We Made a Mistake, But We Are Not a Mistake: Accountability and the Possibility of a New Beginning

How can one take responsibility for past mistakes without reducing one's entire identity to that error? This essay, linking the ethical psychology, existentialism and the concept of repentance in the Holy Quran, revisits the difference between constructive regret and self-destruction.

Missionary - Education Service: A wrong decision, a lost relationship, a failure in an exam, a bad career choice or a behavior that we later regret can stay in the mind for a long time. But sometimes the problem goes beyond the mistake itself. Instead of saying, "I made a mistake," man gradually says, "I am a wrong person."

These two sentences are not the same psychologically and morally.

In the first one, one distinguishes between "self" and "behavior". He attributes a specific action to himself and accepts responsibility for it. In the latter, the fault is transformed from a behavior to an identity. Failure is no longer something that happens to a person, but becomes a definition of oneself: I am a failure, I am worthless, I am a bad person, and therefore there is little possibility of change.

The main question is: how can one accept the responsibility of the mistake, without reducing oneself to the mistake?

This question is not only psychological. One of the old issues of moral philosophy is the same: to what extent is man responsible for his actions and what is the relationship of accepting this responsibility with the possibility of changing him?

Responsibility begins where excuses end

In the simplest form, responsibility means that a person accepts his behavior as his own behavior. "I did" is different from "it happened to me".

Of course, no human being makes a decision in a vacuum. Family, social environment, economic status, upbringing, psychological pressures and many external factors affect our choices. Contemporary psychology also does not consider human behavior as the product of a single cause. But explaining a behavior is not the same as justifying it.

Circumstances may explain why a person became angry, lied, or made a wrong decision; But this explanation does not necessarily eliminate his responsibility.

At this point, the concept of "agency" becomes important. Man is not just a product of circumstances; In many situations, he has the ability to evaluate, choose and modify his behavior. Accepting responsibility means accepting the same share of agency.

If a person finds an explanation for his every behavior in which he has no role, the possibility of correction disappears. Because reform involves the assumption that "I can do what I have done, again in a different way."

Sartre: Man cannot escape his responsibility

In the existentialist philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, responsibility has a fundamental place. Man cannot forever attribute his identity and choices to a predetermined nature or external circumstances. Sartre even shows in the discussion of "disbelief" that man sometimes pretends to escape from his freedom and responsibility, that he is simply what his circumstances or social role have made him.

Of course, this view should not be understood in the sense that all human beings have the same freedom in all circumstances. Rather than denying real limitations, Sartre's philosophical discussion of responsibility is a warning against the temptation to turn limitations into permanent excuses.

From this perspective, saying "I am who I am" can sometimes mean ending the possibility of change.

If someone says, "I'm a nerd, so I can't do anything," they've made their behavioral trait a fixed identity. But if he says, "I behave aggressively in certain situations and I am responsible for correcting it," there is still the possibility of action and change.

Responsibility, in this sense, is not just looking back; It is a way to open the future.

Psychology makes a difference between "guilt" and "shame".

This distinction is also important in psychology. One of the important differences between guilt and shame is that guilt is more often directed at misbehavior, while shame can become a negative evaluation of the whole self.

"I did a bad thing" is different from "I am a bad person".

Psychological studies have shown that these two states have different consequences. Feelings of guilt can in some circumstances lead a person to compensate and modify behavior, while intense and chronic shame may be associated with withdrawal, self-deprecation, and avoidance.

This distinction is of fundamental importance for the issue of responsibility. If the goal is just to make the person feel bad about themselves, there may be no such thing as accountability. A person may blame themselves for hours, but take no action to make amends or change their behavior.

Guilt, if it is to be moral, must lead to a practical question: What should I do now?

Responsibility without the possibility of correction becomes a permanent punishment

If man is responsible for his past actions, should he be defined by them forever?

Here comes one of the most difficult moral issues. Accountability should not be equated with permanent condemnation.

A person who has harmed another cannot just say "bygone is bygones" and abdicate responsibility. True responsibility may require confession, apology, reparation and change of behavior. But on the other hand, if there is no possibility of change and reconstruction, responsibility becomes a kind of endless punishment.

In restorative ethics, which has been considered in various fields from criminal justice to human relations, it is emphasized that facing wrongdoing should not only end with punishment; It is also important to identify the damage, accept responsibility, repair the relationship and prevent recurrence.

This logic can also be seen at the individual level. Accepting a mistake does not mean denying it, nor living eternally in its shadow.

Another danger: turning responsibility into self-destruction

In popular culture, it is sometimes believed that the more a person blames himself, the more responsible he is. This notion is not necessarily true.

Someone who constantly berates themselves after a failure doesn't necessarily take more responsibility. On the contrary, he may be so caught up in the image of "I am a failure" that he loses the ability to take further action.

In the psychological literature, the concept of "self-compassion" has been proposed precisely to deal with this issue. Self-compassion does not mean denying mistakes or unconditionally forgiving yourself; It means that a person can see the error and take action to correct it when faced with failure and failure, without the collapse of his self-worth.

This point does not conflict with responsibility. Incidentally, if a person can create a logical distance between "me" and "my wrong behavior", he will be able to face the error more honestly.

A person who considers himself to be full of evil may avoid seeing fault. A person who says "this behavior of mine was wrong and I must correct it", can face it.

repentance; Responsibility without excluding the possibility of return

At this point, we can reach the concept of repentance in the Qur'an. If we see repentance only in the form of a set of jurisprudential rulings about sin, its conditions and effects, an important part of its meaningful capacity in human life will be ignored.

In verse 53 of Surah Zammar, the Qur'an says to those who "wasted on themselves":

"Say, O servants of those who have wasted on themselves, do not be weary of the mercy of God."

Tell my servants who have abused themselves not to despair of God's mercy.