= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The Cosi is right on top of the Dupont Circle South Metro exit. 10 am?
I agree it may make sense to feign it. But to do it sincerely, to actually inflict the emotional pain of guilt on yourself, and not just feign it, seems irrationally paradoxical.
If everyone feigned it, then nobody would believe anybody else's feigning. It's a typical game theory pattern; cheating the system is possible, but if everyone or nearly everyone cheated then there wouldn't be a system.
Plus, there are forms of self-punishment that are hard to fake, and these accordingly seem to get more respect.
I can't see how to escape the paradox that believing you're bad makes you good and vice versa.
So are you imagining a kind of rapid back-and-forth state change here? I don't think that necessarily has to be the case, because what we think of as somebody's moral state has to be a sum, taking into account all the things they've done and are doing and adding them together.
Being guilty over having done something bad is itself a moral good, no doubt, but it doesn't replace the bad moral state that was arrived at by doing the bad thing, it's just added to it.
Thanks very much for your help on this DSimon. I really appreciate it.
You say "Being guilty over having done something bad is itself a moral good, no doubt, but it doesn't replace the bad moral state that was arrived at by doing the bad thing, it's just added to it."
Are you saying that one can be in two moral states in the same moment? How can that be?
Punishment only makes sense if the punisher and punished are different people.
The OP disagrees with you; it points out that self-punishment can be a good idea if you're doing it in front of other people, because it signals that you have genuine regret over your actions, and makes it seem less likely that you'll do something bad again because you're precommitted to punish yourself again if you did.
I agree it may make sense to feign it. But to do it sincerely, to actually inflict the emotional pain of guilt on yourself, and not just feign it, seems irrationally paradoxical. When I isolate for consideration just the interior subjective phenomenon of feeling guilty, I can't see how to escape the paradox that believing you're bad makes you good and vice versa.
It probably should be someplace within a couple blocks of a Metro stop, as it seems most of us are going to use the Metro to get there.
The Starbucks venue fills fast by late morning. If we're going to meet later, then we need a different venue. There's a Cosi at 1350 Connecticut Ave that's struggling to fill seats because Panera moved in next door. That might be a better bet fore later in the day.
I don't think that's paradoxical. Consider table of the possible combinations:
(Did a bad deed) (Feel guilty) (Morally correct?)
- Yes, Yes, Yes
- No, No, Yes
- Yes, No, No
- No, Yes, No*
In other words, guilt is morally correct IFF it's a true indication of whether you actually did anything bad. That's in line with the OP's interpretation of guilt as a signalling mechanism; not being guilty when you ought to be is a kind of lying.
*I'm less certain about being guilty when you haven't done anything wrong; I think this isn't considered particularly immoral, but at least in the cultures I'm used to it's considered pointless and somewhat egotistical, a kind of self-pity.
Guilt is not merely the acknowledgement of a mistake, is it? Isn't it self-punishment?
It's self-punishment that seems paradoxical to me. Punishment only makes sense if the punisher and punished are different people.
Another way to look at is that It takes a good judge to accurately judge someone as bad. So which are you when you're feeling guilty, judge or judged?
In response to
Guilt: Another Gift Nobody Wants
It seems to me that guilt is inherently paradoxical. In light of the misdeed, if you believe you're bad, your good. If you believe you're good, you're bad. Seems a lot like the liar's paradox.
Maybe that's the point. Maybe the way we evolved to demonstrate group loyalty and therefore, trustworthiness, was to forfeit our rationality as a rite of initiation. We agree to be irrationally loyal.
If so, can't we dispense with that by now?
I like Drescher's derivation of a logical foundation for the Golden Rule even when it benefits no one to abide by it. It's essentially the same logic that leads one to forgo the $1,000 in Newcomb's problem.
If I know you're committed to rationality, then I can trust you to abide by the golden rule.
In response to
Guilt: Another Gift Nobody Wants
It seems to me that guilt is inherently paradoxical. In light of the misdeed, if you believe you're bad, your good. If you believe you're good, you're bad. Seems a lot like the liar's paradox.
In response to
Baltimore Meetup 4/10 1PM
Excellent. Now let's pick a place. Any suggestions? I like the Dupont Circle area, but anywhere else in town is good for me. Parking is free everywhere on Sundays.
In response to
Baltimore Meetup 4/10 1PM
I agree to any and all conditions for a DC meetup. Push it out, later in the day, any other location.
I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Let's start with a date. How about May 15?
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'll be there.
Jack M.