Feeling Guilty 译文：内疚感

Feeling Guilty译文内疚感贴心的父母希望孩子不要感到内疚，就像不要感到害怕。

内疚和羞耻本是惩罚的方法，和举起的手和皮带一起被避开。

害怕，内疚和羞耻作为道德引导的方法被得体的父母视为失败，父母想孩子开心，你害怕，内疚和羞耻又怎会开心？如果我们真的相信，使用害怕，内疚和羞耻作为惩罚有效的话，我们会更多用它们作为技巧，但是我们并不这样认为。

如果害怕，内疚和羞耻是人们从小就受到的惩罚，我们不会有更多负责的人。

相反，我们只会有更多不开心的人。

负责的行为和传统的引导有道德的孩子的方法没关系。

这并不是说内疚不是一种重要的感情。

它的确是。

内疚让人们呆在正确的道德轨道上。

但内疚是派生的感情，当违背了内在的道德标准就会内疚。

并不是在第一个例子中那样使人内疚然后建立道德标准。

我的妻子曾经为杂志写过关于饥饿的稿子。

很多人认为，你不能让人们感到内疚然后令他们去给饥饿的孩子捐钱。

因此，杂志没有放嗷嗷待哺的孩子的照片，有悲伤的眼睛的孩子的照片，而是妇女在田里，农民和政治组织者的图片。

但是出版方并不是完全正确，他们认为产生内疚的照片不能导致道德的行为。

事实上，是Somalia饥饿儿童的照片引起了世界的关注。

电视使悲剧的图像传至家中，这是理性分析做不到的。

当我们同情，我们会行动。

如果你不行动，你会内疚。

我们成为问题的一部分，如果让坏事发生在别人身上，我们会内疚。

我怎么能，我这样的好人，怎能让这继续？这种刺痛良心的感觉是内疚。

内疚起源的最出名的说明是F的《文明和它的不平》。

他的理论是文明的需要与个体的差异的冲突引起内疚。

F认为，每个人的内心都是沸腾着激情与性的大锅。

如果人们依天性行为，没有社会能存在，因此人们设立法律控制性欲行为。

但这并不会使性的驱动消失，而只是抑制它。

这导致了问题，既然人们也需要去释放他们的紧张。

我们所拥有的，是性能源和社会之间的激情和法律之间的持续冲突。

F说，文明是建立在它所带来的极大不满足之上的。

分析到此没有结束。

F继续说，我们中的大部分，作为成年人，没有将文明视为自身的外在。

我们将它作为自身的一部分。

我们将童年时所听到的内存化。

不要做这个，不要做那个。

这种内存的声音就是超我。

它就像社会的看门狗，看住了我们。

F写道，就像被征服的城市的卫兵，这种超我的重要性，从社会的角度看，代替了父母，法庭和警察产生作用。

安它充分作用，一个人甚至不需要社会去对他的错误进行惩罚。

我们的内疚感使我们足够难受，如此痛苦以至我们不会再犯。

这个过程大多是不会注意到的，它存在于我们的潜意识中。

我们的内疚感，是抑制了天性为了我们所谓文明的较大的利益着想。

F认为这是不可避免的，甚至是必要的。

内疚是获得良心的代价。

我们已经违反了有效接受的道德准则，我们会内疚。

一个感到内疚的人，HM说，是一个已经将标准内在化的人，而且会努力避免错误。

被认为已发生的错误事实，，不论是谁承担责任，都会导致不安。

当我们与一个人相关，那人所受的伤无论是谁或什么导致了那人的伤都使我们痛苦。

我们会感到内疚，我们不需要相信我们能控制或无助于对另一个人的伤害。

心理学家NF和BM发现，人们会因无意的伤害别人而内疚。

近一半的受访者会对无意的伤害内疚，如结婚后离开了妈妈。

无意的伤害所带来的内疚可能像有意伤害一样强烈。

或者说，不小心就像无意伤害一样是内疚的起因。

我们会说，如果我更小心一些，如果我是一个更好的司机等。

事实上，法庭也许不会对你进行起诉这也许会减轻痛苦但无助于除去所有的内疚感。

内疚感是有用的，既然它让我们更小心，成为更好的司机，或使我们的举动更负责。

反社会的人从来没有经历这样的感受，因此造成了危害社会。

神经质的则体验太多，他无法在社会中正常行为。

感觉对你造成的伤害是有罪的，当你不负责的时候，也许是因为有一个更广泛的准备，去接受自己的行为的责任。

内疚出现时，是因为我们认为我们有选择，然后做出了错误的道德选择。

内疚和责任出现的一起。

如果我们造成伤害并没有内疚感，那么我们不相信我们有责任。

这意味着，我们看到自己作为受害者---胁迫的情况下，无知和等等。

记住，人认为自己是受害者，这样做是因为他们相信他们不能控制他们的生活中的事件。

他们觉得不负责，因此不感到内疚。

几个策略可以抵赖责任：随大流，这是别人的问题，它是在胁迫下完成。

一些声称他们没有办法来解决以避开责任。

这不是我的问题，是被迫的。

我曾听到人们谴责的环境状况，但是他们进入车驶过几个街区只是去超市买几小包杂货或者是人们抱怨青少年的粗鲁但是自己对服务员态度很差却没有内疚。

他们不愿看到自己的一部分，通过拒绝看到来觉得没有责任。

这些人声称道德高尚，但是没有正确行动。

他们自以为是，感觉良好。

我们都不是十全十美的，我们生活在一个不完美的世界。

这意味着，我们不能避免伤害他人。

由于日本诗人俊太郎谷川表示，就是地球转动一样的确定，我们将再次伤害。

在我们心中的寂静......我们必须对自己承诺，这个承诺，我们必须尽量保持。

承诺更少伤害，更少说尖锐的话，不撕扯得那么残酷。

只有只有我们可以修复的泪水，我们才能修复撕裂的东西。

如果我们接受这一点，那么我们必须接受一个有道德的人会有内疚感。

内疚有其道德的地方。

Oliners （研究人员，研究大屠杀期间，尽管有巨大的个人风险，是什么原因使一些德国人救援犹太人），发现一半的犹太人救助者是因为内疚。

但内疚，导致负责的行为是因为违反已被接受的内在的道德标准。

利奥Montada的工作直接以此为基础。

他研究的是他所称的生存内疚。

内疚出现在，例如，一个人是事故或迫害，或集中营的唯一幸存者。

普里莫列维被这种弥漫的内疚感所消耗，作为意大利的犹太人幸存于大屠杀，但是他幸存十年后自杀。

这种感觉是很容易理解，当幸存者与死去的人紧密联系。

利奥Montada想知道，这样的罪恶感在不那么极端的情况下是否会产生，社会关系疏远的个人或陌生人之间是否会存在。

他发现三个必要因素产生这种内疚：他们接受存在不如自己幸运的人，他们认为，那些死去的人不该遭受不幸;和他们相信，他们的福祉是联系到他人的不幸。

他们所体会的内疚激励他们从有需要的人方面行动。

换句话说，那些感到内疚的人已经有了一套道德价值。

从内疚的研究得出明确的结论，是企图产生内疚作为创造一个被个人接受的道德标准的方法是注定要失败。

这个过程是相反的。

内疚随道德而后产生，而不是其他方式。

如果人们感到内疚当他们做了错事，这是因为他们已经拥有一个道德指南针。

但如果他们缺乏道德情感的萌芽和不具备成熟的道德判断，然后刻意灌输内疚感不会创建一个道德的人。

相反，它会更容易创建一个愤怒的，充满敌意的人。

Many thoughtful parents want to shield their children from feelings of guilt or shame in much the same way that they want to spare them from fear. Guilt and shame as methods of discipline are to be eschewed along with raised hands and leather straps. Fear, guilt and shame as methods of moral instruction are seen as failures in decent parenting. Parents want their children to be happy and how can you feel happy when you are feeling guilty, fearful or ashamed? If we were really convinced that using fear, guilt or shame as methods of discipline worked, though, we might be more ready to use them as techniques. But we aren’t convinced that this is the case. We won’t have more socially responsible people if fear, guilt and shame are part of their disciplinary diet as children.Instead, we will simply have unhappy people. Responsible behavior has nothing to dowith the traditional methods of raising moral children. This doesn’t mean that guilt isn’t an important feeling. It is. Guilt helps keep people on the right moral track. But guilt is a derivative emotion, one that follows from having violated an internalized moral standard. This is far different than making someone feel guilty in order to create the standard in the first instance.My wife once edited a magazine about hunger. A view held by many associated with the sp onsoring organization