Which religions are guilt based?
Which are shame based?
Are there differences in the kinds of guilt & shame?
If we do a breakdown of religions around these two psychological phenomena what does it look like?

Christianity.
Christ died for you. Believe in him and live forever, or burn in hell for all eternity.
Also, we are all sinners, we must repent, God knows what we do so we must be good in God's eyes.

Can you really separate guilt and shame?

Please elaborate.

By the way, I think they all (at least most) are based on fear.

I have actually heard of this concept by my mother, who is Lutheran, a denomination of Christianity. She was sitting in the kitchen with my dad, talking about a sermon the pastor had given one day that focused on guilt and shame. I was making lunch so I listened and stirred my soup. Unfortunately, I don't recall how or why people separate the two feelings... I will get back to you on that, unless someone else nails it.

I suppose you could recognize your culpability without being shameful of your actions.
Maybe you could separate the two by whether or not you regret your actions, or are simply contrite?

Exactly, you can be guilty in a murder case, but you might not be ashamed of doing so. So guilt is what the society thinks of the person and shame is what the person thinks of himself. Sort of, no?

So guilt is what the society thinks of the person and shame is what the person thinks of himself. Sort of, no?

You get into a car accident that was not your fault.
Your child dies.
You feel guilty - though it was not your fault.

Guilt deals with culpability (perhaps contrition) and shame deals with regret, I would think.
How does this apply to religion(s), however?

Oh, ok. You got in more correctly.
How does this apply to religion(s), however?
Yes, I wonder about the same thing.

I suppose in karmic religions, one could say that everything you do has an effect on your surroundings, and though regret helps nothing, being mindful of your impact on yourself, others and the world around you is necessary to live a virtuous life...
That would be a guilt based philosophy - without shame.

Whereas the way some people interpret Christianity, they would say that if you sin you do not appreciate the sacrifice Jesus made for you.
Using shame to make followers abide?

Can you really separate guilt and shame?

Please elaborate.

There are fuzzy boundaries but...

Guilt - tends to be about acts (or not acting). you feel bad about masturbating on Tuesday night after seeing a movie. You expressed anger at your Mom. You didn't help the old lady across the street cause you were in a hurry.

Shame - tends to be about what you ARE: that you ARE sexual in general, that you think you are ugly, that you lose control, etc.

By the way, I think they all (at least most) are based on fear.

Let me give you an idea of what I am looking for:

Catholicism could be said to create/encourage guilt around sexual acts, around not doing what your parents want......

Buddhism: could C/E shame around loss of control, inability to hide emotions

and so on.

Exactly, you can be guilty in a murder case, but you might not be ashamed of doing so. So guilt is what the society thinks of the person and shame is what the person thinks of himself. Sort of, no?

You can see my distinction above, but I'll take another shot at it here.

Guilt - bad feelings about specific actions or lack of actions taken, generally on specific occasions.

Shame - bad feelings about what you essentially think you are and are afraid others will notice.

(it gets tricky because if you are too sexual - in a certain religious perspective - you will probably perform certain acts and feel guilty about them.)

But let's try not to get too bogged down on the distinction.

There's a Boolean set here with both in it.

How do each of the religions contribute to these feelings?
What are similarities and differences between the ways religions contribute to these feelings?

How does this apply to religion(s), however?

Religions tend to make rules about a wide variety of actions? If you break these rules you often feel guilty?

Relgions tend to raise certain potential qualities to virtues? lacking these qualites one often feels shame?

If you were shipwrecked on a desert island with just one other survivor and limited supplies of food and water for survival . . .
if you murdered the other survivor to extend your own prospects for continued survival and eventual rescue, and no one else would ever know, you might feel GUILTY about it. Guilt is something you feel about yourself.
You would not feel SHAME because you would incur no loss of face. Your rescuers would never know the truth. Shame involves concern over what other people might think about you.
You can "shame" someone into doing something. You cannot "guilt" someone into doing something; at least, not in quite the same way.

I should move this thread to Linguistics. :cool:

I should move this thread to Linguistics. :cool:

why so? the main question is about religion

Enable sarcasm check.

