Need help understanding guilt/remorse/empathy.

[NikkKikk]

So you violate a moral standard, say you kill a man. Do you feel inferior or shameful for doing this because you hurt a person and not help them, and therefore, you're a burden to the human race? But why would you feel good about helping a person and feel bad about hurting a person? Is this empathy?

[sakoz]

Nik; this may be a deflection from your question; but you left out the context. Soldiers get medals for kiling. Killing in self defence is legal.
You probably mean 'premeditated murder'?
"Moral Standards'?  In some cultures, funerals are celabrations.

[NikkKikk]

Nik; this may be a deflection from your question; but you left out the context. Soldiers get medals for kiling. Killing in self defence is legal.
You probably mean 'premeditated murder'?
"Moral Standards'?  In some cultures, funerals are celabrations.

Yep, I mean an innocent person. Still, even soldiers find it difficult to kill for the first time. By moral standards, I mean what the average person has hardwired, not considering culture. This includes any kind of hurt to another living thing, not just killing. That was an extreme example.

[sakoz]

Nik; did you search "moral-morality"? As language/thinking creature, your questions comes from deep philospohical premises/connatations. Once we're 'conditioned' (via language) the 'beliefs' function as 'instincts' do; that's why you were prompted to write  ".....the average person hardwired,...". To me, "hard wired" means innate, present at birth. Anything learned (conditioned to believe) after birth, may appear to be as hard wired as born with it, and "in effect" they do function in a similar, inviolate appearance. ( Anything 'conditioned' can be deconditioned.)
I'm 'fishing' for examples; toddlers learn to feel shame if they urinate/defecate after they no longer wear diapers. Psychpaths are analogous to not being toilet-trained and they don't care and are not interested in conforming. Moral standards are accepted by members of societies, we're not born with them. That's why there relative, in some societies incest is not taboo. etc.

[NikkKikk]

Nik; did you search "moral-morality"? As language/thinking creature, your questions comes from deep philospohical premises/connatations. Once we're 'conditioned' (via language) the 'beliefs' function as 'instincts' do; that's why you were prompted to write  ".....the average person hardwired,...". To me, "hard wired" means innate, present at birth. Anything learned (conditioned to believe) after birth, may appear to be as hard wired as born with it, and "in effect" they do function in a similar, inviolate appearance. ( Anything 'conditioned' can be deconditioned.)
I'm 'fishing' for examples; toddlers learn to feel shame if they urinate/defecate after they no longer wear diapers. Psychpaths are analogous to not being toilet-trained and they don't care and are not interested in conforming. Moral standards are accepted by members of societies, we're not born with them. That's why there relative, in some societies incest is not taboo. etc.

We are hardwired with brain regions that are responsible for empathy, as well as the development of morals. A baby generally won't attack another baby for a toy, for example. Later, they are more conscious and they can control themselves better, so they can mug someone for some money, but they feel remorse afterwards, while a baby wouldn't be able to feel remorse.

So people don't fake their disgust about incest? I don't see why they would find it morally wrong, nobody is getting hurt during incest.

[sakoz]

NikkKikk, sorry, I don't 'navigate' here too well. What's your question?

[NikkKikk]

NikkKikk, sorry, I don't 'navigate' here too well. What's your question?

Why would anyone feel shame for something like incest, if the person didn't hurt anyone? Is it considered "low" to commit incest?

[sakoz]

NikkKikk; Incest is acceptable practice in some cultures; ours is not one of them, in our culture incest is still "in the closet" the way homosexuality was a few years ago, therefore I'd rather not talk about it.
I'm not sure if empathy and morals are 'hard wired' into us at birth, if not, and we 'learn' them, once learned, they function as if they had been hard wire, so it seems as if we 'had' them at birth'
We don't remember learning them, just as we don't remember learning language, but we do, almost as if by "osmosis" (definition 3 in Webster's)

[S. Earl Martin]

