Sin and fault? Do they even exist?

[thebestofenergy]

Where do you draw the line defining what it's someone's fault/sin? It seems like such things don't exist. Someone doesn't have the 'evil' in them.
If you did something incorrect/harmful/immoral, there'd a reason behind it.
For example: if you steal, it's either because you're desperate or because you received no education. To understand what moral values a person has when he/she grows up, it's a pretty simple process; the human mind usually asks 2 things: does the environment around me do it, and if so do people I know tell me I can/should do it? This is an evolutionary process, the capability of defining your ethics based on society. If you want to know why he/she stole, you can understand it by looking at his life, by looking at his parents, etc.
Another example: pedophilia (note: a pedophile isn't necessarily someone that has molested a child). Pedophilia is 'recurrent sexually arousing fantasies, impulsive desires, or behaviors involving sexual acts with a child'; but why does it happen? Certainly not because the person is just 'bad' or has some sort of evil. It's a cerebral dysfunction, including problems with self-control, extreme urges and cognitive distortions; many experts also believe that disorders for sexual preferences emerge from childhood experiences during critical periods in human development; in many cases, child sex abusers suffer from traumatic experiences during their childhood; it's basically a mental illness, from which you can be cured.
Another example: someone who overreacts to your critiques. He may do it for one of those reasons: backward rationalization, cognitive dissonance and/or more generally because of his right part of the brain, that defends his believes at every cost.
Where I'm going is: if someone acts/behaves the way they do, it's not because they are 'bad' or something; it depends from the environment they grow up, from their parents and from their experiences. If a serial killer grew up in your environment and had your experiences, probabilities say he/she'd be similar to you (with some differences of course, because of genetics, but the person definetely wouldn't be a serial killer).
What do you think about this? In the light of these facts, capital punishment seems extremely silly to me. It's more of a revenge-type punishment.

[Volenta]

Sinning means that you're not obedient to God / moral rule. It's really a silly idea that it can be taken away when believing in a single human sacrifice. It's something immaterial and abstract, for which there's absolutely no evidence.

I think the question of fault is strongly connected to the question of free will. I think free will does not exists, and therefore 'fault' in some deeper sense does not exist. How can you take someone morally responsible for an action with comes forth out of the genetic background, bad childhood, bad parents/friends, bad ideas, for which he/she has no influence?

It of course does not mean that punishment is unnecessary. Besides the social satisfaction it gives, it also scares off people to commit a crime, which is ultimately what you want. But the more we know about how the brain works, the line between willingly and unwillingly committing a crime becomes more vague. Whether it is a tumor which triggered you to commit a crime, or because of your background influences, it both can be explained at the level of the brain over which you have no control.

As for pedophilia: I don't think they can be cured, just like gays can't be made straight. There is some evidence that the feelings for children are already developed in the embryo and early childhood. Pedophiles have less grey matter (=neurons) in the some regions in the brain like the hypothalamus and the amygdala. It's not yet clear whether there is a genetic component to it or because of sexual abuse in childhood, but there are family trees with high percentage of pedophiles in it.

Putting pedophiles back in society that misused a child is not really a smart thing to do, just like releasing psychopaths. It's a tough question how to handle this kind of people, you also don't want to punish them for their genetic/embryonic/childhood background.

Sam Harris talks about these kind of things in his book Free Will, which I recommend and mostly agree on.

[brimstoneSalad]

Where do you draw the line defining what it's someone's fault/sin? It seems like such things don't exist. Someone doesn't have the 'evil' in them.

A fault is anything that is physically or morally problematic relative to the norm, or ideal.

A retarded person has a fault- that they have a deficit.
So does a crazy person- a fault in the brain.

Faults are everywhere- but the more morally meaningful question is whether it is that person's fault, or a fault attributed to something "other"

And that gets down to the existential question of what defines a person- what is the root of who you are, and what is the root of choice- either works, and I'll go over both of them in a minute.

When we see a fault, for example retardation, there is often a clear causative chain that goes to early trauma, chemical exposure, or oxygen deprivation in development.
It is not that person's fault, but the fault of happenstance, nature, or an irresponsible parent.

When we can clearly assign fault to something 'other', it ceases to be the fault of the person in question.

Where that line is crossed is either where that fault is a product of free choice, or is a part of inherent character and selfhood (e.g. a character flaw).

Both of those are existential cans of worms.

Free Choice / Free Will

If you did something incorrect/harmful/immoral, there'd a reason behind it.

That is only to say that the universe is deterministic, and that there is ultimately a reason for everything.

In an absolute sense, free will does not exist- and as a corollary, free choice does not exist.

To put it simply, that would eliminate that part of 'fault'.

But it's not necessarily that simple. Even among atheists, there are those who hold to the view of compatibilism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism ).