Perhaps if I simply do this:
I think the protestant religions, especially in Europe, tend to cause more shame/guilt (to be dealt with here on out as one thing) around the work ethic than Catholicism. I think Protestants also are expected to control their emotions to a greater degree and G/S can arise when someone has trouble doing this. Catholicism has more G/S (from now on GS) related to sex and family connections.

Buddism GS: seems to me to be related to not expressing emotions strongly, especially anger, aggression. If you look beyond actual behavior this includes facial expression, body language, tone of voice etc. I think there is also GS around individuality, behaviors that make one stand out from the crowd. These are allowed in certain circumstances by some MASTERS by frowned upon for others.

Islam: strong sexual GS with a great deal of the focus on the purity and ritualized covering of the female body. Emotions can be exressive - as long as the ideas driving these emotions are within traditional lines.

In fact I might go so far as to say that we could have a spectrum for the intensity of allowed emotional expression without GS moving Buddhism Protestantism Catholicism Islam.

Pagan/indigenous religions tend (tend) to have less GS around sex, for example. I would say they tend towards have less GS around work ethic also. Emotional expression also tends to have less GS.

This was a quick sloppy look at some religions around Work ethic, sex adn emotional expression.

That's the kind of thing I meant.

Buddism GS: seems to me to be related to not expressing emotions strongly, especially anger, aggression. If you look beyond actual behavior this includes facial expression, body language, tone of voice etc. I think there is also GS around individuality, behaviors that make one stand out from the crowd.

Is this representative of Buddhism, though, or just generally a trait of Asian culture?

Pagan/indigenous religions tend (tend) to have less GS around sex, for example. I would say they tend towards have less GS around work ethic also. Emotional expression also tends to have less GS.


The Stoics and Epicurians (sp?) were Pagans. and classic Greek thought places a high value on sexual and emotional control.

Good post - I'm just nitpicking a few things.

[QUOTE]Is this representative of Buddhism, though, or just generally a trait of Asian culture?

Good question. And perhaps the answer will be a combination. I think if you take in a Buddhism program pretty much anywhere in the world, you will be told directly or indirectly to control your emotional expression and to view emotions as suspect.



The Stoics and Epicurians (sp?) were Pagans. and classic Greek thought places a high value on sexual and emotional control.

Good post - I'm just nitpicking a few things.

Good point. I was thinking primarily of what the Romans thought of as barbarians and Christians encountered in the New World and included in their use of the terms pagans.

This is a late response, I've just found this thread -

Which religions are guilt based?
Which are shame based?
Are there differences in the kinds of guilt & shame?

I would say that there definitely are such differences. Mainly in the sense whether the feelings of guilt and shame are directed at a person, or at a person's actions.

In Christianity, the focus is on the person, ie. "you're a bad person if you do such and such". Even though it is said that humans will be judged by their actions, it is still the person then who goes either to heaven, or to hell.
Particular traits and qualities and even actions seem to be considered as an unalienable part of the person, the "who you really are".

As far as I know Buddhism, it's different, the focus is on the action. They don't have an understanding and implications of "person" as Christians do. A person's particular traits and qualities and actions are a matter of conditioning, not about "who you really are".

Buddhism also has a different conception of shame and guilt than we in the West tend to have.
They speak of hiri (conscience) and ottappa (moral dread; concern for the results of evil actions). See the Index (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#h) at Access to Insight.
They conceive them
- as a quality that distinguishes the true contemplative,
- as a basis for acquiring discernment,
- as a quality that safeguards the world,
- as a rare and fine quality,
- as a treasure,
- as a guardian,
- associated with skillful qualities.



Other than that, I think guilt is that which sticks with you forever and which you cannot undo.
Shame is that when you feel you've done something which is below you.

According to this, Christianity would be typically guilt-based, and karmic religions shame-based (ie. when feeling you've done something which is "below you" this is to mean that you've done something which is below someone aspiring for Enlightenment).

Actually in anthropological terms the distinction between guilt-based and shame-based cultures depends on whether people tend to have an internalized feeling (guilt) or a feeling dependent on others' responses (shame). You can feel guilty all by yourself but you feel shame in the presence of others. You can also feel guilt even if no one knows what you did and you can feel shame if people think you did something even if you didn't.

