Why do we feel guilty, frustrated and unhappy?
These feelings are signs of internal disharmony and may be related to some decisions/actions we take in face of situations that arise in our lives that are in disagreement with our moral standards.
And how is all this processed?
Through an external stimulus that drives us to act, theoretically we have possibilities of action from which, with our free will, we decide on one of these possibilities. Decision making for action is based on moral standards (conscious or unconscious) that we learn/acquire/believe during our childhood with our parents or caregivers. Once the decision/action is taken, we suffer or not with the consequence of that action.
Here are some examples of moral standards (among others):
• Honesty;
• Honesty;
• Impartiality (fairness);
• Ethic;
• Humility;
• Empathy;
• Detachment (material, affective and time), etc.
Let's take as an example an extreme situation, but common in our society today.
Scenario: Public agent who has adequate moral standards (listed above) applied to the professional activity and who receives a proposal to give an advantage to an entrepreneur in exchange for an illicit gain.
Based on this scenario, the following possibilities are observed:
A. The public agent has no desire to accept the proposal, as it is outside his moral standards.
• Decision: Public agent refuses the proposal (action in accordance with the moral standard).
• Status: No psychic conflict. Emotional structures in harmony, as there is no violation of the Moral Standards of Honesty, Honor, Justice and Ethics.
• Consequence: There is no suffering.
B. The public agent wants to accept the proposal even though it is outside of his moral standards. The following Attitudinal Hypotheses are observed (theoretical model):
• Attitudinal Hypothesis 1:
Decision: Public agent accepts the proposal (action in disagreement with the moral standard).
Status: There is psychic conflict. Emotional structures in disharmony, as there is a clear violation of the Moral Standards of Honesty, Honor, Justice and Ethics.
Consequence: There is suffering. Clear feeling of GUILT for violating moral standards!
• Attitudinal Hypothesis 2:
Decision: Public agent accepts the proposal (action in disagreement with the moral standard), but based on his intelligence and knowledge, he justifies for himself or for others the acceptance of the proposal as follows: “I deserve this financial gain, because I work very hard and I'm not adequately compensated! Besides, if I don't accept it, I'll be a fool because everyone else does and I'll do it for my family..."
Status: There is psychic conflict. Emotional structures intact at first, as there is no clear and conscious perception of the violation of the Moral Standards of Honesty, Honor, Justice and Ethics. The public agent's conscious moral censorship is blocked by the justification created, but unconsciously he knows that any justification does not hold up against the moral standards he has.
Consequence: There is suffering. Public agent does not feel openly guilty, but neither does he feel happy. He experiences emotional dystonias and does not identify the causes. Feeling of EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, which can develop into stress, insomnia, tachycardia, etc.
Additionally, if caught by external censorship (society), he may be fired/exonerated from his position, prosecuted or imprisoned for this act, experiencing the respective emotional consequences.
• Attitudinal Hypothesis 3:
Decision: Public agent does not accept the proposal, because he lacks courage, despite wanting it very much.
Status: There is psychic conflict. Although there is no violation of the Moral Standards of Honesty, Honor, Justice and Ethics, the emotional structures are in disharmony, as he does not admit that he has a desire to accept and represses/represses this desire and runs away not to deal with the situation.
Consequence: There is suffering, as the public agent can constantly remember this desire and will experience it more intensely each time he is confronted with a similar situation. Feeling of FRUSTRATION.
• Attitudinal Hypothesis 4:
Decision: Public agent does not accept the proposal, despite being very seductive. He admits that he has a desire to accept the proposal and knows that this proposal violates his Moral Standards of Honesty, Honor, Justice and Ethics, but he faces this desire, reflecting and evaluating the respective legal, social and personal consequences that he may suffer. He uses reason, negotiates with himself and concludes that it is not convenient for him to accept the proposal.
Status: No psychic conflict. The psychic conflict was resolved with the reflection and assessment of the situation by reason.
Consequence: There is no suffering. Emotional structures are in harmony as there is no violation of the Moral Standards of Honesty, Honor and Justice.
If we replace this fictitious public agent with ourselves, the scenario proposed in this article by the day-to-day situations that stimulate our decisions/actions, and if we apply the theoretical model presented, we begin to perceive the capacity we have to create suffering for ourselves through decisions. /actions that violate our moral standards…
Normally, faced with a seductive situation that stimulates us to a decision/action, but does not conform to our moral standards, we tend to decide/act impulsively, considering only the immediate gains without thinking about the consequences (attitudinal hypotheses 1 and 2) or running away from the situation (attitudinal hypothesis 3). In a decision, rationally looking at both sides of the coin is hard work, but it can save you a lot of suffering in the future.
New example: Who has never, in front of a shop window, wanted to buy something beyond their means?
• If you made the purchase, did you feel guilty for spending more than you could afford?
• If you justified the purchase with “I deserve it!”, did you feel uncomfortable after the purchase?
• If you didn't make the purchase, did you feel a hint of “missed opportunity” frustration?
• What if you considered before buying, analyzing the pros and cons of this purchase and having decided to give up or buy something simpler that fits your pocket, appeasing the desire to buy, but not breaking the budget? Was better?
With the example of the purchase above, I want to emphasize that the best way out of a stimulus/impulse that demands a decision/action that does not fit our standards is to rationally reflect on the pros and cons before deciding/acting ( attitudinal hypothesis 4). Sometimes, there is a possibility of negotiation with yourself and a satisfactory intermediate solution can arise. If we nevertheless decide to act against our standards, at least we will know the author and we will know the consequences.
I warn that I do not intend to exhaust this subject here, which is extensive and complex, but to help us understand how much we are responsible for the consequences we suffer from our decisions/actions and indicate a path to wiser decisions/actions to be happier and harmonized.
On the other hand, regarding the difficulties of dealing with guilt, dystonia and frustrations already installed, I remind readers that the help of a professional in the area is always welcome, to help overcome these difficulties.
