A Principle in Moral Theology?

[Nate13]

I’ve been batting this principle around in my head and it seems right in a sense, but the language I’m using to describe it doesn’t seem to fully work to get the point across. I would like some opinions on what words could best be used to describe this idea:

Person A commits an act that knowingly leads 1 person into a near occasion of sin.
Person B commits the same act that knowingly leads 100 people into a near occasion of sin.
Assume the same amount of intent or absence of intent for each person.
For the sake of the example everything is equal except the consequences of their actions.

Here are the ways I have come up to describe this. They all seem either to not go far enough, or to go to far:

1. The action of Person B has more consequences than the action of Person A.
2. The action of Person B has more moral consequences than the action of Person A.
3. Person B has more of a burden/obligation to God than Person A.
4. Person B has more responsibility to God than Person A.
5. Person B has more accountability to God than Person A.
6. The seriousness of an action increases as the consequences of an action increase.
7. The seriousness of an action increases as the number of lives that sin has a possibility of affecting negatively increases.
8. The more influence someone has, the more moral responsibility to God they have.

An application of this principle, already in effect it would seem, would be in the case of politicians who use their office to flout their Catholicism and at the same time voice support for abortion. They are effectively abusing their power and influence to flout anti-Catholic views.

While my neighbor may be saying all the same stuff through chatting with people around Church, he is not excommunicated for it while a politician is. Is this difference in action a reflection of the difference in the seriousness of the sin, which was changed by the differing influence the two people have over a larger amount of people?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’ve been batting this principle around in my head and it seems right in a sense, but the language I’m using to describe it doesn’t seem to fully work to get the point across. I would like some opinions on what words could best be used to describe this idea:

Person A commits an act that knowingly leads 1 person into a near occasion of sin.
Person B commits the same act that knowingly leads 100 people into a near occasion of sin.
Assume the same amount of intent or absence of intent for each person.
For the sake of the example everything is equal except the consequences of their actions.

Here are the ways I have come up to describe this. They all seem either to not go far enough, or to go to far:

1. The action of Person B has more consequences than the action of Person A.
2. The action of Person B has more moral consequences than the action of Person A.
3. Person B has more of a burden/obligation to God than Person A.
4. Person B has more responsibility to God than Person A.
5. Person B has more accountability to God than Person A.
6. The seriousness of an action increases as the consequences of an action increase.
7. The seriousness of an action increases as the number of lives that sin has a possibility of affecting negatively increases.
8. The more influence someone has, the more moral responsibility to God they have.

An application of this principle, already in effect it would seem, would be in the case of politicians who use their office to flout their Catholicism and at the same time voice support for abortion. They are effectively abusing their power and influence to flout anti-Catholic views.

While my neighbor may be saying all the same stuff through chatting with people around Church, he is not excommunicated for it while a politician is. Is this difference in action a reflection of the difference in the seriousness of the sin, which was changed by the differing influence the two people have over a larger amount of people?

No.
Sin are not measured by numbers of people afflicted.

 

[awolbob]

I’ve been batting this principle around in my head and it seems right in a sense, but the language I’m using to describe it doesn’t seem to fully work to get the point across. I would like some opinions on what words could best be used to describe this idea:

Person A commits an act that knowingly leads 1 person into a near occasion of sin.
Person B commits the same act that knowingly leads 100 people into a near occasion of sin.
Assume the same amount of intent or absence of intent for each person.
For the sake of the example everything is equal except the consequences of their actions.

Here are the ways I have come up to describe this. They all seem either to not go far enough, or to go to far:

1. The action of Person B has more consequences than the action of Person A.
2. The action of Person B has more moral consequences than the action of Person A.
3. Person B has more of a burden/obligation to God than Person A.
4. Person B has more responsibility to God than Person A.
5. Person B has more accountability to God than Person A.
6. The seriousness of an action increases as the consequences of an action increase.
7. The seriousness of an action increases as the number of lives that sin has a possibility of affecting negatively increases.
8. The more influence someone has, the more moral responsibility to God they have.

An application of this principle, already in effect it would seem, would be in the case of politicians who use their office to flout their Catholicism and at the same time voice support for abortion. They are effectively abusing their power and influence to flout anti-Catholic views.

While my neighbor may be saying all the same stuff through chatting with people around Church, he is not excommunicated for it while a politician is. Is this difference in action a reflection of the difference in the seriousness of the sin, which was changed by the differing influence the two people have over a larger amount of people?

