To: Solon who wrote (62889 ) 10/18/2002 9:51:01 AM From: Neocon Read Replies (1) | Respond to Certainly there are variations in what one may be taught, that is one of the things addressed in this lengthy argument. And certainly not all standards "hold up", and not all shame is particularly useful. The point is, however, that there is a factual beginning to our moral development, in the internalization of standards, and that feelings of shame and/or guilt accompany not meeting minimum expectations. The primary form of accountability is squaring one's dissent from an internalized standard, whether partial or complete, with conscience, by showing just cause. If one does that, although there may be some residual emotional conflict, it will dissipate, and one's conscience will be clear. In short, these feelings, which seem to be "hardwired", assure that one behaves conscientiously, even in one's non- conformity. Beyond that, they provide a counter- weight to powerful desires, such as lust, greed, and fury, that may, if not "civilized", lead one into predatory and/or reckless behavior, and therefore serve a quite useful function. Finally, it is one thing to recommend tolerance, which is a good thing, and another to say that there are no circumstances where we have the right to judge, and therefore to censure. If it is our job to enforce discipline, for example, as a parent or teacher, there is nothing wrong with saying "I expect better of you". If one's friend has just betrayed one, there is nothing wrong with complaining that he has behaved caddishly. And if one is a judge, there is nothing wrong with condemning the acts leading to conviction, and looking for remorse.......