NikkKkk There are several problems in your statements.
1. Babies by nature are selfish and will take a toy or food away from another baby without thinking anything about it. They have to be taught to share. It is part of socialization.
2. In incest like rape etc. the victim is being hurt on several levels. Even if they are a willing participant. It damages them in social, mental and other ways. Children are to young to understand what is happening. All they understand is that someone they trust is telling them it is okay and they are to young to know any better. Years later the act can cause sever mental and emotional damage. Leading to mental illness.
3. Babies do feel emotions as a result of their actions. First very basic emotions. Then more advanced. This occurs for a number of reasons.
Brain devolopment.
Patterning after other people.
Personel exploration.
There are more, but I can't remember. Not everyone feels quilt, remorse or empathy. Also certain situations can cause people to suspend them. Many soldiers are hesitant to kill at first. This is why they are given training that increaseingly resembles real life combat. Some soldiers have no problem killing or learn to like it. After seeing many of their fellow soldiers being killed.

What is it that you want to know about guilt, remorse and empathy?

[NikkKikk]

NikkKkk There are several problems in your statements.
1. Babies by nature are selfish and will take a toy or food away from another baby without thinking anything about it. They have to be taught to share. It is part of socialization.

You've witnessed this? Maybe they simply develop empathy later because certain areas of the brain have to be developed before the ones for empathy. Some babies had no experience with other babies, if they had to be taught, there would be a lot of people without morals, remorse, and empathy running around because some parents are too stupid to teach those things, and others are too negligent to.

2. In incest like rape etc. the victim is being hurt on several levels. Even if they are a willing participant. It damages them in social, mental and other ways. Children are to young to understand what is happening. All they understand is that someone they trust is telling them it is okay and they are to young to know any better. Years later the act can cause sever mental and emotional damage. Leading to mental illness.

We were discussing incest that included people who are sexually mature. The damage is because of alienation, it wouldn't happen if every child participated in incest and it was widely accepted. They might feel used as well later, because of the false beliefs of society that sex is something "bad".

3. Babies do feel emotions as a result of their actions. First very basic emotions. Then more advanced. This occurs for a number of reasons.
Brain devolopment.
Patterning after other people.
Personel exploration.
There are more, but I can't remember.

So if a baby never saw empathy in action, it would never develop it?

Not everyone feels quilt, remorse or empathy. Also certain situations can cause people to suspend them. Many soldiers are hesitant to kill at first. This is why they are given training that increaseingly resembles real life combat. Some soldiers have no problem killing or learn to like it. After seeing many of their fellow soldiers being killed.

That's just a loophole in morality, they would still feel remorse after killing their wife, for example.

What is it that you want to know about guilt, remorse and empathy?

I didn't get a response from sakoz to a question in a few days in this thread, so I didn't think he was going to answer it.

NikkKikk; Incest is acceptable practice in some cultures; ours is not one of them, in our culture incest is still "in the closet" the way homosexuality was a few years ago, therefore I'd rather not talk about it.
I'm not sure if empathy and morals are 'hard wired' into us at birth, if not, and we 'learn' them, once learned, they function as if they had been hard wire, so it seems as if we 'had' them at birth'
We don't remember learning them, just as we don't remember learning language, but we do, almost as if by "osmosis" (definition 3 in Webster's)

I know it's unacceptable in some cultures the way homosexuality was. So people just have strong beliefs about something with no basis other than conformity? Sounds a bit religious to me. Really unintelligent people have empathy, remorse, and morals most of the time but some really intelligent people don't have them. It doesn't appear to be related to intelligence or learning, and how would a baby "decide not to conform"? You have a great sense of humor by the way.

[S. Earl Martin]

1. Yes it is widely known that if babies are not socialized they will never learn to inter act. I have witnessed children in mental wards that were never socialized and they are like animals. Grabbing and growling. It would be impossible to place them with other children because they would hurt them. After a certain age it becomes nearly impossibe to teach them because their whole personality has been formed. It has been done, but it takes a lot of work and patietiece.

