Episode 260: Guilt is one of those emotions that can seem entirely negative. It makes us uncomfortable, keeps us awake and often causes us to replay mistakes long after they happen. But what if guilt also serves an important moral purpose?

In this episode of “The Ethical Life,” hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada examine what guilt is for, why it can sometimes help us change and what happens when people no longer share a clear understanding of which behaviors deserve it.

Kyte argues that guilt traditionally worked within a broader moral framework. People understood which actions violated accepted standards, and there were established ways to respond: apologize, make amends, seek forgiveness and repair the relationship. Without that shared framework, he says, guilt can become “free-floating” — a persistent sense of blame without a clear explanation for what went wrong or how to make things right.

That leads to a broader discussion about judgment. Modern culture often warns against judging others, and in many cases, that has encouraged greater tolerance of harmless differences. But the hosts ask whether that reluctance sometimes goes too far. Are there behaviors society should be willing to call harmful, irresponsible or simply wrong? And can people make those judgments without turning every disagreement into condemnation?

The conversation also explores the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is an internal judgment about something a person has done. Shame depends much more on how others see us. In an era of social media, public criticism and constant exposure, Kyte argues that society may be shifting away from a culture of guilt and toward a culture of shame — one in which people are acutely aware of being watched and judged but may have fewer paths toward reconciliation.

Religion plays a central role in the discussion. Kyte explains how religious traditions historically offered both moral standards and mechanisms for forgiveness. Rada, approaching the topic from a secular perspective, asks whether modern society can develop similarly durable standards without relying on religion.