Daniel Dennett is a good example. Sam Harris holds the opposite view; they have discussed the subject on occasion, and you might find some of their exchanges and commentaries on it enlightening:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/refl ... -free-will

(It's not necessary for you to read Harris' book, if you haven't; Dennett sums the arguments and quotes them when responding, but you should read Dennett's article there to understand what the discussion is about.)

The main question is regarding what "free will" means, and if it is or can be a coherent and useful concept.
Most of it boils down to semantic disagreement, but there's a subtle point of philosophy in there too, regarding the justification for Dennett's (and other like minded philosophers') prescriptivistic definition of 'free will', and Harris' point regarding a lack of a concrete distinction between responsibility and not outside the context of social utility (which Dennett sees incorrectly as deferring the issue).

I don't want to go over that in too much detail and deny you the chance to read it and come to your own conclusions, but there are two answers there to be understood (one more subjective, and one based on utility).

Suffice it to say that they are inadequate justifications that fall short of providing any kind of essential philosophical truth for the subject at hand.


Selfhood / Existential Being

Putting aside all of that silliness over free will, the more essential question comes up: What is selfhood?

It doesn't matter if will is free or not- because will itself (deterministic or not, compatibilistic or not) is at the center of what self is. We are wills. Changing wills, malleable wills, but wills none the less.

Will is at the center of consciousness, sentience, experience- without which there is no metric by which to give the world around us any meaning, or ourselves and our actions purpose.

As atoms are the building blocks of matter around us, and subatomic particles- down to quarks- are the building blocks of those, will is the core and fundamentally irreducible element of self.
Anything less than a will, and you have reflexes and chemical reactions without an iota of sentience.


So if there is any such thing as self at all (and some may argue that self doesn't exist- well fine, but then the question was meaningless to begin with), will is the most basic part of it.

This satisfies possession and ownership. You can argue everything else away if you want, as non-essential to self, but not will.

Your will is yours . And if it is faulty, then it is YOUR faulty will. It is a fault. That you have. That is fundamental to your existential quality of being. That you can not divorce yourself from and still have selfhood. It is your fault, as much as you are you.

It's actually pretty simple when you reduce it to it's lowest possible level.

There are complicated cases, like Dissociative identity disorder, otherwise known as multiple personalities (where there are actually two or more distinct selves present- it's not the fault of one personality, what another personality wills), but for most people it's a pretty simple distinction.

Where I'm going is: if someone acts/behaves the way they do, it's not because they are 'bad' or something; it depends from the environment they grow up, from their parents and from their experiences.

They are bad. They may have been made bad by the environments, but that doesn't negate the fact.

Bad people can be made good. Good people can be made bad. Humans are malleable. But it's not easy- and it takes resources, which have serious opportunity costs.

Whether we should punish them or not, and how we should punish them (or treat them) is a matter of social utility.

If we imprison people for stealing, and that reduces the rate of the crime in a cost effective manner, then we should do that.
If doing that makes the problem worse and wastes money, then we shouldn't do it.
If we send them to a halfway house with employment and drug rehabilitation programs, and that reduces crime in a more cost effective manner, we should do that.

Punishment is not about retribution for somebody doing something that was "their fault" on a philosophical level. It's a matter of social engineering, psychology, and game theory.

What do you think about this? In the light of these facts, capital punishment seems extremely silly to me. It's more of a revenge-type punishment.

Any punishment is silly if it is not effective. Any punishment is reasonable if it's effective.

Capital punishment is just not very effective, with regards to social utility. And it's not cheap. It has nothing to do with people deserving the punishment or not- but it does at least require that they have broken the social contract as a matter of fact (or be otherwise disenfranchised) to qualify for it.

[TheVeganAtheist]

I avoid using "sin" or "evil" when I speak of things that are wrong. Im almost 100% free of the word sin, but sometimes I will refer to something as evil, while not meaning that its an evil force.

Things are right or wrong based upon the possible effect it may have on one's self, and on others. I think its silly to think there is some force in the universe that is trying to make us do bad things.

[thebestofenergy]

Thanks for the replies.

As for pedophilia: I don't think they can be cured, just like gays can't be made straight. There is some evidence that the feelings for children are already developed in the embryo and early childhood. Pedophiles have less grey matter (=neurons) in the some regions in the brain like the hypothalamus and the amygdala. It's not yet clear whether there is a genetic component to it or because of sexual abuse in childhood, but there are family trees with high percentage of pedophiles in it.

No cure for pedophilia has been developed, I've expressed myself badly, but there are therapies that can reduce the incidence of a person committing child sexual abuse.

Whether we should punish them or not, and how we should punish them (or treat them) is a matter of social utility.

