Eugene V. Debs 'Understanding Guilt'

In Eugene V. Debs’ speech, he asserts that nurturing his fellow man is a moral obligation because he would be overcome by guilt if he ignored suffering. The fault in his argument lies in the concept of universal obligation caused by guilt. A sense of ethical duty is shaped by personal experiences, so an altruistic inclination is not a universal value. Because moral obligation changes from person to person based on their personal experiences and values, self-sacrifice is not a universal trait. Some groups feel as though sacrificing one’s own priorities for the less fortunate is negligent, to one’s family, self, or society. For instance, The KKK, a virulent nativist organization with terrorist ideals, supported quite the opposite of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Rather, their morals enveloped the realm of protection against foreign ideals and issues; morally obligated to kill or discriminate to protect their values, they turned to fear, intimidation, and violence. Too many of the immigrants arriving at the turn of the 20th century, their moral rights to aid were not intrinsically valued by their foremen. Immigrant girls working before the fateful Triangle

Philip Kain, a Professor of Philosophy at Santa Clara University, wrote about the nature of guilt in his article “Understanding Guilt”. Furthermore, He contends that guilt is an emotion in which humans feel conflicted about not having acted on their morals. Kain’s study indicates that 98% of people act on their guilt. The debater against moral obligation interprets this to mean that if most actions are not based on a sense of duty, but rather a fear of mental consequences, then they are not moral decisions. In this line of reasoning, a nativist organization would have more “moral” grounds because its actions are done through a sense of duty, rather than a self-serving conscience. The end result of a guilty conscience is not always a moral