A question about guilt and responsiblity

Collin

In Milan Kundera's novel 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' the protagonist writes a letter in which he says communist sympathizers, when confronted with the mass killings of the revolution, simply answer: 'We didn't know!' (After WWII a lot of Germans replied 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst' about the holocaust)
Kundera (or his protagonist) refers to Oedipus, who was completely unconscious of his guilt. But when Oedipus found out, he put out his eyes and left Thebes. He then asks: 'Is a fool on the throne relieved of all responsibility merely because he is a fool?'

OutOfBreath

I'd say that there is a big difference between guilt and responsibility. To feel guilty is not to be responsible. Now those defending systems that also were responsible for horrible things, they may feel guilt, and maybe even they ought to feel guilt. To claim that they are responsible is going a bit too far, even though some of them may also feel that.

This is not meant as a blank check for everyone to get off the hook for everything. I merely posit that in order to feel responsible, one must have had the opportunity to act to change it as well as being aware of it. When it's about political oppressive regimes, it's pretty hard. Arguably if everyone got up and fought, the regime would fall. But when one does not know if everyone (or even most or some) will, and the regime has shown considerable will to use brute force then it isn't as easy.

About these things, people could (and should) feel guilty, but the responsibility is not theirs by default.

Peace
Dan

Collin

OutOfBreath wrote:

I'd say that there is a big difference between guilt and responsibility. To feel guilty is not to be responsible. Now those defending systems that also were responsible for horrible things, they may feel guilt, and maybe even they ought to feel guilt. To claim that they are responsible is going a bit too far, even though some of them may also feel that.

This is not meant as a blank check for everyone to get off the hook for everything. I merely posit that in order to feel responsible, one must have had the opportunity to act to change it as well as being aware of it. When it's about political oppressive regimes, it's pretty hard. Arguably if everyone got up and fought, the regime would fall. But when one does not know if everyone (or even most or some) will, and the regime has shown considerable will to use brute force then it isn't as easy.

About these things, people could (and should) feel guilty, but the responsibility is not theirs by default.

Peace
Dan

Thanks for your response. I get your point but I think responsibility goes further than your actions during an oppressive regime for example. You actions before it count as well. Should people be or at least try to be as informed as they can about the nature of things and strive for honesty.

Take any country. How well are people informed about the decisions that are being taken on a high political level, how many people are aware of what laws are being passed and what these laws mean?

These things aren't necessarily secret and people could look them up. But hardly anyone does. But they could lead to a negative situation. And indeed, in such a negative situation it might be hard or even impossible to fight back. It would certainly be understandable.

At that point one might want to take responsibility but has no power to do so. Isn't that the whole point of the question.

Should we not take responsibility at all times so that it doesn't lead to a situation where taking responsibility is impossible and one can 'hide' behind 'we didn't know!'

Shouldn't you have known? Or at least shouldn't you have tried to know?

angelica

We are always responsible for what we do. Even when we don't know. Natural law is ever-present, despite what our egos tell us.

When we don't know, we remain unconscious of what we actually do, and we will experience the consequences unconsciously, in the 'why me?' fashion. This is learning in the school of hard knocks, and is very painful, as "hard knocks" connotes.

As we wake up more and more to the consequences to our actions, and to our great power and great responsibility, the quality of our lives changes. We no longer pay the heavy cost of the unconscious pain. Accepting responsibility, paradoxically, is immensely freeing and liberating.

melodious

I wonder if the servers of such horrific crimes prayed for forgiveness or if they just figured that it was the right thing to do...Or could such actions be natural selection modified?

Natural law seems to be a clear cut way to prosperity. Listening to our inner music is amazing. The first step to this process is self forgiveness...

Thanks for you words.

El_Kabong

angelica wrote:

We are always responsible for what we do. Even when we don't know. Natural law is ever-present, despite what our egos tell us.

When we don't know, we remain unconscious of what we actually do, and we will experience the consequences unconsciously, in the 'why me?' fashion. This is learning in the school of hard knocks, and is very painful, as "hard knocks" connotes.

As we wake up more and more to the consequences to our actions, and to our great power and great responsibility, the quality of our lives changes. We no longer pay the heavy cost of the unconscious pain. Accepting responsibility, paradoxically, is immensely freeing and liberating.