Social utility isn't always the 'right' thing to do, it's not always justice. But even if it is, what when you take social utility out of the equasion? I was considering the situation without social utility included. What would be the most correct/most rational thing to do with criminals/'bad' people? A therapy?
However, thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check them out.

Things are right or wrong based upon the possible effect it may have on one's self, and on others. I think its silly to think there is some force in the universe that is trying to make us do bad things.

Definetely. I didn't mean to use 'sin' in a religious ambit. More of a determination if someone deserves the punishment that is inflicted in today's society or not for his actions (not considering social utility).

[brimstoneSalad]

Social utility isn't always the 'right' thing to do, it's not always justice.

I should have said social or moral utility; social utility (e.g. based on the utility to the "society" however it is defined) is more common, but it's also based on/permits disenfranchisement, which moral utility is not/does not allow.

"Justice" is usually about balancing the scales- either by righting a wrong, or by adding another wrong against the one who did the wronging.
Justice is not always possible, practical, or desirable, by the common definition.

The rational approach is to make the most of your resources, given the situation, and your goals- not to be hung up on concepts of justice that are irrational or often impossible (like retribution, or exactly undoing the wrong that was done).

what when you take social utility out of the equasion? I was considering the situation without social utility included. What would be the most correct/most rational thing to do with criminals/'bad' people?

If you take social utility out of the question, and you take moral utility out of the question (which is very similar to social utility in most respects), then there is no basis for rationality in response to transgression.

Without those rational metrics, you just follow your feels, or do whatever your culture or religion commands you to do.

Morality without some measure of utility is just ideology without practice- functionally useless.

To give an extreme example:

If you spend a million dollars giving a pedophile therapy instead of spending $5 on a lethal injection, then you can not spend that remaining $999,995 on preventing a thousand babies in Africa from contracting HIV.

In an ideal world, we do both good things- therapy, and helping the babies in Africa.
But in the real world we have a surplus of misery, and acutely limited resources.

Of course, it doesn't cost $5 to execute somebody- due to our legal system (which is essential to protect the rights of citizens and make sure innocent people don't get executed and the government doesn't abuse its power) it costs millions of dollars. So, it makes more sense to give them therapy (which is morally preferable to execution, and it leaves more money to do good elsewhere).

People should generally receive rehabilitation because it makes more sense- in terms of social and moral utility. It's not justice for the family, or the wronged, but it's often the right thing to do.

[Jishmeister]

I don't believe "sins" exist in the biblical sense. I believe sins are our carnal instincts and we should indulge in them as long as we aren't breaking the law, raping, or murdering.

I indulge in the "7 deadly sins" every damn day, and you know what, it feels great and I'm happy!

When I think of the word "fault," I either think of somebody's faults and imperfections, or how it can be someone's fault for the presence of an unfortunate event occurring. Either way, yes it exists.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't believe "sins" exist in the biblical sense. I believe sins are our carnal instincts and we should indulge in them as long as we aren't breaking the law, raping, or murdering.

The argument that we should indulge in our carnal instincts is an "appeal to nature" fallacy:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Just because an impulse is instinctual, doesn't mean we *should* do it. Questions of shoulds or oughts are far more complicated than that.

And something being against the law, or violating social contract, isn't the only reason we shouldn't do something.

Ayn Rand's is the least credible non-theistic world view to ever gain a following (I won't say Philosophy, because it's assertion and dictate, based on fallacy after fallacy)- almost ironically, it's now been enthusiastically adopted by the radical right among Christian fundamentalists, just adding god back in.

I indulge in the "7 deadly sins" every damn day, and you know what, it feels great and I'm happy!

While "sin" in the religious sense has absurd premises, the typical "seven deadly sins" can be real moral and character flaws. Like the "ten commandments" there's religious nonsense in there too, but a lot of it also goes much farther back before Abrahamic religion, and is quite secular.

Think about the moral consequences of some of these things to other people.

Lust
Obviously consensual sex is fine- if you use protection and you aren't spreading anything.
But what is consent?
No consent is really consent unless it's Informed Consent.
When people are excessively driven by lust, even short of breaking the law, they will lie and cheat to get sex- at the cost of their partners' physical and mental well being. People make empty promises, throw the word "love" around to get laid, and generally fuck each other up in more ways than one.
Being a little bit moderate, or at least very careful and conscientious of how your actions affect others is crucial.

Gluttony
Gluttony is waste; it's both unhealthy, expensive, and destructive. No food is without environmental cost, or cost to animals. Those foods most associated with gluttony are often the worst in all respects.
While the art of cooking may be something to celebrate- and enjoying sense experience in moderation- gluttony goes beyond that.
Eating and using far more than one reasonably needs or could need- often to the point of sickness. There's nothing to celebrate about that.

