All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
22:46
Overcoming Guilt
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
Hope that you're doing very well.
This is, by a fair substantial number of requests, a presentation on the philosophy of guilt and how to solve or overcome the problem of the self-attacks which the infliction of guilt is designed to create and perpetuate.
So, as always, we will start with a definition.
Guilt. Arrgh.
What be it? Well, according to Miriam Webster's, it is the fact of having committed a breach of conduct, especially violating law and involving a penalty, broadly guilty conduct, or the state of one who has committed an offense, especially consciously.
Feelings of culpability, especially for imagined offenses, or from a sense of inadequacy, self-approach, and that's the self-attack that we're talking about.
A feeling of culpability for offenses.
Now, of course, offenses can either be things which are objectively, morally offensive in the universally preferable behavior category, or you've just offended someone which, you know, if you say to a racist that minorities are not inherently bad, then you have offended him, but you are not obviously being offensive.
He is. So, I'm going to differentiate.
We've got healthy guilt and unhealthy guilt, and the purpose of this is to help you differentiate the two.
Healthy guilt arises from violations of UPB. Healthy guilt is when we manipulate universal moral rules for the benefit of just myself alone or ourselves.
So, for instance, in the UPB paradigm, theft is a simultaneous denial and affirmation of property rights.
I want to steal your wallet, but I want to keep Your wallet is property.
If I steal your wallet and then someone turns around and steals from me in Tarantino fashion, then clearly I'm outraged because my property rights have been violated, but I have assumed by stealing that I'm going to violate your property rights, so property rights are both invalid and valid at the same time.
We would be guilty for actions that result from those hypocritical premises.
The abuse of children as punishment is a denial and affirmation of moral choice and responsibility.
So we abuse children if we do, right?
I mean, not everyone, but if we abuse children, we say it's because they're bad and they've done wrong and they should have done better and they're morally responsible for their behavior.
But if our adult children reproach us for such actions, we always create, well, I did it because you were bad.
It's all I knew.
It did the best that I could.
It's what was done to me. In other words, we both accept moral responsibility for children as an axiom for punishment, and then we reject it ourselves as adults when confronted.
Again, this is stuff which we can feel honestly and healthy guilty about.
So solving healthy guilt, not brain surgery.
Understand the mistakes and the corruptions that you have committed.
You apologize. You reform.
You work to regain trust.
This is all standard operating procedure for dealing with healthy guilt.
We don't need to analyze healthy guilt because you need to understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy guilt.
Otherwise, you'll end up apologizing for something you're not guilty for and refusing to reform that which you may be guilty about.
So let's first differentiate.
So what is unhealthy guilt?
Well, unhealthy guilt arises from external shaming, not from your own inner conscience, but from the external attack or shaming that we receive from other people.
Unhealthy guilt tends to arise through attacks by association.
It's the argument from adjective, which I'll do a full podcast on or a video on at some point in the future.
But the argument from adjective is, you're selfish.
You're cold. You're heartless.
You're stubborn. They're just adjectives.
They're not proofs.
Somebody wrote about my UPB book.
They said, it's confused and muddled.
Well, you might as well say the font is irrational.
It doesn't mean anything.
You have to actually prove or disprove things.
Applying adjectives is not an argument.
It's really a species of bigotry.
Unhealthy guilt is designed by somebody else to trigger repetitive self-attacks on you, to get you in this spiral of self-attack and self-defense.
Unhealthy guilt, it feels when somebody attacks you in this kind of way, it feels overwhelming.
And it relies on your desire for virtue and your trust in the attacker, right?
So if someone comes up to you and says, you're just selfish, well obviously that's only going to hurt you if you don't want to be selfish and you value some form of selflessness or altruism.
And, of course, you have to trust that the person who's telling you that you're selfish is not just being an asshole, right?
That they're actually, you know, morally knowledgeable, wise, understanding, concerned with your health and well-being and happiness and so on.
So these are characteristics of unhealthy guilt.
So a common example is you're selfish.
This, you know, often comes from Family members, if you don't want to obey your parents or something like that.
So selfish arises from external shaming.
Your selfish comes from somebody outside of you.
It's not your conscience that is initiating the judgment.
It is an argument by adjective because the definition of selfish is never put forward.
And I'll give you some examples of how to counter these in a few screens.
Of course, it feels overwhelming.
You're selfish. I mean, it's just like, oh, it's so much.
It's so big. You're evil.
And of course it relies on a desire to not be selfish, or at least not be perceived as selfish, and it relies on your trust in the person who's calling you selfish, that they're right and just and fair and noble and honorable and concerned with your welfare and so on.
Because if you recognize that somebody's just being a dickhead and they call you selfish, it's like somebody saying to me, Steph, I really don't like your mohawk.