...actly....actly....actly

decides2dream

Collin wrote:

In Milan Kundera's novel 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' the protagonist writes a letter in which he says communist sympathizers, when confronted with the mass killings of the revolution, simply answer: 'We didn't know!' (After WWII a lot of Germans replied 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst' about the holocaust)
Kundera (or his protagonist) refers to Oedipus, who was completely unconscious of his guilt. But when Oedipus found out, he put out his eyes and left Thebes. He then asks: 'Is a fool on the throne relieved of all responsibility merely because he is a fool?'

this is a rare instance where i found the film far superior to the book. that said....on your topic:

responsibility is just that. no matter what you knew, or not, you are still always responsible for your actions. sure, depending on what information and/or intelligence one possesses at the time may influence said 'guilt' to some degree.....but one is still 'responsible.'


even if one kills in self-defense, they are 'still responsible' for the death of another being. the intent, or knowledge...or lack there of...does not change the outcome. that is fixed. the only malleable portion of the scenario is the 'feelings' and 'whys' of such.

sweetpotato

Collin wrote:

In Milan Kundera's novel 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' the protagonist writes a letter in which he says communist sympathizers, when confronted with the mass killings of the revolution, simply answer: 'We didn't know!' (After WWII a lot of Germans replied 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst' about the holocaust)
Kundera (or his protagonist) refers to Oedipus, who was completely unconscious of his guilt. But when Oedipus found out, he put out his eyes and left Thebes. He then asks: 'Is a fool on the throne relieved of all responsibility merely because he is a fool?'

"Some are guilty, while all are responsible."
~Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel




An excerpt of Speaking of Faith's Krista Tippett interview of Arnold Eisen, seventh chancellor of The Jewish Theological Seminary:

Rabbi Heschel said: "It became clear to me that in regard to cruelties committed in the name of a free society, some are guilty while all are responsible."

Mr. Eisen: (That's) one of Heschel's favorite lines: "Some are guilty but all are responsible." You know, we're not off the hook and if we live life with ultimate religious seriousness, we're aware every moment of the time just how many people's suffering and poverty goes into our ability to act, to enjoy, even to gather together and worship. And this could, if we let it, ruin life, on the other hand. As someone I know put it, "How can I enjoy a cup of coffee at Starbucks …when I know that people in much of the world can't earn in a month what that cup of coffee is costing me?" And is that supposed to mean that we never have the cup of coffee or is it supposed to mean that we exercise responsibly? The guilt can be paralyzing. And some are guilty and they have to be reminded of their guilt and they have to be stopped, but all are responsible. And so it's our job if we're going to sit down, for example, at a Passover Seder, to do what the rabbis instruct the Jews to do at the beginning of that Passover Seder, which is to open the doors to those who are hungry so that those people too can enjoy a meal. And this was quintessential Heschel.

I wonder how we apportion guilt sometimes. You know, I think, as it were, the civil rights movement was an easy call for him, that the analogy of Pharaoh to Jim Crow and racism was an easy one, but it couldn't have been so simple to draw the conclusion about Vietnam, particularly when some of his closest colleagues and some of his closest friends were supporting the war as necessary to stop the spread of communism.

And I understand Heschel to have made a difficult calculation about suffering versus the possible good that might emerge from all that suffering. He made a calculation about justice and injustice, about the proper uses of power, and then he acted on the basis of that calculation and spoke in the name of God and Scripture from the point of view that he had adopted. As did King, who reached the same conclusion.


Program Web Site: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/heschel/

Clarice

decides2dream wrote:

this is a rare instance where i found the film far superior to the book.

Agree

and about guilty and responsibility I think the diference is when the guilt immobilizes while the responsibility leads to an action.

Boston MA

Collin wrote:

Shouldn't you have known? Or at least shouldn't you have tried to know?

YES!

decides2dream

Clara Clareando wrote:

Agree

and about guilty and responsibility I think the diference is when the guilt immobilizes while the responsibility leads to an action.

i think guilt is emotional whereas responsibility is an action. one can feel guilty for not much at all, and one can be responsible for a great deal and not feel guilt at all. guilt is always a negative, and responsibility can be a negative or a positive, depending on the action.


as the saying goes 'ignorance is bliss'...may make it so you feel no guilt, but if you still manage to do something, knowingly or unknowinly, you are still responsible for the outcome.

Collin

sweetpotato wrote:

"Some are guilty, while all are responsible."
~Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel




An excerpt of Speaking of Faith's Krista Tippett interview of Arnold Eisen, seventh chancellor of The Jewish Theological Seminary:

Rabbi Heschel said: "It became clear to me that in regard to cruelties committed in the name of a free society, some are guilty while all are responsible."

