The Lifegiving Sense of Justice
And Its Consequences for the Federal Bureaucracy
I am the spirit that ever negates. And rightly so, for all that comes to be Deserves to perish wretchedly; 'Twere better nothing would begin. Thus everything that that your terms, sin, Destruction, evil represent— That is my proper element.
- Mephistopheles, Goethe’s Faust
Modern man’s understanding of guilt is wrong. It’s not just bad — it’s satanic. Our widespread adherence to it is the reason for the West’s collapse. The malformed understanding of guilt precipitates a suicidal justice that enjoins the bad and punishes the good. The bureaucratic state is the poison fruit of this tree, and a new understanding of guilt is needed to fell it.
The Current Understanding of Guilt
The commonly held understanding of guilt is that people are guilty of the bad things they do, and justice is delivered when they are held to account for them. The understanding also recognizes negligence in some cases where a person is delinquent in the duties they ought to have upheld. It constitutes the bipartite model of guilt (BMG).
The former is believed more frequently and carries greater social and legal ramifications. Understandings of guilt which deviate from this two-part model are idiosyncratic.
The Emergent Ethos
An ethic emerges from the current understanding. It holds that a person should refrain from doing bad things and fulfill their responsibilities toward those things over which they have stewardship. Most people regard this as reasonable and accept it because they cannot find objection to it except in esoteric cases.
Why It Is Flawed
However, the ethic ordained by the common understanding of justice is one of death and decline. It nearly always says no, even in cases where a yes is necessary. The common understanding that one should refrain from doing evil is rarely balanced by a belief that one should possess the initiative to do good. Moreover, people are deemed negligent only when they have failed to fulfill a duty to an object under their supervision. Thus, negligence requires the assignment of supervision and an assignor. Yet cases wherein one party assigns responsibility to another over an object are infrequent. So, the guilt that compels action is often ignored.
The result is a sense of justice that denies action far more frequently than permits. This sense of justice is the source of many social problems.
Why It Perverts Bureaucracies
Obstructive bureaucrats are the most familiar problem arising from the malformed sense of guilt. Bureaucrats are not inherently obstructive but become so when constrained by the BMG. The BMG compels them to obstruct to reduce their guilt, and they do not suffer consequences because the model lacks the precepts needed.
Bureaucrats obstruct in three ways: paperwork, taxation, and denial. They use paperwork to obstruct by compelling people to submit forms, yet the submission process wastes time, thereby retarding activity and discouraging action by making the permission process insufferable. Taxation amplifies the problem by imposing monetary costs alongside the time costs, which further discourages action. Denial is the last obstruction and occurs when permission is explicitly refused.
The three tools prevent activity and shield the bureaucrats from responsibility for the consequences of permitting something that has a disastrous effect. Furthermore, it is difficult to claim that bureaucrats and their institutions are negligent when they are quite visibly hard at work to ensure nothing of value is ever accomplished.
So, bureaucracies assume a default-deny policy and are rarely punished for it. Yet adopting such a policy prevents many good works that might have been done from ever occurring. Thus, a bureaucratized society adhering to the BMG stagnates, declines, and dies.
Why It Plays Poorly with Liberalism
The BMG is incompatible with liberalism. Liberal societies, at their core, emphasize individual freedoms, the cultivation of personal responsibility, and a system that allows people to operate with a presumption of competence rather than suspicion. However, the BMG incentivizes oversight, suspicion, and a pervasive assumption that individuals will err unless constantly monitored and controlled.
This attitude breeds a regulatory culture that stifles the freedoms liberalism aims to protect. Instead of encouraging self-governance and personal growth, the BMG entrenches a mentality of passive compliance, reducing citizens to subjects constantly managing their culpability rather than exercising agency.
Furthermore, the BMG’s narrow definitions of wrongdoing and negligence encourage a bureaucratic sprawl that contradicts liberalism’s emphasis on limited government. A liberal society, by design, seeks a balance where the government is present to uphold order but restrained enough to prevent overreach. The BMG, however, demands meticulous oversight and interference as it drives authorities to create new rules, regulations, and surveillance measures to avoid potential wrongdoing.
Every potential risk, flaw, or gap in oversight invites bureaucratic intervention, creating an endless cycle of governance that seeks to mitigate any blame or negligence preemptively. This compulsion toward increased control directly undermines the liberal ideal of a government that “governs least” and respects personal autonomy.
Finally, the BMG erodes public trust, a critical foundation for any liberal society. The BMG leads to a system that encourages people to avoid errors rather than pursue excellence, to comply rather than engage, and to settle for mediocrity rather than aspire to greatness. When people are consistently treated as potential liabilities rather than capable individuals, they distrust and hate their rulers.