Wait, mohawks.
So, defending against unhealthy guilt.
How do we do it? Well, there are three questions.
And this is whenever anybody puts you down morally, attacks you morally, or criticizes you morally.
And some of these may be valid.
But these are the questions you need to ask when you're morally criticized.
One, can you give me a definition?
Of your criticism. This is essential.
We'll go into more of these in detail.
Can you give me a definition of your criticism?
So you say I'm selfish.
Help me understand what you mean by selfish.
What is the definition of selfish?
How do you know that I'm selfish?
What actions have given rise to this perception that I am selfish?
And so on. So what is the definition?
Can you show me how this applies to me?
So once you get somebody to define selfish is X, then say, okay, well, how does X apply to me?
That's the number second question.
And the third question, which is perhaps the most important, is can you show how this applies to me most of all?
Right, and we'll get into this in a little bit more detail in a slide or two.
So, selfish, again, we'll go back to Miriam Webster's.
It's often used by or against family members, but it can be used in school.
It's often used in religion, and it's certainly used in politics and so on.
So let's say your parents are landing at the airport or whatever, and you don't want to go and see them.
We'll just assume that you just don't want to see them.
Well, your brother, your sister, or maybe even your parents as well, cousins, they'll call you and they'll say, well, what do you mean you're coming?
That's selfish, right? Well, the temptation is to give in to the guilt, right, and to conform.
Oh, well, I don't want to be selfish, so I'll go to the airport.
Well, that's a really bad idea.
It's a very bad idea. All it does is lend you to be open to eternal manipulation based on moral, quote, rules.
So, we go through our three-step process, right?
So the first thing someone says, oh, you're selfish, because you don't want to go and meet your parents at the airport.
Okay, well, what is the definition of selfish?
Now, let's assume that you are speaking with your sister, Miriam, and she knows that selfish is concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself, seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard to For others.
Now, if you can't even get the person to give you a definition of what selfish is, then you know they're just being a dickhead, right?
They're basically performing the intellectual equivalent or the moral equivalent of a monkey grabbing poo and throwing it, right?
It's like, well, I want to make you conform to what I want you to do, so I'm just going to throw shit at you until something sticks, whether it's selfish or narcissistic or cruel or cold or bigoted, whatever, right?
Uncaring, manipulative, exploitive, whatever, right?
I'm just going to throw these adjectives at you until one sticks on the trigger or one hits the button that gets you to fall under my control, right?
So somebody can't even give you the definition.
Of selfish, then they're just being an asshole, and you can take it from there.
But let's say that somebody can give you some sort of definition about selfishness.
Then you say, okay, so this is the definition of selfish.
Can you explain how this applies to me?
Or say, well, mom and dad really want you to come to the airport, but you're not willing to sacrifice your own immediate needs to make them happy, and that's selfish.
Okay, well now I see we're getting into an understanding of what's going on in terms of the moral criticism, right?
And then, okay, let's assume that that's true.
When somebody says something that's irrational, you can assume everything is true, except to the last point, and it will still fall down.
If there's a 99-step argument based on an irrational premise, you can accept all first 98, and the 99th one will fall down.
So let's say, okay, so if I am not willing to sacrifice my immediate needs to make others happy, Then that's bad.
Now this is a principle that's being put forward.
Not just you, but a principle.
So let's say, how does this principle apply only to me?
If I do not want to see my parents, this is how you would criticize this principle of being called selfish.
If I don't want to go to the airport and see my parents, and that is evidence of my excessive concern for my own advantage, How is bullying me or insulting me or calling me selfish in order to get me to see my parents not an expression of excessive concern for advantage on the part of others?
So if my sister is calling me selfish and mean and cold or whatever because she wants me to go to the airport or my parents want me to go to the airport and it's selfish to concern yourself with your own feelings or your own preferences without regard to others.
Then is not bullying me or insulting me or calling me selfish to get me to go to the airport, is that not an excessive concern on the part of my sister and my parents for their own preferences at my expense?
How does this apply only to me in this interaction?
If I should surrender my interests or my preferences for their pleasure, whether it's my parents or my sister, why should not they surrender their interests for my pleasure?
If they prefer me to come to the airport and I don't want to go, and that's bad because I'm being selfish, because I'm putting my needs ahead of my parents' happiness, well, they want me to come to the airport, I don't want them to come to the airport.
So if they bully me to do it, they're putting their needs over my happiness.
How is this universal principle only applying to me in this entire interaction?
This is a very, very essential question to ask.
And, of course, let's say that it does apply to me.
How does it apply to me most of all out of everyone who's involved in the interaction?
Can you show me how your criticism of me applies to me most of all in this interaction?
I don't want to go to the airport to see my parents.
I'm not bullying them. I'm not punishing them.