I think you are closest with #8 but the sin is still the same whether we lead 1 or 1000 to sin,
breaking one commandment still separates’s us from the father.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

While my neighbor may be saying all the same stuff through chatting with people around Church, he is not excommunicated for it while a politician is.

However, given the pastoral reasoning behind excommunication, if the ceremony of excommunication (see this video cross-reference) were to take place and televised, publicly excommunicating the politicians, hopefully A) the politician realizes their un-Catholic political view and repent, B) your neighbor sees this, realizes how they are wrong and repents, or (best of all) C) both A and B.

 

[Nate13]

I think you are closest with #8 but the sin is still the same whether we lead 1 or 1000 to sin,
breaking one commandment still separates’s us from the father.

The seriousness of the sin of stealing for example, increases as the amount stolen increases. While stealing a pack of gum may only be a venial sin and is not a grave sin, stealing $10,000 is a grave sin that could me mortal.

Is this same principle not applicable in the way I have used it above?

No.
Sin are not measured by numbers of people afflicted.

The seriousness of the sin of stealing is determined in part by how much a person steals and the consequences of their action as well.

 

[Nate13]

No.
Sin are not measured by numbers of people afflicted.

The seriousness of the sin of stealing is determined in part by how much a person steals and the consequences of their action as well.

 

[Newbie2]

No.
Sin are not measured by numbers of people afflicted.

I disagree to a certain extent, or perhaps see it in a different context:

If my knowledge of history is correct, Hitler is not recorded as ever having shot someone. Yet his sin is not worse than Joe Mugger who robs and shoots someone?

Politicians who have the bully pulpit are on the hook for having influenced perhaps millions of people into sin while Joe Average may have only influenced his neighbor (one person). Perhaps the way of looking at it is to say that the politician has sinned millions of times over; he just has the means (and therefore tgreat responsibility) to reach millions while Joe Average will never have such an opportunity.

 

[Nate13]

I disagree to a certain extent, or perhaps see it in a different context:

If my knowledge of history is correct, Hitler is not recorded as ever having shot someone. Yet his sin is not worse than Joe Mugger who robs and shoots someone?

Politicians who have the bully pulpit are on the hook for having influenced perhaps millions of people into sin while Joe Average may have only influenced his neighbor (one person). Perhaps the way of looking at it is to say that the politician has sinned millions of times over; he just has the means (and therefore tgreat responsibility) to reach millions while Joe Average will never have such an opportunity.

Exactly, this principle holds to some extent the question is just how far. We are talking about the idea of scandal. I’m trying to describe the principle that scandal is based on.

Just found this in the Catechism:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.86

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"89

So possibly we are talking about two different ideas. I commit an act that is wrong and hurts my soul and is a sin. I then commit the sin of scandal if on top of that my actions lead to cause temptation for others.

 

[John21652]

I’ve been batting this principle around in my head and it seems right in a sense, but the language I’m using to describe it doesn’t seem to fully work to get the point across. I would like some opinions on what words could best be used to describe this idea:

Person A commits an act that knowingly leads 1 person into a near occasion of sin.
Person B commits the same act that knowingly leads 100 people into a near occasion of sin.
Assume the same amount of intent or absence of intent for each person.
For the sake of the example everything is equal except the consequences of their actions.

Nate, consider this -

If person A carries out an action designed to deliberately cause another to sin and then the second person does sin, is the second person morally culpable or not? And, if the second person does not sin as a result of person A’s action, does that lessen person A’s moral culpability?

If person B causes a multitude to sin, and the multitude does indeed sin, then we’d say each one of the multitude is morally culpable for their actions, as is Person B.

The question is, is person B’s moral culpability greater by dint of the fact that they can influence more people? Let’s then turn to the catechism at 2284 and the notion of scandal. It says -

Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

That seems pretty straightforward and describes your scenarios fairly well.
However, the catechism has this to say at 2285 -

Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized…Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others.

It is supported by scripture references at Mt 18:6. 1 Cor 8:10-13… Mt 7:15. Two stories are told which illustrate the gravity of this doctrine, one being Jesus saying that anyone who leads little children astray is in big trouble and the other about Jesus admonishing the Pharisees for their wayward teachings. In other words, it is about the moral culpability of the person committing the act that leads to another sinning where the person being lead is not morally mature to discern the errors of what they are being taught.

