Shame as a feature of morality

What happens when there is no sense of shame?

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

If there is no shame, is there any sense of guilt or wrongdoing?

In the absence of shame, is anything unethical?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

one person alone would not experience shame. once there are at least two people then the individual can experience shame.

conscience is a singular attribute. alone and no shame is, i believe normal, alone and no conscience is not normal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Surely you need a conscience to feel shame?
Any evidence to support your contention?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think that shame is artificial, it is a front to portray to others and humans dont really care about shame. look at when you are alone, barring anything extreme shame is not even taken into consideration.

alone i would still have a conscience. but shame is meaningless when alone. and it also depends on how much we care about the other individual who is present when we would feel shame.

artificial is not really accurate though.

 

sure, shame is someone else holding you back and conscience is yourself holding you back when you should be held back.

 

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

 

I don't think you can teach an animal shame. You can teach an animal that certain actions have consequences but the animal won't feel shame, just try to accomodate you so as to avoid the consequences

If there are no consequences, you cannot really teach an animal that bad dog = wrong deed

Exactly. So if I want to make a lot of money, everything is justified. Even war and torture. I can also make sure I use my power to make myself unaccountable to law.

Self interest before justice

 

You think?
Any evidence?

Wrong.

Wrong.

I doubt it.

 

That is pointedly not the utilitarian view of ethics that James was referring to.

 

When there is no sense of shame, there is no sense of honor. As H. L. Mencken once said, "Honor is simply the morality of superior men".

 

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

By whose standards? The world's? I see my definition more applicable then yours. How come?

 

The philosophers who spent their careers figuring it out determine the content of utilitarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

If you want to come up with some alternative system of ethics, well, that's fine. But you can't call it "utilitarianism," since that word is already taken.

 

And like any ethical theory, the application of utilitarianism is heavily dependent on the moral agent's full range of wisdom, experience, social skills, and life skills. (link)


so lets ask what sam's skills are

/snigger

 

Since when has one gone back to the philosophers to understand morality?

Can you point out to an example of where utilitariansim has replaced shame without the necessary power play I described? Isn't philosophy also an understanding of what is, rather than what you think it should be? A definition created under a paradigm where shame is present may not be applicable once shame is discarded. We are assuming that lack of shame would result in the persistence of a recognition of wrongdoing or mutual good

Where is the evidence of that?

Indeed. What are these skills? What assumption makes them inherent? At what range of wisdom, experience, social and life skills do we say "There is a sucker born every minute"?

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

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? Ban graphic representation of pain and suffering that interferes with their comfort? Avoid any mention of it in their day to day existence? Use words that undermine a recognition that real suffering is resulting elsewhere and block out any recognition of it so to convince themselves of the righteousness of their own position?

If one does not admit to the suffering and destruction one causes for others, did it happen?

Isn't ethical egoism a natural consequence of discarding shame and embracing overt individualism? link

 

S.A.M.

She doesn't seem to.

Doesn't seem to be

Of course. Simply because she doesn't understand, that doesn't mean that what she does isn't still unethical.

 

Since always, in my book. But the issue was more limited: we were talking about Utilitarianism, which is a specific theory of ethics created by philosophers. You don't get to redefine it, particularly without any apparent attempt at understanding its contents in the first place.

You aren't making any sense.