2. Once again I disagree. In societies that accept incest the rate of drug and alchohol addiction are rampant. Domestic violence and neglect are also rampant. Even when practiced only among adults which almost never happens because it is the nature of the situation to bring the young in as soon as possible. The underlying mental problems from loss of social structure are still evident.

3. Correct. It is a learned behavior. Just like if you never teach an animal it is wild. The same applies to a human.

4. No many people who are sadistic never feel remorse or empathy. They enjoy hurting others and inflicting pain. My suggestion is you do more research about this. Peace. 

[720iD]

A couple of things I wanted to make a point on.

I also believe that incest between siblings is not harmful to the children. No more than sexual behavior amongst children is harmful to them.  To be clear I am talking about consenting sexual behavior as opposed to rape. i.e. children playing games that involve sexual activity whether they are brother and sister or friends.

The point where the realization is made that something bad happened, i.e. something socially unacceptable / immoral is the point where psychological and emotional problems begin to occur.

I also agree that empathy is learned and not inherent. There are plenty of people walking the streets that do not have any empathy and many that do not have basic social skills. Things like honesty, manners, tactfulness etc are lacking in many people because they have not been taught (some might say conditioned)

[S. Earl Martin]

A couple of things I wanted to make a point on.

I also believe that incest between siblings is not harmful to the children. No more than sexual behavior amongst children is harmful to them.  To be clear I am talking about consenting sexual behavior as opposed to rape. i.e. children playing games that involve sexual activity whether they are brother and sister or friends.

A qualifier. It would not necessarily be harmful, but it would depend on how you define harm. It is impossible to say it is always like this or that and would have to be looked at on an individual case by case basis. From personal experience I have known a number of woman and one man who experienced incest. None of them indicated it was in anyway positive. Most were very angry about it. FYI

[720iD]

A couple of things I wanted to make a point on.

I also believe that incest between siblings is not harmful to the children. No more than sexual behavior amongst children is harmful to them.  To be clear I am talking about consenting sexual behavior as opposed to rape. i.e. children playing games that involve sexual activity whether they are brother and sister or friends.

A qualifier. It would not necessarily be harmful, but it would depend on how you define harm. It is impossible to say it is always like this or that and would have to be looked at on an individual case by case basis. From personal experience I have known a number of woman and one man who experienced incest. None of them indicated it was in anyway positive. Most were very angry about it. FYI

Of course a case by case approach would identify differences in the interpretation of the event. The people who you have known who experienced incest would value it based on the perception and acceptibility of incest in their society. If incest was not immoral in their society would they have developed the same negative attitude to what is essentially an innocent childhood experience. Children do not know right from wrong unti l they learn, children copy adults to learn, the adults world has a lot of sexual stimuli, largely adults shield children from these sexual stimuli.

Children will play at being adults with the people closest to them very often this is people in thier family. Culturally we do not percieve childrens sexual behavior as immoral there is a prevailing attitude that it should be discouraged but on the whole we recognise it as innocent behaviour.

If incest is immoral because it is harmful to children why then is normal sexual behaivor between children who are not related not considered immoral?

[S. Earl Martin]

The difference between our different views is the level of sexual experience the children are experienceing. Yes it is normal for children to explore sexually. Many times with siblings or cousins etc. That is not what I am talking about. The essense of the anger I saw in my experience can be summed up by my male friend. He had 3 sisters all older than him. He said that at the time he thought it was fun that his sisters treated him like a sexual doll. When he got older he blamed the experience as a loss of his childhood. He never got to be a child. His whole childhood was about sex. The games they played weren't the innocent games kids play. They were always sexual in nature. Now he has been divorced several times and blames the experience for that. This is the source of his anger.

Society has devoloped a structre. Father, mother, children. When theses rolls are violated it leads to a break down in the families sense of roll and place. This can lead to permenant breakdown in succeeding generations. This isn't just because certain societies view incest as wrong. Certain communist societies experimented with desolving the family unit. They quickly realized it was important in maintaining order in society.

Like I said. In essense there is a difference between kids "playing doctor" and kids watching porn and immitateing what they see. You could never convince me that exposing kids to sex is not harmful.