Greed
Often said to be the root of all evils- and that may not be entirely wrong. Some celebrate the corporate culture of profit above all else, stomping on the little man and fighting progressive civil rights with all they have.
Today we have anti-trust laws, and growing regulation to fight the deleterious effects of wanton greed upon the economy- and they help. But none of those would exist if we didn't recognize greed as a problem. And they're still not enough to combat some of the serious impositions on human and non-human rights and welfare caused by putting the bottom line above all else.

Sloth
Sloth is a crime of inaction. It is in having a great ability to change the world for the better, and just not caring- not being bothered to lift a finger.
How many lives can we save if we do more? How much good can we do? Quite a bit, actually. Those who indulge in sloth don't even want to be average- they want to do nothing. They can't be bothered to care about others or be productive in any way.

Wrath
I shouldn't have to go into this one. This is playing a negative sum game of lose-lose out of pure unreasoned hatred. Even if you fall short of violence, wrath will ruin your life.
As psychology advances and becomes more rigorous, we're starting to get more evidence of this- focus on these kinds of emotions leads to poorer health and overall well being, and creates more of the kinds of situations that stimulate it in the first place. By fixating on things like these, we become them (our brains are plastic, and they get better at the things we do- even if that's just hate).

Envy
Envy is the root of our consumerism centered society- keeping up with the Joneses. We want what other people have, even if we don't in any way need it- just because somebody else has it. Like gluttony, this results in profound amounts of waste- wasted materials, wasted effort, environmental degradation for nothing, harm to other humans and animals- for nothing.
Living in this way creates an addictive pattern- but does NOT produce happiness.
We're starting to understand pretty well how the brain works, and the psychology of happiness. Worrying about what other people have and you don't results in dissatisfaction for the vast majority of people (save for the people on top, who don't have to worry about it- but even if you're not a millionaire, you too can just stop giving a shit about what other people have and obtain the same inner peace).

Pride
Pride is the most beautiful thing in the world- when it is merited and earned. It's a kind of love- for the self, and others in whom one is proud (like a child). When it's unearned and unmerited, it's one of the most disgusting things, in part for the perversion of that beauty, and in part for its effects in creating stubborn arrogance in the ignorant, building resistance to knowledge and admitting mistakes, preventing positive change in the world. Unearned pride, through the wonders of cognitive dissonance, "I am awesome, I'm doing/I believe this thing, therefore this thing is right", is the root of stubborness and stagnation in the world.



I just spoke on every one of the seven deadly sins, in a fully rational and secular manner- and every one of them can and often is problematic. You'll notice I did add some sane and rational exceptions where they can be used responsibly.

The notion of a religious "sin" against god is absurd, but only because there is no god. The world over is not completely wrong about the notion of morality- something that can and does exist in principle.

The classical sins do speak coherently to social and moral problems. This isn't from the Bible, or even strictly from religious contexts. It's discovery of human vices through society.

It would be irrational to discount them without consideration just because they're perceived as coming from largely religious sources. They're only seen as coming from religion because religion has claimed a monopoly on morality for a very long time- and it's far past time we reclaim morality from the twisted clutches of religion. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[charlotte-reva]

For example: if you steal, it's either because you're desperate or because you received no education.

May be not, may be your anarchist and your stealing at the big stores because you think the big companies are the stealers.In that case your stealth act would be a social justice retribution act.

I avoid using "sin" or "evil" when I speak of things that are wrong. Im almost 100% free of the word sin, but sometimes I will refer to something as evil, while not meaning that its an evil force.

Things are right or wrong based upon the possible effect it may have on one's self, and on others. I think its silly to think there is some force in the universe that is trying to make us do bad things.

Ok but we still live in a world that has a strong religious background even if we are atheist etc, we still know what those words means. About the evil force, i am not that sure .Before a war starts usually there are a lot of , unfortunate, events that accumulates and that finally causes the war to happen . This accumulation may seem surrrealistic compared with normal times etc. and that surrealistic accumulation of unfortunate events creating a proper war is sometimes called a " evil force" . Same as with health issues. In general a chronic disease come from an accumulation of causes that can create what we call a vicious circle .

[thebestofenergy]

For example: if you steal, it's either because you're desperate or because you received no education.

May be not, may be your anarchist and your stealing at the big stores because you think the big companies are the stealers.In that case your stealth act would be a social justice retribution act.

Oh yes, sure that can be the case. This was almost three years ago, so my views have changed and are not the same.
However you could say thinking that doing something like that was going to be productive for the end goal of your agenda, would mean ignorance, and therefore not enough education - because there has to be some level of ignorance to believe doing that would be useful or at all sensible.

Welcome to the forum, by the way