Anyone in public life could be said to be morally responsible for providing information to an audience that relies upon them for that information. An example that come to mind is Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propogandist who said if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. We know how his preachings influenced an entire nation. There would be many who listened and acted on his preachings whose moral culpability would not be so great, such as the impressionable young. The more morally mature who went along with his preachings would have had to suspend their natural moral sympathies in order to go along and therefore I’d suggest their moral culpability is greater.

However, Goebbells would be mora morally culpable by dint of his position and the same goes for anyone else in authority. Luke 12:48 tells us that to whom much is given, much is required. Anyone given the ability to lead others is therefore expected to do so with the virues in mind. The Catechism tells us at 2286 that -

Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

Scandal is scandal and someone who perverts the moral actions of one neighbour is equally guilty as someone who perverts the moral actions of 100 neigbours. However, those in positions of authority have a higher standard to which they are held and their admonishment will be greater.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The seriousness of the sin of stealing for example, increases as the amount stolen increases. While stealing a pack of gum may only be a venial sin and is not a grave sin, stealing $10,000 is a grave sin that could me mortal.

Is this same principle not applicable in the way I have used it above?

The seriousness of the sin of stealing is determined in part by how much a person steals and the consequences of their action as well.

Now, I am exaggerating to see better.

A kills 4 000 000
B kills 4 000 001

Which is the gravest sin? Let us remember that 1 person is 1 persons. And if it is different, are there in this case the possibility of 4 000 001 sins?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I disagree to a certain extent, or perhaps see it in a different context:

If my knowledge of history is correct, Hitler is not recorded as ever having shot someone. Yet his sin is not worse than Joe Mugger who robs and shoots someone?

Politicians who have the bully pulpit are on the hook for having influenced perhaps millions of people into sin while Joe Average may have only influenced his neighbor (one person). Perhaps the way of looking at it is to say that the politician has sinned millions of times over; he just has the means (and therefore tgreat responsibility) to reach millions while Joe Average will never have such an opportunity.

Sin is against God. OK?
You sin when you do something God did not want.
Now, some who knew Hitler better saw him as a lunatic, a crazy man, maybe a mental retarded person. Even Jews like Anna Arandt recognize that the EVIL made by Nazis was incommensurable worse than the man who made it.
Read the opinion of the men who caught Eichmmann in Argentina. They were surprised by how innocuous he looked. And the man was the enginneer of the Holocaust !!!
We do not know whether Hitler is in Hell. God knows.
Maybe someone who killed 1 person be worse than him. God knows.
Only God can judge.
That is why I say that it does not depend on numbers but on God’s judgement.

 

[Leegal]

An application of this principle, already in effect it would seem, would be in the case of politicians who use their office to flout their Catholicism and at the same time voice support for abortion. They are effectively abusing their power and influence to flout anti-Catholic views.

While my neighbor may be saying all the same stuff through chatting with people around Church, he is not excommunicated for it while a politician is. Is this difference in action a reflection of the difference in the seriousness of the sin, which was changed by the differing influence the two people have over a larger amount of people?

I coud not follow the argument. I would say if I performed one abortion or paid for one abortion, I led someone to sin because I know it’s a sin. If I performed 100 abortions or paid for 100 abortions, I led 100 people to sin. My sin is two-fold, the performance or support for an abortion and leading someone or 100 someones into sinning.

Now, just speaking of me – I die. God is not going to say “well, you only did it once”, as opposed to 100 times if I did one abortion. However, my culpability may be lessened by other circumstances or may be increased.

However, my 1 or 100 abortions is my sin. The consequences for B are entirely different and they are judged separately from my sin(s). Culpability for B can be decreased or diminished based on the individual circumstances of B, unrelated to my actions.

I would add that if a Church member speaks in agreement with abortion, they are excommunicated latae sententae (automatically); abortion is also considered blasphemy… Automatically. Anyone who has an abortion, speaks blasphemy or converts to another religion (apostasy) is excommunicated latae sententae. And that person cannot even receive the rite of penance until the priest lifts the excommunication, which any diocesan priest can do during confession. They are probhibited from all sacraments – including reconciliation, from taking active part in the liturgy and they cannot be an EM. But, the person is obligated to state what they did so that a priest knows if excommunication is present.

