example would be the Islamic men and women who feel that, because they share their religion and beliefs with Osama bin Laden and other radicals and terrorists, they should have to give up their freedoms as a human being as well. They feel so guilty for the actions of others that they justify the fact that government and airlines force them to submit to religion-violating search procedures, humiliation, and public hatred. It is justified because somebody, somewhere else, has committed crimes in their religion's name. You might claim its a different situation, but the logical conclusion to be drawn from this situation or an economical one are one and the same. In the economic one, it merely becomes that you are guilty of not being poor, and the logical (and desired, by those who expound this philosophy) conclusion of that that you are drawn to is justifying every punishment the government and society push on you.

Guilt should not be one of the constants in life.