I believe that guilt and remorse is a social construct from a cultural significance having no bearing on our biological frames.
Without the embracing of guilt or remorse such things do not exist.
Is there anyone on this site who would like to argue the opposite?
Yes, it’d say that feelings like guilt and remorse are cross-cultural, are expressed to some extent in animals, and etc. Biological, much less anger, rage or fear, guilt/remorse helps you renew social contracts that you needed in hunter-gatherer groups.
I think your position is utterly senseless and baseless.
…ever thought that you’re just a cold-blooded human? Joker 
I think you should fight in UFC 
For example;
People beat children, some people beat children more then others and one of the reasons is lack of guilt/remorse when they do it.
So take a group of fathers and say, ten are real fathers, five are fathers who think their fathers, and another ten are step-fathers. If all these fathers were raised in the same environment, there would be massive differences in how often, on average, they beat their children.
The step-fathers beat them the most, likely followed closely behind the fathers whose children aren’t theres or don’t look like him. If you think there isn’t less remorse/guilt envovled with beating a child that doesn’t belong to you, you’re wrong, theres less guilt/remorse even when the father thinks the child is his, but it isn’t.
what are the rates, somthing like 7% of normal children get beaten and 40% of step-children? A example of biological situations creating differences in regret/remorse.
Undoubtedly many have called me as such. 
Only if someone pays me for my training.
What about the many tribes where we hear cannibalism to be a socially acceptable phenomena or where we look at ancient barbarian Europe where murder,rape and pillaging was common in conflict not to mention accepted?
What does your cross cultural beliefs entail to that?
I am not really understanding these examples but your reply on my previous post would be greatly desired.
For one I once read that a lot of the cannibalism stuff was unfounded, digging deeper it seems a lot of it is founded, to the point that some may still practice it today, hunter-gatherers, translators may lie about that but I think its safe to say it happened, along with all that other horrible stuff, along with greater evils then we would want to imagine.
Violencee is cross cultural as well, what does this suggest to me? That humans had a complex environment where they needed to work with some humans, and obvious fear and war with other humans, not to mention the kind of competition that goes on within the ‘cooperation’ side, isn’t always ‘cooperation’ like we would imagine, and may expload into insane violence.
What does this say to me? The obvious, that humans are filled with adaptations, some for empathy, some for hatred, some for violence, some for peace, depending on circumstance and environment different innate qualities interacting with the environment create a ‘manifest psychology’ (the result of our adaptations and environment interacting).
We have an insane adaptive flexibility, so under situations we can essentially be mindlessly cruel apes, but in other circumstances we can be otherwise, and i’m saying that modern environments give us more chances to not be that cruel ape, reasons why we don’t need to be that way today and how attempting to control ourselves now may be better, because, our emotions, our mental evolution, our mental architecture, is not ‘designed’ to operate efficiently in modern societies, our brains may be more adapted to an ancestoral past, but that doesn’t mean we’d want to go back there, that our societies today aren’t more preferable, and to live well in these societies to attempt at least, to control our adaptations from ruling us where it might be no longer beneficial for the individual organism to allow them to do that.
Most of that practiced violence would be towards outgroups, outgroups don’t typically get the same kind of ‘guilt’/‘remorse’ that people usually put towrards kin/close friends. If you think black people are inferior because of adaptations meant to seperate ingroups/outgroups, you’re likely not to extend empathy to them etc.
I’m not saying empathy or regret are universal qualities, only that they exist in some circumstances, maybe a lot of them. That doesn’t mean you extend it to the person whose face you’re crushing under your heel.
That is what I am saying! 
Empathy,guilt and regret are not universal qualities. They are found only in the cultures who have established them as a norm and since they are reduced to culture they are cultural constructs.
Now since not all cultures are the same obviously some are not going have any of those qualities at all.
What really gets me is since individualism is more predominant in our own era why are people who choose not to have those feelings are so persecuted. 
no, they are not cultural constructs, this is idiotic tabula rasa, general computer, blank-slate NONSENSE. Regret/Guilt are part of a adaptation TOOLSET, meant to be used under CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. It has nothing to do with being nonbiological.
people feel guilt/remorse over brutally mistreating family members more then strangers, cross-culturally, this has n othing to do with cultural constructs. The very notion of this cultural bullshit has been the foundation of one of the most falsified, irrational, impossible ‘sciences’ ever, you are a hypocrite to critisize other people for ‘religious beliefs’ while you ascribe to that psychobabble incoherent nonsense.
They are not applied ‘universally’ that doesn’t mean people don’t come pre-equipped to show/feel regret/emapthy/guilt under certain circumstances, pre-equipped with specialized neural hardware. We are.
If guilt or remorse was biological why doesn’t everybody have the perception of feeling these emotions?
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
If we accept guilt or remorse as being a cultural constructive interfaces than yes it is a construct!
I like the headbanging, because thats how I feel everytime someone says this kind of simplistic nonsense. ^
Because biological doesn’t imply ‘fixed’ or ‘exists in every male’ it only means that people come pre-equipped with specialized neural hardware to solve certain adaptive tasks. Not everyone is ‘angry’, everyone comes equipped with mental architecture that will respond as such under certain environmental stimuli.
The critical question isn’t whether all males behave in X way, the question is whether or not all males come equipped with mental programs to behave in roughly X way under some circumstance.
Say, theres adaptations that most people have that make them treat family different then strangers, the adaptation doesn’t work the same for someone else so it must not exist?
Its biological, period.
Nonetheless it shows these behaviors as subjective and not fixed pre-equipped or not.
You saying it is biological is debatable but for now I think my previous post covers that also.
No, it shows behaviors are dependent on highly complex and integrated systems, that has nothing to do with subjective. concecptions of morality are subjective, that doesn’t mean they can’t be judged on objective scales.
Explain to me how somthing subjective becomes judged on a objective scale.
Anything is debatable, its not sensically debatable.
This is simply incorrect. There is no notion that people come pre-equipped with a sense of guilt and remorse. Guilt and remorse must be taught. If it was in-built in us, then why do we have discipline at all; why do we discipline children? Have you ever spent much time with children? Why do we have a system of punishments and rewards that are enforced by the state?
The basic notions of guilt and remorse are enforced from without to maintain a sense of static, predictable existence. i.e. to maintain a particular way of life; certain notions of how things ought to be done in a society. And how things are to be done, is none other than the expression of the will to power of those who created those oughts in the first place.