However, when you and mom or dad bully and attack me morally, how do I end up as the only one in the wrong or who is the most wrong?
I'm not bullying. I'm not intimidating.
I'm not insulting people.
I'm not calling mom and dad up to say, oh, you're selfish for wanting me to be at the airport.
You're bad people. I'm not doing any of that.
I'm just not going to the airport. So how is it that me, who is choosing my preferences over, let's say, even at the expense of other people's, quote, happiness, and not bullying and insulting, how am I the worst of everyone in this interaction if my parents are choosing their benefit over my happiness and, or my sister, and throwing the insults in as well, the moral condemnations?
How do I end up being at the bottom of that entire list of moral, at the top of that entire list of moral iniquity?
How is that possible, right?
Again, just asking for definitions, right?
Well, I say, well, but you're obligated.
You owe your parents. They sacrifice for you.
Right? Well, this doesn't solve the problem.
And we'll go over two reasons why.
The first is chosen versus unchosen relationships.
And this is, of course, fundamental, right?
Parents choose children. They choose to have children.
They choose to voluntarily engage in making the beast with two bags and popping out some pups.
Children, of course, do not choose their parents and they do not choose to be born, right?
If I choose a wife, pick you, and in my culture, the woman is then forced to marry me, then clearly I have chosen a wife, but she has not chosen me.
Is she then morally obligated to me for the rest of her life because she was forced into a relationship with me?
And again, this doesn't mean that children and parents can't have wonderful relationships, but...
This recognition of the disparity of choice between parents and children is really, really essential.
And certainly the person who has less choice in a relationship does not end up with more obligations that simply could not be logically sustained.
Now, the other question when it says, well, we owe our parents we should do everything they want and so on.
Well, this of course comes back to the question about God as well.
Are we obeying ethics or are we obeying power?
In other words, are we obeying our parents or do we have obligations to obey our parents and do what they want?
Because our parents are so wonderfully wise and knowledgeable and philosophically intelligent and well-versed, well-read, well-understanding in the questions of ethics, are they just such amazing philosophers that we should obey not them but their knowledge?
Or do we just obey them because at one point they were bigger and power over us?
Are we obeying ethics or power?
Now, nobody's really going to say, well, you should obey your parents because your parents have power over you and are older and, That's not a valid argument.
Nobody makes that argument. Nobody says, you should obey God because God is all-powerful.
Because that's just obedience to power, not obedience to virtue.
Nobody ever suggests obedience to power.
But, if we say, well, you should obey your parents or you should do what your parents want because your parents are knowledgeable and wise in the ways of virtue, wisdom, and truth, and integrity, then they damn well should be able to explain their knowledge to you, right?
And if they can't, then we go back to...
Obeying for power and obeying for hierarchy.
And that's not virtuous.
You can't bring a moral argument to someone when you tell them just to obey power.
If a guy sticks a gun in your ribs and says, give me your wallet, he may call you stupid for not doing it, but he won't call you selfish and immoral for not doing it.
Because he's just got power over you, and so he's just saying, do it because I have power.
It doesn't bring a moral argument into it.
And if someone says to you, obey your parents because they have power, they can't bring moral arguments into it.
Because the moment they bring moral arguments like selfishness, virtue, integrity, love, loyalty, or whatever, then they're saying, well, you should obey virtue, and then everybody should be perfectly knowledgeable, or at least largely knowledgeable, about the virtues that they're claiming.
But if they say, you should obey virtue, and then you say, okay, well, help me understand the virtuous principles you're putting forward, and they don't have a clue, then they're just using...
Virtue as a mask for the obedience for power.
You bring that mask out and then you can deal with what is really going on.
So if you are in an unchosen relationship like that with family, what do you owe them?
Well, nothing more than what they earn.
Nothing more than what they earn.
Parents can't have children, and they can obviously do, but they can't morally or logically have children and then say, your children owe me respect.
They owe me obedience.
No, they don't. They don't actually.
They owe you what you have earned.
And this desire for the unearned is the root of most evils in the world.
And we can talk about that perhaps another time.
So this obligation thing, and I'm just touching on it, it doesn't work.
So let's look at a sample family gathering.
You know, you got your parents at the airport, you got your siblings saying, come see them, and we got you, right?
Well, your parents want you to do the arrows.
There's a green arrow here. Your parents want you to come and see them.
You don't want to go and see your parents at the airport.
Your sibling, you don't want to obey your sibling who tells you to come and see your parents.
And your sibling wants you to obey, but you don't want to obey.
So this is a non-agreement, right?
This is a complete clash.
Your parents agree with your sibling and your siblings agree with your parents.
So the only agreement that's going on about you being at the airport is your parents and your siblings.
There's no agreement between you and your sibling and you have conflicting agreements with your parents, right?