Mr. Eisen: (That's) one of Heschel's favorite lines: "Some are guilty but all are responsible." You know, we're not off the hook and if we live life with ultimate religious seriousness, we're aware every moment of the time just how many people's suffering and poverty goes into our ability to act, to enjoy, even to gather together and worship. And this could, if we let it, ruin life, on the other hand. As someone I know put it, "How can I enjoy a cup of coffee at Starbucks …when I know that people in much of the world can't earn in a month what that cup of coffee is costing me?" And is that supposed to mean that we never have the cup of coffee or is it supposed to mean that we exercise responsibly? The guilt can be paralyzing. And some are guilty and they have to be reminded of their guilt and they have to be stopped, but all are responsible. And so it's our job if we're going to sit down, for example, at a Passover Seder, to do what the rabbis instruct the Jews to do at the beginning of that Passover Seder, which is to open the doors to those who are hungry so that those people too can enjoy a meal. And this was quintessential Heschel.

I wonder how we apportion guilt sometimes. You know, I think, as it were, the civil rights movement was an easy call for him, that the analogy of Pharaoh to Jim Crow and racism was an easy one, but it couldn't have been so simple to draw the conclusion about Vietnam, particularly when some of his closest colleagues and some of his closest friends were supporting the war as necessary to stop the spread of communism.

And I understand Heschel to have made a difficult calculation about suffering versus the possible good that might emerge from all that suffering. He made a calculation about justice and injustice, about the proper uses of power, and then he acted on the basis of that calculation and spoke in the name of God and Scripture from the point of view that he had adopted. As did King, who reached the same conclusion.


Program Web Site: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/heschel/

Thanks, quite an interesting read.

sweetpotato

Collin wrote:

Thanks, quite an interesting read.

no prob. that line, the quote, struck me deeply. i caught the entire interview on npr last weekend and was thinking about how such principles can easily apply to secular life as well. there's no need to be jewish or religious at all in order to incorporate the wisdom of the jewish- or other religious- tradition(s).

Specifics

I think a lot of people are happy enough to feel they are safely part of the winning side, and have no problem with hiding behind ignorance to justify. I'm also not convinced that there will be any sort of divine justice or possibly any justice beyond luck.
Sadly, i grow more towards thinking that many are not capable of guilt, or care enough to take responsibility for anything that is not directly in their own interest. Sorry for the negative vibe, but i loose my faith in humanity as a whole more and more, however it helps me feel more and more respect for those that are capable of these things.
Luckily I do believe that there is a path to enlightenment, and there are amazing rewards for taking such a path! maybe the justice is purely in that you never recieve these rewards.

OysterJam01

Boston, MA wrote:

YES!

Why and how can you try to know something that you are not looking for. Surely in order to always be aware (or be open to "trying to know something") do you no think you have to be suspicious of everyone?

If a friend or family member committed a crime or something which caused someone great harm or even death - i can see WHY you might feel guilt or think that you should have known, but that would mean not trusting someone you love. Someone once told me "you can´t trust anyone" and perhaps they were true up to a point but if you dont let yourself go, trust and love people then you set yourself up for a miserble life . . .

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

... guilt is always a negative, ...

Psychology says that all emotions, including guilt, have valid evolutionary purposes. For example, guilt is a natural indicator within that is there to help us acknowledge when we are going or have gone too far.

It is toxic guilt that is seen as a negative. This is where we have stopped doing something, and yet continue to beat ourselves up over it.

The healthy method is to use guilt to indicate what we need to stop doing...to stop doing it...and to release any further guilt.

All "negative" emotions are evolutionarily and psychologically valid.

melodious

OysterJam01 wrote:

Someone once told me "you can´t trust anyone" and perhaps they were true up to a point but if you dont let yourself go, trust and love people then you set yourself up for a miserble life . . .

I was and continue to feel a certain level of confusion regarding this statment. How do we trust? We have to trust ourselves. I think the words, Charity begins at Home is appropriate.

The only way you can learn to trust yourself and others is to allow yourself to learn a specific art called forgiveness. no matter what happens, what the circumstances, or who the people, the real truth lies that WE set up our own "billard" boards and we are RESPONSIBLE for most every incident set forth towards us. Learning to respond as opposed to letting ourselves react can be the most influential factor when considering the term, Guilt.

Forgiveness. We say we are sorry but in my humble opinion, people are really vehicles to test our will and graceful dance.

All "negative" emotions are evolutionarily and psychologically valid.

I am no psychologist, but I have seen enough pain spew from mySelf that i can only say if we look and strive we can make changes.

angelica

melodious wrote:

I was and continue to feel a certain level of confusion regarding this statment. How do we trust? We have to trust ourselves. I think the words, Charity begins at Home is appropriate.

The only way you can learn to trust yourself and others is to allow yourself to learn a specific art called forgiveness. no matter what happens, what the circumstances, or who the people, the real truth lies that WE set up our own "billard" boards and we are RESPONSIBLE for most every incident set forth towards us. Learning to respond as opposed to letting ourselves react can be the most influential factor when considering the term, Guilt.