This is not like being excommunicated for mortal sin – one can still go to confession. But the confession of an excommunicant latae sententae requires knowlege by the penitent and by the priest for reconciliation to take place. I know one woman who before full confession had to have the priest read the Roman Rite of excommunication before proceeding because she was one who converted out of Catholicism – an apostate. In my case, I told the priest before meeting that my confession will involve excommunication latae sententae. I reconfirmed with another priest, that here in the U.S. all priests can lift an excommunication–which is not true in all countries.

So, whether the Pope declared one excommunicated or not – you know if you are excommunicated latae sententae or not (or should) and you must tell the priest – of course, as soon as you get to the sin he will know. But, I told him before setting up the appointment so that there would be no doubt in my mind.

Those Catholic politicians who support abortion are excommunicated latae sententae and the Pope does not have to declare them excommunicated.

 

[Nate13]

Now, I am exaggerating to see better.

A kills 4 000 000
B kills 4 000 001

Which is the gravest sin? Let us remember that 1 person is 1 persons. And if it is different, are there in this case the possibility of 4 000 001 sins?

Every person matters to God therefore yes I would say the seriousness of that sin has again increased. Or if I follow Leegal’s logic I would say you have committed one more sin in the case of B. I could look at as committing 4,000,001 different sins, or as 1 sin that has increased in seriousness by 1 person.

 

[Nate13]

I coud not follow the argument. I would say if I performed one abortion or paid for one abortion, I led someone to sin because I know it’s a sin. If I performed 100 abortions or paid for 100 abortions, I led 100 people to sin. My sin is two-fold, the performance or support for an abortion and leading someone or 100 someones into sinning.

Yeah I’m moving more and more in this direction as well. The doctor would commit two sins. One being doing the abortion, and two causing scandal.

Now, just speaking of me – I die. God is not going to say “well, you only did it once”, as opposed to 100 times if I did one abortion. However, my culpability may be lessened by other circumstances or may be increased.

I would think you would get 100 millstones tied around your neck, should you not repent. Culpability has a part in scandal, just as it does in all sins.

However, my 1 or 100 abortions is my sin. The consequences for B are entirely different and they are judged separately from my sin(s). Culpability for B can be decreased or diminished based on the individual circumstances of B, unrelated to my actions.

True.

I would add that if a Church member speaks in agreement with abortion, they are excommunicated latae sententae (automatically); abortion is also considered blasphemy… Automatically. Anyone who has an abortion, speaks blasphemy or converts to another religion (apostasy) is excommunicated latae sententae. And that person cannot even receive the rite of penance until the priest lifts the excommunication, which any diocesan priest can do during confession. They are probhibited from all sacraments – including reconciliation, from taking active part in the liturgy and they cannot be an EM. But, the person is obligated to state what they did so that a priest knows if excommunication is present.

Ah good point.

This is not like being excommunicated for mortal sin – one can still go to confession. But the confession of an excommunicant latae sententae requires knowlege by the penitent and by the priest for reconciliation to take place. I know one woman who before full confession had to have the priest read the Roman Rite of excommunication before proceeding because she was one who converted out of Catholicism – an apostate. In my case, I told the priest before meeting that my confession will involve excommunication latae sententae. I reconfirmed with another priest, that here in the U.S. all priests can lift an excommunication–which is not true in all countries.

So, whether the Pope declared one excommunicated or not – you know if you are excommunicated latae sententae or not (or should) and you must tell the priest – of course, as soon as you get to the sin he will know. But, I told him before setting up the appointment so that there would be no doubt in my mind.

Those Catholic politicians who support abortion are excommunicated latae sententae and the Pope does not have to declare them excommunicated.

Thank you for explaining that.

 

[Leegal]

Every person matters to God therefore yes I would say the seriousness of that sin has again increased. Or if I follow Leegal’s logic I would say you have committed one more sin. I could look at as committing 4,000,001 different sins, or as 1 sin that has increased in seriousness by 1 person.

If anything, and we cannot know God’s mind, the number may have something to do with the diminishment or increase in culpability. A person may kill one person and be less culpable – but certainly had sinned – but the circumstances that causes a person to kill one person are likely (most assuredly) different circumstances than what causes a person to kill dozens or thousands. I don’t think the example speaks to the sin, but the amount of culpability of which only God knows.

I can cite an example of where killing of one person might be justified – and lessens culpability both legally and in God’s eyes. I cannot come up with a circumstance where culpability would be lessened when the numbers are thousands. Of course, legally one might argue mental disease and defect, that the person was too defective to even know right from wrong, but arguably (from a secular standpoint) to kill dozens or thousands takes some planning and a knowing right from wrong but wanting to destroy life anyway – but those are secular arguments. We don’t know what God knows about the circumstances.

