Guilt is not something that Plato seems to account for in the story of the Ring of Gyges, as rightly pointed out in class. During class, we were asked how many of us thought that people act justly simply because of a fear of consequences. Thus, the fear of the government and law seems to be the reason for a just society. Someone did bring up the point that people are just because they are not only afraid of the consequences but also the guilt that they face after their actions. This is what I wanted to focus on in this post.
This idea of guilt creating justice in society reminded me of Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. To simply explain the plot, Dostoyevsky writes about a man who sets out to kill one woman but ends up killing two in the moment. The story unfolds through the character’s development that revolves around the main character trying to cope with his crime and his guilt, which could be viewed as his true punishment. The character is shown to come close to losing his mind. He is hiding from the law but his guilt takes over his mind, which leads him to confess and face the consequences.
Dostoyevsky’s story and character development shows the effects that guilt has on the mentality of any person. It does not seem to matter whether people saw the crime but that the character himself knows that he committed the crime- he killed two people. Without witnesses, it will be hard to prove one guilty if you have committed a close to perfect crime but I am proposing that it is more than just the potential verdict in court that keep people acting justly, but it is in fact about one’s own mental state which is in a state of constant paranoia from guilt like Dostoyevsky’s character.
Keeping Plato’s and Dostoyevsky’s scenarios in mind, how do you feel the following questions:
Is it actually the fear of consequences that keep us acting “justly”? Why do we not live in an absolutely just society even with laws in place? Is it because of people who do not care of the consequences but also these same people who are not afraid of consequences are able to live with their guilt after committing any crime? Could you truly live with the guilt of committing a serious crime, one which had no witnesses and did not have to face any consequences, like the story of Ring of Gyges or Crime and Punishment?
Thanks for spoiling the plot, Manali!
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, this is an important question. The varied opinions expressed in class suggest to me that people believe that they have different reasons for acting justly, or unjustly. I say "believe" because, as I see it, people's actions are driven by desires. At the most basic (and I would say potent) level we desire to feel good and to avoid feeling bad. Guilt, as you point out, is a horrible feeling and we desire not to feel it. This is just one of our motivations for acting justly, the others being self-esteem, fear of punishment, compassion, etc. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that all of these "higher" feelings are just different manifestations of desire. (Of course, there is the problem, most prominently, in Christianity, of people who seem to want to feel guilty and who relish in it. This is possibly problematic for my argument, but I think that we must admit that there is sometimes an unusual satisfaction in self-abasement and asceticism.)
In fact, if I remember Crime and Punishment correctly, Raskolnikov is tortured by the fear of being caught far more than he is by guilt. This fear leads him to the brink of madness and is eventually the reason that he confesses.
Manali, I think these are very important questions that people think about when trying to see the reasoning behind “unjust” acts. I think the element of guilt is one of the most complicating factors because the guilt a person deals with as a result of not acting justly can be motivated by the individual as well as society.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing different scenarios in class, I noticed that many people, including myself, wanted to alter the circumstances and come up with other possible options. In our society, more often then not, emphasis is put on underlying factors and motivations when trying to interpret a person’s unjust act. We try to put ourselves in other people’s places and see a situation from their perspective.
It would make sense that a society with laws would have no crime because laws demonstrate a widely accepted opposition to certain acts. Although the difference between right and wrong seems like it should be black and white, the addition of empathy and guilt complicates matters. People who live outside of the law may not have fear of consequences when committing a crime, but perhaps it is the fear of a negative image. Guilt seems to be two-folded. There is guilt that one puts on oneself and the guilt inflicted from outside sources. In cases like the story of the Ring of Gyges or Crime and Punishment where there are no external pressures due to the lack of witnesses, the internal pressure, like guilt, drives decision making. Even if society allows you to carry on as usual after committing a crime, the guilt that stems from the knowledge of what you have done can still be a debilitating factor.
Esha has brought up some very important point here: guilt comes both from the self, and the society in which we live. This perfectly ties in my response which mainly focuses on the level of guilt, for I think this also is very important to consider.
ReplyDeleteThe reason we still have crime in a society in which there are laws, is because there is such a thing as level of guilt. Take for example the story of the girl who was forced to steal medication for her mom. Do you think she felt guilty after committing the crime? Absolutely, but that guilt was appease by the thought that her mom would now be getting her medication, and would eventually be getting better. This knowledge reduced the level of guilt she felt.
This is all to say that as humans, we always try to reason with our actions, and we always try to 'just'ify them (especially when doing something that goes against our moral values). If in our minds we can muster up a good justification, or a good reason for having committed an unjust act, then, and only then, can we be guilt free.
I don't think fear of the consequences and guilt are somehow mutually exclusive, but rather guilt is something that society has taught us when we feel that we didn't get the punishment we deserved. Once he commits a crime, a murder in this case, Raskolnikov had two options of thought: pride for potentially getting away with it or guilt for not receiving the punishment he deserved.
ReplyDeleteIt was the latter that drove him to insanity. If society had not put those punishments attached to those crimes, guilt would not be a factor.
First off, sorry for “spoiling the plot”, Colin! Thanks for your comment though!
ReplyDeleteThis idea of guilt being a manifestation of desire is interesting. I do not know if I fully understand it through your comment though. I think I am unclear on what you mean by "desire" in this context. However, I do agree that guilt would be ONE of our motivations for acting justly along with the fear of consequences. I think that guilt is a major, if not the biggest aspect to live with after the crime is committed regardless of self-esteem, or compassion etc.
As for Crime and Punishment, I guess it is a matter of interpretation because I would say that because of his guilt, Raskolnikov was driven to a paranoid state, which later transformed itself into “a fear of being caught.”
Secondly, Esha, great comment! I like that you pointed out that guilt is something motivated by society too and not just the individual.
I love your ideas because it seems like you add a new dimension to this idea of guilt by saying that people may fear getting “ a negative image.” I was wondering, as you read in the post, about those people who do commit crimes and are not afraid of the consequences or even the guilt. What could stop them? Maybe, it is, like you said, the idea of fearing their own image in the society. Thus, they are still selfish people and are concerned about their image according to society. Thus from your comment, I think if a person's image is the same because no one witnessed the act, then whether or not you even feel guilt is a question that follows.
Lastly, Nellie, thanks a lot for your comment! I think that the example of the daughter that you gave is intriguing but different from that of a crime or another evil act. Stealing for her mother may have been her justification for her stealing being a good act all along. However,if someone killed another person, he/she has no relief or “good” act that he/she is performing at the end. He/she should just live with the guilt of taking a life. However, it is interesting and true, as you explain that “…we can muster up … a good reason for having committed an unjust act, then, and only then, can we be guilt free.” Without any justification, we would potentially think that the tiniest crime is extremely unjust and would live with an unnecessary amount of guilt for ever. It is very important that the guilt has to be proportional to the crime committed as well which is only possible through justification, though this is a hard task to make universally applicable.
Courtney, great comment! I didn't even think of Crime and Punishment in that light when I was responding to Colin's comment. Looks like you are right! Raskolnikov may not have been feeling guilty about committing the murder itself but he felt guilty about not receiving the punishment and not having to deal with the consequences. Never thought of it that way but it makes a lot of sense! Thanks for that!
ReplyDelete