Forgiveness. We say we are sorry but in my humble opinion, people are really vehicles to test our will and graceful dance.

Agreed. Plus when we truly have forgiven ourselves enough, and resolve our inner conflicts, we start to see clearly that all judgment and blame is an illusion.

melodious

Hi.

Well, blaming others is the illusion, I am discovering because those words, we are born by ourselves and we die by ourselves have more punch than most would absorb.

I think this is one of the most common behavioral patterns people experience. We don't want to own up to our responsibility for ourselves. We want to hide under someone else' wing or shirt tail, so that our lives can be easier. But when we depend on others for "quik fix", we are not taking on responsibility even though we are responsible for CHOOSING to take this course. And in the long run, all a person has to do is start looking into their rhythms. Human beings are meant to Be in sync with Universal Law (whatever that means is realitve to each person); we all have an inner pendulum that swings in perfect time, but it seems that our society's pace is a great distraction.

We put our trust in others such as a marriage or a love realtionship, best friends, family, etc. And the relationship goes along swimmingly for years and then one day, a trigger changes the relationship. Then a person who placed so much expectation is devasted because the relationship didn't meet that level of hope or tangibility. The only expectation we should place on any relationship is in the present and always be grateful. Can we strip away our pride and is integrity a mask? Because if we really learn to strip away ourSelves to the basic, we have to ask ourselves, Is this pride ruling me? Is my ego interfering. Integrity albeit a nice term even sometimes seems like a control factor because there are so many styles of integrity...The word I love so very much is : Am I being reverent? Am I being respectful? If we look at our lives in these two terms, no matter what outside forces we face, we can diminish this word, we call guilt...

Thanks for this walk...

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

Psychology says that all emotions, including guilt, have valid evolutionary purposes. For example, guilt is a natural indicator within that is there to help us acknowledge when we are going or have gone too far.

It is toxic guilt that is seen as a negative. This is where we have stopped doing something, and yet continue to beat ourselves up over it.

The healthy method is to use guilt to indicate what we need to stop doing...to stop doing it...and to release any further guilt.

All "negative" emotions are evolutionarily and psychologically valid.

agreed, never suggested otherwise. just because something is valid and has a purpose, does not strip the negativity from it.


however, for the purpose of this discussion, i don't think guilt and responsibility have to go hand in hand and are not one and the same.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

agreed, never suggested otherwise. just because something is valid and has a purpose, does not strip the negativity from it.

I spoke up because there is often negativity associated with specific emotions. The result is that many people repress and deny guilt, shame, anger etc. which are there for very healthy reasons. And by doing so...by avoiding these emotions, people create the unhealthy aspect of these emotions. People often think such emotions are "bad", because they feel negative, which with the resulting denial, perpetuates huge imbalances in people.

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

I spoke up because there is often negativity associated with specific emotions. The result is that many people repress and deny guilt, shame, anger etc. which are there for very healthy reasons. And by doing so...by avoiding these emotions, people create the unhealthy aspect of these emotions. People often think such emotions are "bad", because they feel negative, which with the resulting denial, perpetuates huge imbalances in people.

again, agreed and understand.
none the less, even with all that...i still would identify guilt as a 'negative'......along with anger, etc....not b/c they don't have a purpose nor that they shouldn't be expressed, but most definitely b/c they do not lie on the 'positive' side of things per se, and while necessary to deal with and dissipate...also can be very destructive forces within and outside yourself. there always is a healthy/unhealthy way of dealing with ANY emotions...even the 'positive' ones. anyhoo, just my personal thoughts on the whole guilt/responsibility debate.

El_Kabong

angelica wrote:

I spoke up because there is often negativity associated with specific emotions. The result is that many people repress and deny guilt, shame, anger etc. which are there for very healthy reasons. And by doing so...by avoiding these emotions, people create the unhealthy aspect of these emotions. People often think such emotions are "bad", because they feel negative, which with the resulting denial, perpetuates huge imbalances in people.

...... ...... ..... .....

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

again, agreed and understand.
none the less, even with all that...i still would identify guilt as a 'negative'......along with anger, etc....not b/c they don't have a purpose nor that they shouldn't be expressed, but most definitely b/c they do not lie on the 'positive' side of things per se, and while necessary to deal with and dissipate...also can be very destructive forces within and outside yourself. there always is a healthy/unhealthy way of dealing with ANY emotions...even the 'positive' ones. anyhoo, just my personal thoughts on the whole guilt/responsibility debate.

Yes, I agree that this is also a valid perspective.