claimed, You can’t get people to give money to starving children by making them feel guilty. So the magazine didn’t show pictures of starving children, children with doleful eyes. Instead, there were photos of women in the fields, por traits of peasant farmers and pictures of political organizers. But the publishers weren’t completely right about believing that guilt-inducing pictures doesn’t lead to moral action. In fact, it was the graphic pictures of starving children in Somalia that called the world’s attention to the dire situation there. The power of television is that it does bring images of others’ tragedies directly into our home. No rational analysis can do the same. When we are moved to pity, we should also be moved to action.If we don’t do anything, then we feel guilty. We become part of the problem we see and feel guilty for letting bad things happen to people. How can I, good person that I am, let this continue? What has pricked the conscience here are guilty feelings.Perh aps the most famous account of the origins of guilt is Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents. His theory is that guilt arises because there is a conflict between the demands of civilization and that of an individual’s instincts. In Freud’s view, inside each person there is a seething cauldron bubbling with sexual passion. No society can survive if people acted upon this instict at will, so we have laws which put a lid on libidinous behavior. But that doesn’t make the sexual drive go away. It merely repre sses it. This creates a serious problem, though, since humans also have a need to release their tensions. What we have, then, is an ongoing conflict between passion and the law, between sexual energy and society. Civilization, Freud says, exists upon the very discontent it has created.The analysis doesn’t rest there. Freud goes farther by noting that most of us, as adults, don’t experience civilization as something external to ourselves. Rather we take it in as an active part of our very being. We internal ize the voices that told us as children, Don’t dothat; no, you can’t have that. This internalized voice is the superego. It functions as society’s watchdog and it watches over us, Freud writes, like a garrison in a conquered city. The importance of the su perego, from society’s perspective, is that it acts in place of parents, courts and the police. When it is operating fully, a person doesn’t even need society to punish him for his misdeeds. Our guilty consciences make us feel terrible enough, so bad that we won’t make the same mistake again.The process operates largely unnoticed, as it exists in part in our unconscious minds. Our sense of guilt, then, is a result of suppressing our instinctive natures for the sake of the larger good we call civilization. Freud thought this was inevitable and even necessary. Guilt is the price for having a conscience.Guilty feelings arise when we have violated a moral norm that we accept as valid. A person who feels guilty, notes philosopher Herbert Morris, is one who has internalized norms and, as such, is committed to avoiding wrong. The mere fact that the wrong is believed to have occurred, regardless of who bears responsibility for it, naturally causes distress. When we are attached to a person, injury to that person causes us pain regardless of who or what has occasioned the injury. We needn’t believe that we had control over hurting (or not helping) another person in order to feel guilty.Psychologists Nico Frijda and Batja Mesquita of the University of Amsterdam find that people feel guilty about having harmed someone even when it was accidental. Nearly half the people they interviewed felt guilty for having caused unintended harm, such as hurting one’s mother when leaving home to marry.Unintentional harm may lead to as strong guilt feelings as intentional harm. In other words, being careless is as much a source of guilt as intentional harm. We say, If only I had been more careful, If only I had paid more attention, If only I were a better driver. The fact that a court may not even bring charges against you in the first place may help to assuage some of the pain but it doesn’t remove all the feelings of guilt.The feeling is useful in so far as it makes us more