Citizens distrust bureaucratic motives, viewing every new regulation as another step toward excessive oversight. Similarly, government officials distrust the public, compelled by the BMG to believe society will inevitably descend into chaos without stringent control. This mutual distrust forms an invisible yet impenetrable barrier, creating a liberal society in name but one that lacks the trust, freedom, and vibrancy necessary for liberality to thrive.
The Social Consequence
The social consequence is sterility.
Society becomes paralyzed by emphasizing the avoidance of guilt over the pursuit of good. Individuals become preoccupied with not doing wrong rather than actively doing right. This pervasive fear of culpability stifles creativity, suppresses initiative, and discourages risk-taking. People hesitate to engage in meaningful actions or challenge the status quo, knowing any misstep could lead to blame or punishment. The collective result is a stagnant culture where progress is impeded, excellence is rare, and mediocrity becomes the accepted norm.
To break free from this state of inaction, we must fundamentally shift our understanding of guilt. Moving beyond the bipartite model requires embracing a more holistic view of responsibility—discouraging wrongdoing and encouraging proactive efforts to do good. By redefining guilt to include the failure to take positive action when necessary, society can foster an environment where initiative is valued and constructive contributions are the expectation rather than the exception. This new ethos can revitalize communities, restore trust, and set the foundation for a more dynamic and flourishing civilization.
The Five Guilts
The common understanding of guilt is malformed. It recognizes two major guilts, one more prevalent than the other. The dominant one forbids action, and the lesser one compels action only in a few instances. The net effect is a general prohibition on most activities—including those that are needful and healthy for the broader society. So, a different model that can be trusted to say yes when needed should replace it.
I advance the Five Guilt Model (FGM) as the alternative. It recognizes five types of guilt and introduces tradeoff analysis to its assignment. The five types of guilt are culpable, indolent, permissive, obstructive, and sterile.
Culpable Guilt
Culpable guilt is the most commonly accepted form. It exists when a person does wrong. People with culpable guilt refrain from action because they might be punished for what they do. Populations recognizing culpable guilt adopt forbearance as a virtue and initiative as a vice. Its dominance yields a society wherein risk aversion quashes all activity, and its absence permits barbarism.
The obstructive bureaucracy previously addressed is the social consequence of culpable guilt’s dominance.
Indolent Guilt
Indolent guilt is the other widely accepted form. It exists when a person fails to do good. People with indolent guilt refrain from action because their means are finite. Populations recognizing indolent guilt adopt frugality as a virtue and wastefulness as a vice. Its dominance yields a society wherein charity is common yet less discriminating, and its absence permits miserliness.
The social consequence of indolent guilt’s tininess is rot, and many physical structures and social institutions have decayed because nobody is responsible for their maintenance.
Permissive Guilt
Permissive guilt is the most despised form of guilt in liberal societies, which rarely acknowledge it. The obstructive bureaucracy is an excellent safeguard against it. Permissive guilt exists when someone fails to prevent wrongdoing.
The social consequence of disregarding permissive guilt is a pervasive erosion of communal responsibility and moral decay. Without a shared sense of duty to prevent harm, societies become fragmented, and trust among individuals diminishes. This apathy leads to a decline in social cohesion, where people prioritize personal comfort over the well-being of others. The lack of intervention against wrongdoing allows negative behaviors to become normalized, ultimately undermining the integrity and stability of the community.
Obstructive Guilt
Obstructive guilt is the most common form of guilt in a bureaucratized society and is countered by liberality. It exists when someone prevents a good deed from being done.
In bureaucratic systems, obstructive guilt often manifests through excessive red tape, stringent regulations, and unnecessary hurdles that stifle initiative and innovation. Bureaucrats may impose these obstacles to avoid personal blame or exert control, inadvertently or deliberately preventing beneficial endeavors. The dominance of obstructive guilt in such societies leads to an environment where good deeds are discouraged and actively suppressed.
The social consequence of unchecked obstructive guilt is societal stagnation and frustration. When good deeds are consistently obstructed, individuals become disillusioned and demotivated. The constant hindrance breeds resentment towards authorities and institutions perceived as barriers to progress.
Over time, this leads to a decline in community engagement and a reluctance to propose or participate in initiatives that could benefit society. The collective potential of the community diminishes as creativity is stifled, trust in institutions erodes, and apathy replaces ambition.
Without addressing obstructive guilt, societies risk inhibiting their growth and the well-being of their members.
Sterile Guilt
Sterile guilt is a form unique to this model. It is guilt born by willfully incompetent people. Members of this group cannot do good or prevent evil, and their impotence is entirely self-inflicted. They afflict themselves with impotence by squandering opportunities for self-improvement. So, sterile guilt is a delayed form of indolent guilt.
