The Idea of Shame
Kant: The Idea of Shame
What shame targets
- Not the humanity within a person.
- The self-conceit, or the false esteem, that competes with love of honour.
What shame protects
The love of honour, the esteem we have for ourselves as moral persons.
Two rules for using shame
- Shame must NOT be used on young children. They do not yet have a deeply rooted sense of honour for shame to work on.
- Shame should only be used with the growing youth.
When shame is specifically useful
In addressing lies. Stressing the shamefulness of a lie (rather than the harmfulness) reinforces how the student should value themselves.
Why this works
A student who sees their lie as shameful realises that lying detracts from their own love of honour. The shame teaches the student to value themselves more, not less.
Shame is one of the most powerful and most dangerous tools in a teacher’s hand. Used badly, it crushes a student’s self-respect for years. Used well, it strengthens that very self-respect. Kant draws the line between the two uses precisely. The line depends on what the shame is actually targeting and at what age it is applied.
What shame should target
Kant’s first move is to distinguish two parts of a person, only one of which is the proper target of shame.
The first part is the humanity within a person. This is the dignity every human being carries, the moral status that grounds duty toward self and toward others. The humanity is not a proper target for shame. Shaming a person for being human is cruelty. It damages the very thing moral education is trying to build.
The second part is self-conceit, also called false esteem. This is the inflated, mistaken view a person has of themselves: the false sense that they are above the rules, above the law, above other people. Self-conceit competes with the true love of honour. The honest sense of one’s own moral worth is one thing; the puffed-up false sense is another.
Shame, used correctly, targets the self-conceit. It does not damage the humanity. By puncturing the false esteem, shame helps the person see their actual situation more clearly. The deflation is the work. The deflated person can now build a more honest self-respect on what is actually there.
Self-conceit, or false esteem
Not the humanity within the person (that grounds the person’s dignity and must be protected). Shame should target the inflated false sense the person has of themselves: the puffed-up self-conceit that competes with the honest love of honour.
What shame protects
Kant’s second move is to name what shame, properly used, protects.
Shame and contempt are attitudes that protect love of honour: the esteem we have for ourselves as moral persons. A person who has been properly raised has a working sense of their own moral worth. This sense is part of what motivates moral action. The person does not want to do things that would damage this self-respect.
Shame protects this sense. When a person acts in a way that should diminish their self-respect, shame is the inner alarm that tells them so. The shame stings. It signals that this action does not fit the kind of person they are trying to be. The person adjusts.
A person without any sense of shame is harder to morally educate. They have no inner alarm. Bad acts produce no internal response. Almost everything has to be policed externally.
A person with too much shame, applied to the wrong things, is also damaged. They feel shame about being human, about needs they cannot help having, about not measuring up to impossible standards. This kind of shame attacks the humanity, not the self-conceit. It is harmful.
The skilled teacher cultivates the first kind of shame and protects the student from the second.
The love of honour: the esteem we have for ourselves as moral persons
A person’s working sense of their own moral worth is part of what motivates moral action. Shame is the inner alarm that signals when an action would damage this self-respect. A person without any shame has no inner alarm; almost everything has to be policed externally.
Shame must not be used on young children
Kant gives a firm rule about age. Shame must not be used on young children.
The reason is developmental. Young children do not yet have a deeply rooted sense of honour. Shame works by appealing to the person’s love of honour; if the love is not there yet, the shame has nothing to attach to. What lands is just the sting, with no productive lesson.
Worse, shaming a young child can damage the very development of the love of honour. The child learns that they are bad, not that they did something bad. The damage to the developing self-respect makes the later cultivation of love of honour harder. A teacher who shames a five-year-old is mortgaging the child’s later moral development for a small immediate behavioural fix.
The right tools for young children are discipline (for habits), maxims (for principles the child can grasp), and the small, careful punishments described earlier. Shame waits for later.
They lack a deeply rooted sense of honour for shame to work on
Young children do not yet have the love of honour that shame is supposed to protect. Shame applied to them just stings, with no productive lesson. Worse, it can damage the very development of love of honour the teacher is trying to build.
Shame should be used only with the growing youth
The right age for shame is the growing youth. By this stage, the youth has developed a love of honour. They have a sense of who they are trying to be as a moral person. Shame can now do real work, because there is a love of honour to protect.
When the youth acts in a way that diminishes their self-respect, the shame signal hits home. The youth recognises the act as not fitting the person they are trying to be. They adjust.
The transition from child to youth is not sharp. A skilled teacher reads the individual student. A youth who still has the moral sensibility of a young child needs the protections of childhood, even at thirteen. A child who has developed an early sense of honour can begin to feel productive shame, even at ten. The age numbers are guides, not strict rules.
With the growing youth, once a love of honour has developed
The growing youth has a sense of who they are trying to be as a moral person. Shame can now do real work, because there is a love of honour to protect. The transition from child to youth is not sharp; a skilled teacher reads the individual.
Shame and lying
Kant gives a specific case where shame is particularly useful. Use shame on the growing youth when they lie.
The technique is precise. Instead of stressing the harmfulness of the lie (the damage it might do to the person lied to), the teacher stresses the shamefulness of the lie (the damage it does to the youth’s own moral standing).
The reason is clever. Stressing harmfulness sometimes backfires. The youth can rationalise that the harm was small, that the person lied to was not really hurt, that the lie was a victimless act. Once the youth has talked themselves into “no harm done,” the lesson does not land.
Stressing shamefulness works differently. The lie is shameful because of what it says about the liar, not because of what it does to others. Even a lie that produces no external harm is shameful, because it damages the integrity of the person who told it. The shamefulness is not contingent on outcomes; it follows from the act itself.
A youth who comes to see lying as shameful develops a stronger internal barrier than a youth who only sees lying as potentially harmful. The barrier is rooted in the youth’s love of honour, not in calculations of outcome. This is exactly the kind of moral interior Kant has been trying to build all along.
Stress the shamefulness of the lie, not its harmfulness
The harm to others can be rationalised away. The shame to oneself cannot. A lie is shameful because of what it says about the liar, independent of any external consequences. A youth who comes to see lying as shameful develops a stronger internal barrier rooted in their love of honour.
How was this article?