cautious, makes us better drivers or moves us to socially responsible action. The sociopath never experiences such feelings and therefore poses a danger to society; the neurotic experiences so much of it that he can’t function normally in society.Feeling guilty for harm you have caused when you aren’t responsible is possible because there is a more generalized readiness to accept responsibility for your actions. Guilt arises when we think we have had choices and then have made the wrong moral choice. Guilt and responsibility appear to go together. If we do harm and feel no guilt, then we don’t believe we are responsible for what we’ve done. This means that we see ourselves as victims---of circumstances, of coercion, of ignorance and so forth.Remember that people who think of themselves as victims do so because they believe they have no control over events in their lives. They don’t feel responsible and therefore don’t feel guilty either. Several tactics can be used in disavowing responsibility: following the crowd, it is someone else’s problem, it was done under duress.Some eschew responsibility by claiming that they had nothing to do with the situation. It’s not my problem, is the refrain. I have heard people decry the state of the environment as they get into their cars to drive a few blocks to the supermarket for a small bag of groceries or people who complain about rudeness on the part of youngsters and have no compunctions about mistreating waiters. They refuse to see their part and by refusing to see, feel no responsibility. These people then claim the moral high ground without having a rightful claim to it. They feel good in their self-righteousness.None of us is perfect and that we live in an imperfect world. This means that we can’t avoid hurting others. As the Japanese poet Shuntaro Tanikawa expresses it, As surely as the earth turns, we will do harm again. In the silence of our hearts…there we must make a promise to ourselves, a promise we must try to keep. This is the promise to harm less often, speak less sharply, tear less cruelly. Only we can repair the tears, mend that which we have rent.If we accept this, then we have to accept guilt feelings as a consequence of being moral people.Guilt has its place in morality. The Oliners (researchers who studied what made some Germans rescue Jews during the Holocaust despite great personal risk), found that half the rescuers of Jews were motivated by guilt. But guilt that leads to responsible behavior results from violating moral standards that have been accepted and internalized by aperson. The work of Leo Montada bears directly on this point. He studied what he terms existential guilt.This kind of guilt arises when, for example, a person is the sole survivor of an accident or escapes persecution or survives a concentration camp. Primo Levi was so consumed by this pervading sense of guilt, having lived through the Holocaust as an Italian Jew, that he committed suicide decades later. This feeling is easy to understand when the survivor was close to those who perished.Leo Montada wanted to know if such guilt is also felt in less extreme circumstances and whether it is experienced in regard to socially distant individuals or strangers. He found that three factors were necessary to produce such guilt: they accepted the fact that there were people less fortunate than themselves; they believed that the needy were not deserving of their fate; and they believed that their well-being was linked to another’s misfortune. And the guilt they experienced motivated them to take action on behalf of the needy. In other words, those who felt guilt already had a set of ethical values.The clear conclusion from the studies on guilt is that attempting to induce guilt as a means of creating a moral standard that will be accepted by the individual is bound to fail. The process is backwards. Guilt flows from morality, not the other way around. If people feel guilty when they have done wrong, it is because they already possess a moral compass. But if they are lacking the rudiments of moral feelin gs and don’t possess mature moral judgement, then deliberately instilling guilt won’t create an ethical person. Instead it will more likely create an angry, hostile person.。