Exactly? Probably not, however, I think that a good place to start is to note that it is often reported that psychopaths, sociopaths, and, I strongly suspect, autistics do not feel guilt. This seems to suggest that there is a very strong connection between guilt and empathy.

Perhaps guilt arises as a consequence of a sort of dilemma or contradiction. People who can empathize are able, to some extent, to put themselves in the cognitive and emotional state of others. So, to cause harm to another results in the 'actor' experiencing things from the victims point of view. This would surely give rise to emotional stress and cognitive dissonance. Also, the 'actor' may also adopt the cognitive/emotional stance of any potential witness or member of the 'moral majority'!

The damaging effects of guilt seem to be most acute when guilt remains hidden. When guilt must remain hidden the 'actor' is effectively maintaining a social impression of himself which is a lie. The effort to maintain this lie is a testament to the importance of 'belonging' within, and acceptance of, the social group. To be seen as being guilty is to be exposed and perceived as being 'alien' to the group mentality. In short guilt is also associated with the idea of isolation.

Christopher I have reflected on psychopaths and sociopaths but I never thought to bring autistics into the equation. Inasmuch as I have sometimes heard autism described as "other mind blindness" (being unable to perceive others as knowers like ourselves) it makes perfect sense to ask this. I now need to research guilt and autism to see if they are mutually exclusive.

The issue of empathy when it comes to the experience of guilt is something I have not given sufficient consideration. I must cogitate on that. I think it is significant, although at the same time I must say I sometimes feel what I believe to be legitimate and warranted guilt over matters that have not caused another person any suffering or harm. Do I perhaps have empathy for my potentially "better self" that I have denigrated by my actions? I must think about this.

Your last paragraph aligns exactly with M. Scott Peck MD's book People of the Lie. He says just what you say here. How interesting...

As far as autistics go - I was guessing - I would be very interested in your findings. I just looked on google and 99 percent of the stuff is about the feelings of guilt that the parent might experience. Your going to have some sifting to do.

Bill, this has probably been said before too, but I'll say it anyway:

I think that autism is a misnomer. It places a huge emphasis on the idea that for the autistic - 'It is all about the 'self'". However, philosophical reflection reveals that the concept of 'The Other' can make no sense without the concept of 'The Self' - and vice versa. So yes, there is blindness to other minds, but also, blindness to 'self'.

I believe that what extreme autism is is the failure of the emergence of the self/other dichotomy.

That's an interesting thought Christopher. Perhaps it does present to us as "other mind blindness" while its real cause is the lack of a fully formed sense of the self. Another thought-provoking notion. I think I'd better stay off of RG until I have had some time to process all these ideas and do a little research to see if they have any potential of validation. Between you and Arnold Trehub I think my categories have been challenged and stretched quite a bit in the last two days.

To ask (or state) the "exact" definition of an abstract concept is a philosophical exercise. If someone really wishes to provide a new definition from the one of the dictionary, it is high the risk to be arbitrary, or very theory-linked. But I cannot see any way to show it is exact. Perhaps, by "exact" you mean an "operational" definition. An operational definition is one that unequivocally dictates the empirical operations needed to highlight the phenomenon. The advantage of an operational definition is that other can use it in order to replicate your observations.

So, if we accept that GUILT is a feeling of a person and not a behavior, an attitude, an emotion or a social judgement, or else, then - in my opinion - we should concentrate on the question: under what circumstances is guilt aroused in a person? This could highlight what procedures should we use in order to let guilt be observed. By others or by the subject himself.

My apologies Lucio. You are correct in what you say. Sometimes Americans use this word in a fashion that, ironically, really isn't about exactitude. This may be a poor choice of wording on my part. If you want to know my intention with the question, it is to draw out people's best beliefs, conclusions, findings based on research, intuitions, and even guesses about what is happening within the human organism when a reasoning human moral agent experiences feelings of guilt for something they said, thought, or actually did. I'm not so much interested in "What circumstances cause it to arise?" as I am in "What is it?"

Are human beings alone in feeling guilt though? Dogs seem to demonstrate "guilt" when they're discovered after a misdemeanour. Human guilt though has been seen as a recognition of wrong coupled with a known capacity to rectify the harm. People can do something to relieve their guilt and make restitution. This is in contrast to feelings of shame, where the essence of the self is threatened.

Hello Deborah, you raise the distinction which I would make in response to your question. It is the contrast between guilt and shame as regards dogs and other animals. Shame is a social phenomenon - it is something that a creature feels in front of other creatures, humans as well as higher order non-humans. The dog feels shame for wetting the rug, and the human feels shame for having failed at a task s/he was assigned to do. We can tell, by observing an intelligent animal, that shame is not a uniquely human experience.

Guilt seems to be quite different from shame (although in human experience they often "travel" together). I believe guilt is uniquely human. That we should be "the ethical primate" (per Midgley) and the "moral, believing animal" (per Smith) seems a phenomenon of human intellect and human cognition. It seems to be solely a human distinctive.

When I am guilty there is something odd going on. The judging self sits in judgment on the guilty self. If I have done or said what I know to be truly wrong and malicious (even if I have had particularly malicious or unworthy thoughts) there is a part of me that disapproves of the me who has used his moral agency in this fashion. An internal voice or presence, which is a part of my consciousness, judges me. This seems decidedly strange and uniquely human. We give this phenomena the name "conscience" but I doubt taxonomy brings us any closer to true understanding. We know that many people suffer from false guilt, and that one's conscience can be defective in either direction (too much or too little sensitivity), but when we experience what we would deem appropriate guilt (I feel guilty because I am guilty), then what is going inside of me?

Ego/super-ego conflict?

Ego certainly, but if Super-ego, then I must conceptualize a Super-ego beyond that which Freud described. It accuses about things that our parents never taught on or addressed. It is sensitive to matters that I don't usually think through. It is far more comprehensive and complex than I would have expected a Super-ego to be.

An example I used with my students last night shows this phenomenon of guilt at work in what might seem a trivial fashion (hopefully it is benign enough to use here), but I don't think it is trivial. Last week I tried to purchase a book from a Book company here in Maine called Books-A-Million. It was inappropriately priced at $49.95 when it is usually $29.95. I went online and printed out their own website's price for it at $29.95. and took the paper into the store to show them. A young manager came over, and in an apologetic tone, she told me that although it was indeed available online for that price that it was twenty dollars more expensive in the store. This seemed idiotic and bizarre to me at the time, and it still seems counterproductive. What is the use of even having a store if you are going to charge so much more than what you would charge online? I "saw red" and got very indignant and told the young woman that I was NEVER going to do business with her store again. As I got ready to leave in anger and indignation, she said, "I'm sorry sir, have a good evening." Suddenly the unwelcome presence of guilt showed up, and I realized that (in Kantian terms anyway) I had treated a human being as a means to an end and failed to treat her with dignity and respect. I came back in from the door and gave a sheepish apology for my anger and then fled the scene in shame.

Here I am an ethics professor and I was treating a fellow human being quite poorly. Family training had not equipped me to feel this guilt. No internalized voice of mother or father or grandparents accused me, but my own mind told me I was a hypocrite: teaching others about ethics and acting towards people as thought they were means for my ends. It is hard to disentangle the shame and disappointment with my self from the guilt, but there is that internal voice which says: "You are a walking contradiction of the things you teach, and you treated that young woman quite badly, when she did not create the situation which frustrated you, nor did she have the authority to make an exception to that seemingly unreasonable policy. You lashed out at her in unreasoning anger and thought your treatment of a person justified by your own negative outburst of emotion. If this is my Super-ego, it has done some growing and evolving since my parents imprinted their moral lessons on me.