For example, consider a student with the ability and resources to study for an important exam but chooses not to. Instead of preparing, they engage in leisurely activities like watching television or browsing social media. When the exam arrives, they perform poorly or fail altogether. This failure is not due to external circumstances but is a direct result of their deliberate inaction. They possess sterile guilt because their inability to succeed stems from their own choices to neglect personal growth and responsibility.
The social consequence of sterile guilt is a pervasive decline in collective competence and productivity. When individuals willfully choose to remain ineffective, they hinder their potential and burden society. Their lack of contribution forces others to compensate for their shortcomings, leading to inefficiencies and stalled refinement.
Over time, this self-inflicted impotence erodes the foundations of communal advancement, as fewer people are equipped or willing to address the challenges necessary for societal growth. The accumulation of sterile guilt within a population can thus lead to widespread stagnation and a diminished capacity for innovation and positive change.
Why the Model Is Superior
The FGM offers a comprehensive framework that addresses the limitations of the traditional BMG. The FGM enables a more nuanced understanding of moral responsibility by recognizing five distinct forms of guilt—culpable, indolent, permissive, obstructive, and sterile. This model is superior for several reasons:
1. Enables Tradeoff Analysis
One of the key advantages of the FGM is its capacity for tradeoff analysis in moral decision-making. Unlike the BMG, which primarily focuses on avoiding wrongdoing and fulfilling assigned duties, the FGM acknowledges that ethical choices often involve complex considerations and multiple forms of guilt.
Balanced Decision-Making: The FGM allows individuals and institutions to weigh different types of guilt against each other. For example, the potential obstructive guilt of hindering a beneficial project can be evaluated against the permissive guilt of allowing possible harm. This balanced approach leads to more thoughtful and responsible decisions.
Holistic Evaluation: By considering all five types of guilt, the FGM encourages a comprehensive assessment of actions and inactions. This holistic view ensures that moral evaluations are not one-dimensional but reflect the multifaceted nature of real-world situations.
2. Makes Life-Giving Activities More Accessible
The FGM promotes a proactive ethos that facilitates positive action and the pursuit of good deeds, making life-giving activities more accessible to everyone.
Encouraging Initiative: The model motivates individuals to undertake constructive activities by recognizing indolent guilt (failing to do good) and sterile guilt (willful incompetence). It shifts the moral focus from avoiding harm to actively contributing to society's well-being.
Reducing Fear of Action: Under the BMG, the fear of incurring culpable guilt can paralyze individuals, discouraging them from taking beneficial risks. The FGM's balanced perspective also reduces this fear by emphasizing the guilt associated with inaction.
Promoting Personal Growth: Sterile guilt highlights individuals' responsibility to develop their abilities. By encouraging continuous self-improvement, the FGM ensures that more people can participate in and initiate life-giving activities.
3. Holds Bureaucrats Accountable for Obstruction
The FGM introduces obstructive guilt as a significant moral failing, directly addressing issues within bureaucratic systems that the BMG overlooks.
Accountability for Hindrance: Bureaucrats are held accountable for overt wrongdoing and for obstructing good deeds. Thus, unnecessary red tape, delays, and denials are moral failings that carry guilt.
Encouraging Facilitation Over Obstruction: By acknowledging obstructive guilt, the FGM incentivizes bureaucrats to facilitate rather than impede positive actions. The outcome is more efficient processes, reduced bureaucracy, and a more supportive environment for innovation and progress.
Balancing Risk Aversion: Bureaucrats often default to obstruction to avoid culpable guilt associated with potential adverse outcomes. The FGM's tradeoff analysis encourages them to consider the guilt of obstructing beneficial initiatives, leading to more balanced and reasonable decision-making.
The Emergent Ethos
Adopting the FGM fosters a new ethical framework that encourages proactive goodness, personal responsibility, and communal well-being. This emergent ethos contrasts sharply with the restrictive and often paralyzing morality derived from the BMG. By recognizing a broader spectrum of moral obligations, the FGM cultivates virtues that promote societal flourishing and identifies vices that hinder progress.
Three Heuristics
Balance Action and Inaction: Evaluate what you do and fail to do. Recognize that guilt can arise from harmful actions and neglect to perform beneficial ones. Strive to minimize guilt by making conscious choices that contribute positively to society.
Facilitate Rather Than Obstruct: Before imposing rules or obstacles, consider whether they prevent harm or unnecessarily hinder good deeds. Aim to support and enable positive initiatives, reducing obstructive guilt by being a catalyst for progress.
Invest in Personal Growth: Continuously develop your skills and knowledge to avoid sterile guilt. Embrace opportunities for self-improvement to effectively contribute to the common good and prevent both personal and societal stagnation.
