I think guilt is closely related to empathy, but more empathy resulting from a betrayal of one's morals/principles then inflicting any physical harm.

If you do something that you know is wrong or later find out/leads to something that is wrong, in accordance with your personal principles, then you feel empathy towards who/whatever the victim of your wrong doing is. This feeling is probably amplified if the "victim" is unaware that you have wronged them.
For example: if you were to cheat on your partner. You know it is wrong but for whatever reason you did it anyway. You will probably feel guilty about it because you know you would not like it if your partner cheated on you, regardless of whether they told you or you told them. Or, conversely, perhaps you feel your partner deserved it and did it because you felt justified. Guilt might still rear its head because it is a betrayal of your principles: no matter the circumstance, cheating is wrong.

That is just an example and you may not agree that cheating is inherently wrong but the point is that it is when you betray you own principles you feel guilt.

So in other words, you see feelings of guilt as an emotional reaction to damaged integrity. This seems to me a keen and simple answer, thanks.

Yeah, that is a much better way of putting it.
Your welcome.

Guilt is the gift that keeps on giving.

I've felt guilty a lot -- sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.

Guilt is a critical piece of child development: guilt and fear. Sounds medieval? Well, I don't mean it that way. When children are raised, they are usually disciplined regularly (I don't mean cruelly beaten, or anything like that.) When children are punished for doing something their parents don't want them to do (like throwing a tantrum on the bus, in the supermarket, at church, whatever) the parents will spank the child, speak harshly, isolate the child for a while (solitary confinement in a "quiet space") and the like.

To the child, the punishment is frightening, because they fear the parent will withdraw their love and care. (We were always threatened with being sent to bed without supper, or being forced to get out of the car and walk home). The fear of punishment is learned, and internalized.

Guilt comes along with internalized morals: internalized fear. The child knows what he is supposed to do and supposed to not do, but sometimes does it anyway. Because the fear of punishment is internalized, he feels fear (called guilt) when he does something wrong.

Sounds awful, but this is what enables us to go through life obeying laws, not cheating, not stealing, not being unspeakably nasty to other people because they got in your way, and so on. In fact, it helps us be nice to other people, it helps us to be moral individuals.

Some people who have a brain disorder that interferes with the fear/guilt/obedience mechanism are classified as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths" to varying degrees. They don't feel guilt, and they can't feel responsible for what they do -- though cognitively they are perfectly capable of understanding guilt and responsibility. But they don't feel it, and feeling it is where the rubber hits the road.

So, a little guilt is a good and necessary thing, a lot of guilt is destructive.

When one feels guilty a lot, (like if one is religious, is gay, and can't square the religious condemnation of what one can not help but feel), then something has to give. Usually, and it's the best outcome, people decide their morals are too rigid, are incorrect, or just plain wrong. The alternative is to tear one's self to shreds feeling guilty for what one IS and can not change.

My solution to the Christian/gay/guilt problem was to decide that the church was wrong. Fortunately there were several religious organizations handy to facilitate this conclusion.

So, you can beat guilt. It doesn't mean you have to throw the moral bath water and the baby of principles out the back door. What you have to do is, maybe change the bath water and teach the baby better principles that come closer to matching your personal situation.

Good luck.

"In the name of mumble mumble mumble I hereby absolve you of all your sins. Go in peace."

I totally agree with you. However, I think empathy is out of the question here: When you do something that does not align to your moral principles there is a mismatch between behavior and ethics. Now you try to find a solution in order to remove the mismatch. So then you re-calibrate your behavior in accordance to those ethics so that there is some sort of internal/external alignment: what you do aligns with what you believe.

So now for the cheating example:
You wouldn't cheat because that is not in your ethics. So if you do cheat, you wouldn't feel empathy for the victim because you wronged them but rather because that is how you would try to reestablish the coherence between your actions and your morals.

Thanks a lot.

Yeah, that sounds quite likely. Although i feel empathy plays a part in the feeling of guilt as apposed to the behaviors resulting from guilt. You feel empathy for anything that you come into contact with that you would not wish on yourself, that is what empathy is. Unless, of course, you are a sociopath.

