>>>> I disagree with all this. Guilt is an exercise of empathy...a taking
>>>> on
>>>> some sense of another's existence as your own. I feel 'guilt' just
>>>> seeing
>>>> someone on the street less fortunate than I am.
>>> That's not guilt, it's pity. If you felt as though you were so
>>> filthy rich through injustice, that might be guilt.
"Collective guilt, or guilt by association, is the controversial
collectivist idea that a group of humans can bear guilt above and
beyond the guilt of particular members, and hence an individual holds
responsibility for what other members of his group have done, even if
he himself hasn't done this. Advanced systems of criminal law accept
the principle that guilt shall only be personal. This attitude is not
usually shared by other systems of law. Assumption of collective
responsibility is common for feud. Such systems tend to judge the
guilt of persons by their associations, classifications or
organizations, which often gives rise to racial, ethnic, social and
religious prejudices. Collective guilt is regarded by some as
impossible because it seems to presuppose that collections of humans
can have traits, such as intentions and knowledge, that strictly
speaking are claimed to be truly possessed only by individuals. The
principle of collective guilt is totally denounced in libertarian
social thinking. However, there are those who consider such judgements
on collective guilt to be overly reductionistic and accept the
existence of collective guilt, collective responsibility, etc.
Sometimes the idea of collective guilt can be a form of association
fallacy. Humans seem to have a natural tendency to attribute
collective guilt, usually with tragic results. An example would be the
denounced idea that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ or
that whites today should feel guilty for slavery. History is filled
with examples of a wronged man who tried to avenge himself, not on the
person who has wronged him, but on other members of the wrong-doer's
family, or ethnic group, or religion, or nation, or tribe, or army.
Likewise collective punishment is often practiced in different
settings, including schools (punishing a whole class for the actions
of a single unknown pupil) and, more transcendentally, in situation of
war, economic sanctions, etc, presupposing the existence of collective
guilt.
It has been suggested by Werner Cohn that the accusation that others
apply "guilt by association" is itself a fallacy, for two reasons: 1)
the term "guilt" is ambiguous. Sometimes it applies to criminal guilt,
which requires a very high standard of proof ("proof beyond a
reasonable doubt"). But more often, "guilt" refers to various
shortcomings that require lesser standards. 2) "association" is also
ambiguous. Sometimes "association" may be totally innocent, such as
the association of fellow travelers on a train. But other kinds of
association, for instance criminal conspiracy, are not at all
innocent.
The idea of collective guilt became popular in Western World since the
1960s, as many historical injustices, including e.g. slavery in the
United States, has been perceived by intelligentsia as faults of the
society requiring retribution on behalf of those who had nothing to do
with them (see e.g. Reparations for slavery and White guilt).
Terrorism is commonly rationalized by its practitioners on ideas of
collective guilt and responsibility. Many nations have laws holding
corporations, but not the individual decision-makers within them,
responsible for certain kinds of acts. For example, in the United
States corporations can be fined for violating pollution laws, but the
individuals who actually ordered and directed the polluting activity
may not themselves be regarded as having broken any laws, since they
act as corporate officers on behalf of the shareholders. This is
generally known as the "corporate veil"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt
---------------
This one is going to seem strange perhaps. I don't hang onto my guilt for
sake of the guy under the bridge. Empathetic reach is a real thing to
me...concrete...part of what I am. I suppose it IS my capacity to feel in
fact...and I 'want' to feel the deepest I can. I feel no 'obligation' in my
guilt however...unless I have actually done a wrong to someone else...which
is never since there is NO intent as other's have mentioned. The object
becomes an anchor...a stay...a point for which to cast off emotional content
toward something else.
One felt however, to CARE has a magic all it's own I suppose, and it may
move me in fact to do something to help the object...or not, depends upon my
rational mind. I'd love to help the homeless for example, but often my
rational mind kicks in and assesses 'risk' to be too high.
I scare myself at times since I seem to carry a large capacity to CARE, and
yet, also this coldness of rationality. I'm not sure which should lead
which....though to date, my irrational side has won out [easy to for the
most part, for it often rationalizes out of fear, ha].
My point now is that retracting one's capacity to care by erradicating
things like guilt, shame, pity etc, is akin to cutting one's own dick in
half I think. One can still function perhaps, but 'potential' is thrown
away. Not a good thing, LOL. So...revel in your guilt and realize that it
means you still CARE.
Charles Reese, conservative columnist, has said for some time we are
creating a society of sociopaths however. Rationality without it's tether
to our human conscience is madness I'm pretty sure.