Three Emerging Virtues
Initiative: Taking proactive steps to do good without waiting for external prompts. This virtue leads to innovation, community engagement, and swiftly addressing societal needs.
Samaritanism: A deep sense of accountability not just for one's actions but also for inactions and their broader impact. This virtue fosters trust, reliability, and stronger social bonds.
Facilitation: Actively helping others to achieve positive outcomes. By reducing unnecessary barriers, this virtue enhances collaboration and amplifies the collective potential for good.
Three Emerging Vices
Obstructionism: Deliberately or negligently hindering others from performing good deeds. This vice breeds frustration, dampens morale, and stalls societal advancement.
Apathy: Indifference towards both preventing wrongdoing and engaging in positive action. Apathy erodes communal responsibility, allowing negative behaviors to proliferate unchecked.
Willful Stagnation: Choosing not to improve oneself leads to sterile guilt. This vice limits personal potential and burdens others who must compensate for the lack of contribution.
By embracing the Five Guilt Model, society can cultivate an ethos that values active participation, mutual support, and continuous improvement. This shift promotes a dynamic culture where good deeds are encouraged, excellence is pursued, and the community's well-being is a shared responsibility.
Why It Redeems the Bureaucracy
The FGM redeems bureaucracies by fundamentally transforming how they approach decision-making and accountability. Under the traditional BMG, bureaucrats default to "no" when faced with requests or proposals. This tendency arises because the BMG emphasizes culpable guilt—the guilt associated with taking actions that could lead to adverse outcomes. Bureaucracies often become excessively cautious, implementing stringent regulations and cumbersome procedures that hinder progress and innovation to avoid this guilt.
In contrast, the FGM introduces obstructive guilt as a significant moral consideration. Obstructive guilt arises when someone prevents a good deed from being done. By acknowledging this form of guilt, the FGM compels bureaucrats to weigh the consequences of saying "no" against the potential benefits of approving an action. This shift creates a balance, making it justifiable for bureaucrats to say "yes" when appropriate, without the paralyzing fear of culpable guilt overshadowing their decisions.
The FGM encourages bureaucrats to facilitate positive initiatives by holding them accountable not only for the adverse outcomes of their actions but also for the negative outcomes of their inactions. When bureaucrats recognize that obstructing beneficial actions carries their form of guilt, they become more open to approving proposals contributing to societal well-being. This accountability diminishes the excessive risk aversion that often characterizes bureaucratic systems.
By making it morally acceptable—and even necessary—to say "yes" in certain situations, the FGM transforms the bureaucratic culture from one of obstruction to one of facilitation. Bureaucrats are no longer solely gatekeepers aiming to prevent wrongdoing; they become enablers who actively support and promote positive actions. This change leads to a more dynamic and responsive bureaucracy that can adapt to the community's needs and foster innovation.
Moreover, the FGM makes it easier to hold bureaucrats accountable for unnecessary obstructions. When obstructive guilt is recognized as a legitimate concern, citizens and oversight bodies can challenge bureaucratic decisions that hinder progress without valid justification. This transparency ensures that bureaucrats cannot hide behind procedures to avoid taking responsibility for their obstructive actions.
Essentially, the Five Guilt Model redeems bureaucracies by redefining their moral landscape. It provides a more balanced framework that values the facilitation of good deeds as much as preventing harm. Doing so empowers bureaucrats to make decisions that are in the best interest of society, promotes accountability for obstructive behavior, and ultimately leads to more effective and benevolent governance.
The Social Gains
Embracing the FGM brings significant social benefits that can transform the fabric of our communities. By encouraging proactive goodness and holding individuals accountable for their actions and inactions, FGM fosters a society where people are more engaged, responsible, and collaborative.
One of the most notable social gains is the increase in community involvement. People become more active in their neighborhoods and cities when they recognize that they share responsibility for preventing harm and promoting good. This collective effort leads to safer environments, better public services, and a stronger sense of belonging among residents.
The FGM also enhances trust within society. As individuals strive to avoid not just doing wrong but also failing to do right, they become more reliable and supportive of one another. This reliability builds stronger relationships between neighbors, coworkers, and strangers, creating a more cohesive and harmonious community.
Final Thoughts
The standard model used for understanding guilt is suicide. People who adopt it are guilted into inaction. Yet all living and creative endeavors require action and investment. So, the model leads to death on a personal and social level.
The problem can be fixed with a new model that balances the aversion to wrongdoing with an appreciation for rightdoing. FGM is such a model. Its coming is timely because it imposes accountability on the obstructive bureaucrats currently killing us. Thus, its rapid adoption helps undermine the bureaucratic state that suffocates us.