Here's a diagram of the differences I found on the web:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y23/drsanity/shame3.jpg

In some societies guilt is the more common while in others it is shame. The distinction was originally drawn between Japanese (a shame based society) and American (a guilt based society) culture. I'm not sure if it is clearly defined by religion as much as it is by other cultural factors, but some religions (e.g., Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity & Judaism) clearly lend themselves to the development of guilt because they put a premium on internalizing morality. Confucianism would seem to lend itself to a shame-based morality but I'm not sure that Buddhism would (although many countries with large Buddhist populations are shame-based societies).

anyone raised with the shame on you hand gesture. I think it was the only sign language my mom knew. Shame and guilt were a HUGE part of my religious childhood.

"Shame on you"
This gesture involves pointing at a person with the index finger of one hand while rubbing the pointed finger with the index finger of the opposite hand. The rubbing motion is directed toward the intended recipient and is repeated at least twice. It is used to imply that the targeted person should feel shame.

Carrot and stick. Do what the god asks and you'll go to paradise. Don't do what he asks and you'll go to hell.

All religions incorporate older laws and rules in their make up, notable in christianity and islam. On christian sites, some fanatics will claim that all morals come from Jesus as though everybody was savages before he appeared. However, many christian principles were stolen from the Jews and Egyptians, and possibly even from the Indians and Chinese since there was regular commerce between these lands and the holy lands in those days. There is even some evidence that Jesus retired to India after his "resurrection" and died there at an old age.

You cannot sin against a religion you do not believe in. I had two bacon sandwiches this morning which would have been a sin had I been Jewish or a Muslim. So atheists are sin free.

....So atheists are sin free.

and that is why its harder to be an athesist. I have to come up with my own moral code instead of saying "this or that book said so". I actually have to think about it.

and that is why its harder to be an athesist. I have to come up with my own moral code instead of saying "this or that book said so". I actually have to think about it.

Yes, and for that reason atheism should lend itself to a guilt response and not a shame response when you don't live up to that code. If I don't live up to my own ideals of how I should act I may feel guilty but I wouldn't feel ashamed.

I feel more shame than guilt. When I know I have purposely hurt someone, I'm ashamed of myself. When I loose control and yell at my kids, I feel ashamed. I guess I apologize when I feel ashamed, I don't when I feel guilty (like eating the last piece of cake...or three)

Enable sarcasm check.

hahaha

Other than that, I think guilt is that which sticks with you forever and which you cannot undo.
Shame is that when you feel you've done something which is below you.

According to this, Christianity would be typically guilt-based, and karmic religions shame-based (ie. when feeling you've done something which is "below you" this is to mean that you've done something which is below someone aspiring for Enlightenment).

This is where I get stuck. One, Christianity: intensly driven by language of guilt (purgatory, confession, atonement, etc).

Two. Compare Christianity to Eastern religions. Christianity, ritualized pracitce of self mutilation, patholigical fixation with punishment.

Chrstinanity is, in a word, incredibly selfish.
Is not 'shame' selfish?

For example:
Guilt: That was stupid. Statement protracted, shifts blame to object.
Shame: I am stupid. Statement personal, shifts blame to self.

This is where I get stuck.

Can you say more about this getting stuck?
Why do you think you're getting stuck?
Where would you like to go, but can't - since you're stuck?

Chrstinanity is, in a word, incredibly selfish.
Is not 'shame' selfish?

Guilt: That was stupid. Statement protracted, shifts blame to object.
Shame: I am stupid. Statement personal, shifts blame to self.

I think your definitions are wrong.

Shame is the opposite of selfish--it's all about what other people think. I am only shamed when others see me as having done something wrong. Guilt is internalized. I feel guilty because what I have done goes against my own belief system. In both cases, the individual feels responsible but for different reasons.

I think your definitions are wrong.

Shame is the opposite of selfish--it's all about what other people think. I am only shamed when others see me as having done something wrong. Guilt is internalized. I feel guilty because what I have done goes against my own belief system. In both cases, the individual feels responsible but for different reasons.

