Does Guilt Prove The Existence Of Morality?

1266 Words3 Pages

Morality is based asking whether something is ethical depending on how act toward the world around us. Since guilt exists, this means that humans are not completely self-motivated and act on self-interest alone. Thus, with the previous statements, moral facts must be true. The moral realists main argument would suggest that even though, yes, guilt does prove the existence of morality, it does not explain why people of other cultures may feel guilty about different circumstances. For example, in class, we discussed that in Japanese samurai culture, there was a practice called tsujigiri. With this, it was culturally acceptable for a samurai to attack a random passer-by for practice. Though this would be disgraceful and disdained in the United …show more content…

For example, science has proven that our species is destroying the planet. The use of fossil fuels creates problems related to global warming and the destruction of habitats. Despite knowing all of these effects from the use of fossil fuels, most people feel remorseless when pulling into a gas station. Though fuels such as gasoline destroy the earth, we still use it without feeling guilty. The skeptic would ask: if guilt and physical reactions prove that moral truths exist, why do humans feel remorseless for things they should feel guilty about? To this, I respond that every emotion has exceptions. For example, the emotion fear still alerts humans of danger, despite the fact that we do not fear everything that is dangerous to us. Think of sugar and cigarette, for instance. In the United States, heart disease is the leading cause of death. Furthermore, research has shown that heart disease is likely to result from a sugary diet or a smoking habit; however, not many people tremble in fear while baking cookies or walking past a smoker on the street. Even though we do not feel fearful of something, that does not mean it is not dangerous; likewise, even though we do not feel guilty about something, that does not mean it is not morally …show more content…

Those with sociopathic or antisocial personality disorders often have no feeling of guilt, and they are likely to breeze through lie detector tests since they do not have physical reactions to lying. With this being true, moral skeptics would say that because sociopaths and psychopaths have different morals than most people, this proves that morals are subjective. However, sociopaths and psychopaths are considered to be people with personality disorders for a reason. In most cases, a chemical imbalance causes people with these disorders to not feel remorse. This chemical imbalance is a physical component that does not operate correctly in a psychopath or sociopath. Similarly, people suffer through disabilities that limit physical capabilities such as walking, talking, eating, etc. However, if someone were paralyzed, we would not say that the human species as a whole cannot walk; with this, if someone is dealing with an antisocial or sociopathic personality disorder, we cannot say that the human species lack

Open Document