So this is the complexity.
This is just two dimensions.
You could go three dimensions too.
But this is the complexity of what's going on in this interaction.
And you will find out if you press your sibling that your sibling actually doesn't really want to go To see your parents at the airport.
Or your sibling does want to go but doesn't want to go there without you because then your parents will bitch about you not being there and making your sibling miserable.
So you find that there's actually a negative there, right?
So when you look at this complexity, why is this disagreement, the one where you don't want to go see your parents, why is that the only problem?
Why aren't any of the other disagreements or problems or agreements and conflicts talked about?
What are the historical influences?
Why don't you want to go and see your parents at the airport?
If my wife is away and coming back to see me, I'd be there an hour early to see her.
She came to see me every business trip that I went on, and it was completely wonderful to see her smiling face.
Why is it that you don't want to go and see?
This is an important thing to understand.
You can just bludgeon someone with the word selfish, or you can actually strive to understand where they're coming from.
What is the history that led up to not wanting to go to the airport?
And what are the real reasons?
What are the real reasons that I don't want to go to the airport?
If no one's curious about that, then they're just trying to club me with this word selfish to get me to obey.
And that's really bad.
It's a really bad habit on their part and a really bad habit if I let them do it.
Let's look at another typical one.
So freedom and radio is a cult, right?
This is another thing that is attempting to inflict this sort of shame or guilt upon me.
So when I get this criticism as I do I don't know, half a dozen or a dozen times a month, and I say, okay, well, if you say that Free Domain Radio is a cult, then you can define to me what is a cult, right?
A lot of people can't or they go and look it up and they send me something and they say, OK, well, if this list of criteria applies to how does it apply to FDR?
Can you give me specific examples of how I've engaged in cult of personality, monomaniacal, grandiose style leadership?
And they can't.
Right.
Or if they make up some stuff and they try and make something that sticks, I don't and they won't give up that position.
I won't argue with them and say, OK, well, even if we accept that what you're saying is true, how does this accusation of cult apply to FDR?
Most of all.
Right.
Because because when people are looking at the world, it's important to understand when when people are looking at all of the organizations that exist in the world.
Right.
You have you have governments who take children at the age of five and put them through the mental grinders, mental brain grinders of public schools.
We have religions who baptize children at birth and then get them into Sunday school and proselytize and full and full of indoctrinations about heaven and hell and angels and devils and Jesus dying for their sins and talking snakes and shit like that.
You have the military, kind of like a cult, right?
Where they literally will keep you awake 20 hours a day, break you down, rebuild you, teach you how to kill, punish you violently for disagreements.
They can shoot you if you disobey an order in battle.
So when people look at...
All of these, and this is not to mention just crazy cults like the Mormons and so on, or, you know, the Jonestown cults and the cut your balls off to fly off and join the comet cults and so on.
All of the organizations in the world, when a person comes to FDR, what they're doing is they're saying, well, I know about all of these other organizations, but the one that the word cult applies to where I'm going to apply my energies most of all is Freedom Aid Radio.
And so I said, well, how is free domain radio the most important and egregious and destructive cult that you're going to spend your time?
I assume that you've already solved the church, the military, the state, you know, the bad cults, the bad families and all that kind of stuff.
And of course, they don't usually have an answer for this.
They never have an answer for that.
So again, this is just a way of understanding whether someone is actually trying to help you or whether they're just projecting their own shit and acting it out because they feel anxious or irritated.
So... It's important to just keep an eye out for this argument by adjective, right?
The infliction of guilt, unjust, irrational guilt, which is designed to get you to attack yourself.
Oh my God, I am being selfish.
Oh man, I'm being an ungrateful child.
Oh yeah, my parents did do so much for me.
Go drudge yourself off and do your duty.
But it's an argument by adjective, right?
So... A biologist does not point at a rock and say, hey, a mammal!
That's not the way that it works.
What happens is that mammal, as a word, has a specific definition.
Organic, warm-blooded, and so on.
Has babies without eggs, something like that.
So mammal has a specific definition, which is then judiciously applied to things in the world which conform to that definition.
very important.
If someone points at you and says, selfish, they better damn well have a definition that objectively applies to you.
Otherwise, they're just throwing shit at you and making an argument by adjective.
And if not, if someone is calling you a morally reprehensible name, and they don't have a definition, they don't know how it applies to you, they don't know how it applies to you, most of all, within that situation within the world, then they're just being an utter asshole, and you should reject what they're putting forward.
You You should reject, not accept a shred of guilt and examine why they're in your life because I just don't believe these people can ever be particularly productive unless they admit that they are being morally manipulative and destructive in their use of these nasty adjectives on people.
Anyway, I hope that helps.
Thank you so much for listening.
▲
Export Selection