I don't know...I don't swear. And I'm ashamed of myself when I lose control and do. Even though other people think it was warrented or ok to do so, I'm ashamed that I did so. I went against my own rules of moral conduct.

I don't know...I don't swear. And I'm ashamed of myself when I lose control and do. Even though other people think it was warrented or ok to do so, I'm ashamed that I did so. I went against my own rules of moral conduct.

Do you feel ashamed of yourself when you swear and nobody can hear you or only when you swear in the presence of others? (If the latter then it's still the response of others that's affecting you--whether or not they think it's OK to swear.)

Do you feel ashamed of yourself when you swear and nobody can hear you or only when you swear in the presence of others? (If the latter then it's still the response of others that's affecting you--whether or not they think it's OK to swear.)

But what if their response is nothing. They don't care that I swore. I do and I'm ashamed and embarrased that I lost my composure in such a way.

Do you feel ashamed of yourself when you swear and nobody can hear you or only when you swear in the presence of others? (If the latter then it's still the response of others that's affecting you--whether or not they think it's OK to swear.)

I don't think it's that simple, though. Such a formula might certainly be true for some people, but not necessarily for everyone.

One might simply have a particular kind of moral system where one thinks that swearing is never appropriate, period.

Chrstinanity is, in a word, incredibly selfish.

I think Christianity is solipsistic. Selfishness is only a symptom of this solipsism.

I am a devout Christian, specifically Lutheran and I feel neither guilt nor shame. There is a third option, love.


I do not feel guilt because I know in advance that I cannot be perfect. I will always fall short of perfection in my actions. Since there is nothing I can do about it why would I feel guilty about something that is part of the human condition?

I don't feel shame because again I have done nothing of which to be ashamed, at least not in the religious sense. I might be caught stealing candy from a candy store and feel both guilt and shame but that is not related to my religion but to my interactions with my fellow man.

I am a Christian because of the love I feel God has for me and for the love I have for God. Neither guilt nor shame enters into the equation.

One might simply have a particular kind of moral system where one thinks that swearing is never appropriate, period.

Yes but then what you would feel is guilt not shame. Perhaps this discussion belongs in linguistics not religion.

But what if their response is nothing. They don't care that I swore. I do and I'm ashamed and embarrased that I lost my composure in such a way.

However the key difference between shame and guilt (as anthropologists define it as well as how the English definitions differ) is that you feel shame in the presence of others. If you felt guilt you would feel it even if no one else is present. For example, for a person who believes in the 10 commandments, saying God Damn (even when alone) is a cause for guilt.

It does not matter that the people who hear you don't care--perhaps you were just taught that letting people hear you curse reflected poorly on you (or your parents) or perhaps you were shamed in the past--just that you feel shame in front of them.

I am a Christian because of the love I fell God has for me and for the love I have for God. Neither guilt nor shame enters into the equation.

That's great but I don't think it reflects the experience of most Christians.

However the key difference between shame and guilt (as anthropologists define it as well as how the English definitions differ) is that you feel shame in the presence of others.

It does make a difference who those others are, what they mean to one.

There are people in front of whom (or with whom in mind) I would not be ashamed to swear.
And then there are people in front of whom (or with whom in mind) I would be ashamed to swear.

Yes but then what you would feel is guilt not shame. Perhaps this discussion belongs in linguistics not religion.

Yes, the terms are troublesome. I don't like using the terms "guilt" and "shame" because there are so many connotations or specific contextual uses to them.

I think Christianity is solipsistic. Selfishness is only a symptom of this solipsism.
A more polished way of saying 'selfish'.

Kind of ironic for a religion solely established on the destruction of self, isn't it.

I think your definitions are wrong.

Shame is the opposite of selfish--it's all about what other people think. I am only shamed when others see me as having done something wrong. Guilt is internalized. I feel guilty because what I have done goes against my own belief system. In both cases, the individual feels responsible but for different reasons.
I'll try explaining it, I don't think I did so in my initial post.

