In the article "The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt," the idea that impacted me the most was the fact that one might feel guilt even when one knows that he did nothing wrong, here I present a quotation from the article to better understand this point:
<em> "Subjective guilt, associated with this sense of responsibility, is thought to be irrational because one feels guilty despite the fact that one knows one has done nothing wrong. Objective or rational guilt, by contrast-- guilt that is "fitting" to one's actions--accurately tracks real wrongdoing or culpability: guilt is appropriate because one acted to deliberately harm someone, or could have prevented harm and did not. Blameworthiness, here, depends on the idea that a person could have done something other than he did. And so he is held responsible, by himself or others." (Nancy Sherman Ph.D.) </em>
Here we can read that sometimes one can feel guilt for having done nothing wrong, or for doing even what could be considered a duty, which is a bit contradictory to the common way of seeing guilt. This situation caused me a great deal of surprise for my conception of guilt only lies on the ground of doing incorrect or harmful things to other people, in other words, when your actions cause damage to someone with the only purpose of causing negative results, but here we can read about an internal conflict that produces guilt where there should not be guilt.
Analysing this concept helped understand better the concept of survivor guilt because I started thinking what could then cause this kind of guilt, what emotions, ideas or rationalizations could take place in the survivor's mind to produce such guilt? And the answer to lies in the fact that the cause of the guilt is not in the actions done in the battlefield, but in the mere fact that the survivor survived and others did not. The guilt sprouts because of the mates left behind in the battlefield, the friends who died for the survivor to live.