I totally agree. Good clarification

So do you think this form of mildly indoctrinating children into fearing guilt and punishment is the best, or only, way to teach morals in children? Or do you think children are capable of developing their own morals through experiencing guilt from empathy or other means?

Yes, and no.

While it is the case that children, and some other animals besides humans, reveal some innate willingness to share and help each other, this doesn't automatically develop into a system of moral behavior.

Calling disciplining and training children "indoctrinating" tips your hand. But OK, yes, we have to indoctrinate children about:
Rule #1, there is a right and wrong in life
Rule #2, provide the details of what is right and wrong as they get older

Most people successfully teach there children rules #1 and #2. The details of what the rules are may vary a little bit, but not too much.

I am not at all sure that young children would develop useful guides to social behavior if left to their own devices. In any event, young children left to their own devices are not going to survive. We require care for quite a few years before we can survive on our own. The built in "tendency" to display "limited" empathy, sharing, and helping behavior is limited. Those desirable traits are not so instinctive that they will blossom into a fully fledged moral system. They need to be trained in.

"Guilt is the gift that keeps on giving" is a joke among people who feel guilty all the time, but in a way it is true. "Guilt" is the mainspring of moral behavior. We don't like feeling guilt, so we tend to behave in ways that minimize the likelihood that we will feel guilty.

I would lie, cheat, and steal if I wouldn't feel guilty about it. But I sometimes feel guilty for absolutely no reason at all. Having been raised as a good Protestant, there must be something I should feel guilty about. Guilt helps us behave well when there is no one around to observe us behaving badly--at least most of the time. Sometimes the grip of guilt slips, and then we do things we later regret--feel guilt about.

The trick -- and it isn't too difficult a trick because a lot of people pull it off -- is to raise children with enough guilt that they behave well, but not so much guilt that they are tied up in knots.

Let me add that in happy families, the share of time spent on discipling children so that they feel enough guilt to behave well is pretty short. Children learn pretty quickly that there are some things they should not do, or they will get into trouble, and they don't like being punished (even if punishment is being put in a corner to be quiet for 5 minutes). A lot of time is spent on rewarding children for doing the things they ought to do -- little pats on the head, encouraging words, stuff like that. It isn't that children should be constantly punished for doing bad things, or that they should be constantly rewarded for doing good things. They learn, and once they learn, they tend to remember what is good to do, and what is not good to do.

Now, we have all witnessed families, haven't we? where one or both parents seems to be on the warpath with their children all the time. This isn't healthy or desirable, and indicates problems with the adults being a bit crazy. Or a lot crazy.

I feel like in order to develop guilt through empathy one must know what his morals are. How can you develop guilt without a basis of what to feel guilt on ?

So guilt through empathy alone would not suffice. You still need to instruct the child what is right and what is wrong.

Luckily culture, religion, friends, acquaintances can all shape the very nature of our ethics.

Where do parents play a role ?

I think a good way (maybe not the only way) is, as you mentioned, to indoctrinate fear and guilt. If that is the way other people communicate to their children and loved ones and you want your child to be able to communicate effectively then connecting on an emotional lève is crucial. Thus the child should be taught appropriate social emotional signs and expressions, in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree with that almost entirely. The term "indoctrination" gets pretty bad publicity but I don't think it is inherently immoral (mostly because i don't thing anything is inherently immoral). I do think that in order for a society to function this "mild indoctrination" that you speak of is important for maintaining coherence in the social contract and I agree that it is the parents responsibility to find that perfect balance.

However, I don't think we should underestimate our ability to form an albeit basic understanding of morality and its role in shaping our development. If we did not have it, no amount of punishment nor reward would be substantial enough to stop us doing whatever, we would simply turn on our parents for being "cruel" to us (note: even mild punishment might seem cruel if you are a sociopath or psychopath).

Simple:

If you stub your toe, it hurts. Then if you bang someone else's toe, you feel empathy because you know it hurts and feel guilt.

Yes but as long as envy neither rage are present. If those are present then they take over. Why? I believe it’s because people are inherently evil.

If people are inherently evil then it means that people will be much more likely to display behavior we regard as negative or bad or moral than behaviors we consider positive or socially acceptable. And yet here we are with countless of examples of that: my favorite example being that there are many more negative words than positive words in the English language.