First, I define Shame and Guilt based on how we usually experience them.
Now, the language of 'guilt' is commonly formal and is closely associated with law. For example, when the verdict is read, the state finds a man guilty of said charge.
The language of law is a harsh one- cold, strategic logarithms contrived to mete out generalized justice on general terms.
The court, therefore, does not use words such as 'shame'.

The langauge of shame, in contrast, is commonly informal. Its found in prayer, confessionals, the comfort of friends, loved ones. The language of 'shame' is, therefore, closely associated with emotions and is thereby more personal.
Observe the way Orleander uses it:
And I'm ashamed of myself when I lose control and do

That we recognize laws as being external devices designed to control mass, the word 'guilt' associated with it becomes a social experience.
Guilt is therefore a social experience, and is, becuase of its parasitic relation with Law, a generalized fear of punishment.

Shame, a word tightly bound with those arrogant 'virtues' of honor, is incredibly selfish and personalized, independent of law.
And so, I see that its becuase of this difference that Las Vegas is possible. The law decides guilt, while one's soul decides shame.

This is why I say shame is selfish.

I agree with others here who have already stated that this is largely a semantic issue. The words, 'guilt' and 'shame', are not defined properly to be used in the sense with which the opening post would have us use them. Therefore, task #1 would be to provide a definition. And, as we can see, that's easier said than done.

Good points have been made on all sides.

However, there is a point I'd like to make on the nature of shame that should weigh rather heavily on the scales.

We all (hopefully...) bear a shame in common. It is a shame that is instilled in each and every civilized human being and is one which we carry with us all our lives (barring senility and insanity).

Toilet training.

We are shamed into finding our own waste products foul and disgusting. We are shamed into shitting in toilets rather than our pants or the living room floor.

Shame.

Not guilt.

Guilt would be, "Look what baby did. Now mommy has to clean it up. Bad baby. Making mommy clean all the time."

Shame is, "Bad baby! Dirty disgusting baby! Look at that! Gross! You're bad!"


It should be noted that practically all guilt/shame is imposed from the outside. Thus, this can't be the divider between the two as some would have it.

Rather, it must be the nature of the reaction itself.

However the key difference between shame and guilt (as anthropologists define it as well as how the English definitions differ) is that you feel shame in the presence of others.

Provide said definitions?

If I recall right, Dante ascribed shame to younger people and distinguished it from guilt. Shame comes more from knowledge of self-inadequacy.

Guilt and shame.... Yes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are based on shame and guilt. Hinduism, however, also has shame and guilt at its base: karma and caste system are the evidence. There are guilt and shame in pagan religions, but there emphasis on fate is far greater: whether you like it or not, certain events will take place. I don't recall guilt in Norse religions, but shame (or fear of it) is certainly there. I am not familiar with far-East, African, or Native American religions. Whenever there is a strong emphasis on duty in society, you can safely bet that shame (or fear of it) is at the center of its religion. I can't think of any society that is as guilt-ridden as American society, and this one was based on Puritan morals.

Toilet training.

We are shamed into finding our own waste products foul and disgusting. We are shamed into shitting in toilets rather than our pants or the living room floor.

Shame.

Not guilt.

Guilt would be, "Look what baby did. Now mommy has to clean it up. Bad baby. Making mommy clean all the time."

Shame is, "Bad baby! Dirty disgusting baby! Look at that! Gross! You're bad!"

That's true, of course.

But many animals don't like to be filthy either. True, they will occasionally roll in the mud etc. - but this is actually for hygienic reasons, to get rid of fleas and such.

Obviously, there are survival benefits of being (relatively) clean. So it's understandable that being clean is taught and promoted, and being un-clean is sought to be eradicated.
And similar could be applied to mental (and social) hygiene.

The concept of shame can thus simply be a mental auxiliary for establishing this hygiene.

Which religions are guilt based? Many Christians do believe in original guilt, as well as original sin.
Which are shame based? I do not know, unless it is the same as guilt.
Are there differences in the kinds of guilt & shame?
If we do a breakdown of religions around these two psychological phenomena what does it look like?

I've heard that just as original sin, you were born with it. It is the same as being born with original guilt. I'm not sure if any other religions believe this, but I know that many Christians do.