 

[Nate13]

If anything, and we cannot know God’s mind, the number may have something to do with the diminishment or increase in culpability. A person may kill one person and be less culpable – but certainly had sinned – but the circumstances that causes a person to kill one person are likely (most assuredly) different circumstances than what causes a person to kill dozens or thousands. I don’t think the example speaks to the sin, but the amount of culpability of which only God knows.

I can cite an example of where killing of one person might be justified – and lessens culpability both legally and in God’s eyes. I cannot come up with a circumstance where culpability would be lessened when the numbers are thousands. Of course, legally one might argue mental disease and defect, that the person was too defective to even know right from wrong, but arguably (from a secular standpoint) to kill dozens or thousands takes some planning and a knowing right from wrong but wanting to destroy life anyway – but those are secular arguments. We don’t know what God knows about the circumstances.

I’m not talking about culpability. I’m talking about seriousness of a sin.

Assume the same amount of intent or absence of intent for each person.
For the sake of the example everything is equal except the consequences of their actions.

 

[Newbie2]

Sin is against God. OK?
You sin when you do something God did not want.
Now, some who knew Hitler better saw him as a lunatic, a crazy man, maybe a mental retarded person. Even Jews like Anna Arandt recognize that the EVIL made by Nazis was incommensurable worse than the man who made it.
Read the opinion of the men who caught Eichmmann in Argentina. They were surprised by how innocuous he looked. And the man was the enginneer of the Holocaust !!!
We do not know whether Hitler is in Hell. God knows.
Maybe someone who killed 1 person be worse than him. God knows.
**Only God can judge.**That is why I say that it does not depend on numbers but on God’s judgement.

I agree that only God can judge, but it seems reasonable to make an assumption that being responsible for killing millions has more gravity than killing one, no?

 

[Leegal]

I’m not talking about culpability. I’m talking about seriousness of a sin.

I would say it’s that serious alone, I don’t think numbers speak to the instrinsic seriousness of the sin iteself, but might speak to culpability.

Maybe it does though. I wonder if the Church has a teaching on this – whether a woman who has 1 abortion or 3 abortions has sinned more seriously? I find it hard to separate out the intrinsic nature of the sin itself from the numbers. One sin done again and again.

One can argue then that if I missed Mass it does not matter if I miss a few more as I am already in mortal sin for missing one Mass. Or if I have one abortion, 3 won’t matter. That then gives a silent acquiescence to sin. If I missed Mass, a few more won’t matter because it does not add to the intrinsic seriousness of the sin of missing one Mass.

On the other hand, one can counter that argument with that missing one Mass and continues to do so or one abortion that leads to three carries it’s own separate instrinsic evil, above and beyond the seriousness of the sin itself. I think the Church would come down on the side of this argument, otherwise we could miss mass for weeks or years, have 3 abortions and hope to get to confession in time.

The is a question for a theologian. Most interesting though.

Just had a thought. This is why we confess numbers of times for most sins. If a woman confesses “I’ve had an abortion”, it’s assumed to be one. Otherwise, the woman is required to say how many abortions. Same for missing Mass. You have to say how many and how long. So, yes, I think there’s an increasing or separate seriousness based upon the number of times the sin is repeated.

 

[Nate13]

I would say it’s that serious alone, I don’t think numbers speak to the instrinsic seriousness of the sin iteself, but might speak to culpability.

Possibly but I don’t see the connection unless by culpability you mean to be talking about the punishment the sin would earn. This question really is a hard to pin down. It feels right, but I just can’t seem to put it into words to fully express it.

Maybe it does though. I wonder if the Church has a teaching on this – whether a woman who has 1 abortion or 3 abortions has sinned more seriously? I find it hard to separate out the intrinsic nature of the sin itself from the numbers. One sin done again and again.

That would obviously be three different sins with three different actions. I’m talking about when one action I commit possibly causes multiple people to come under temptation. Is there a difference in seriousness, culpability, moral responsibility, ect… depending on how many people my one action leads into a temptation to sin? This has implications if so particularly for people with influence over others no matter what the quantity. I think most people already realize this in practice though. A father understands that he has a lot more responsibility once he has kids who are looking up to him.

One can argue then that if I missed Mass it does not matter if I miss a few more as I am already in mortal sin for missing one Mass. Or if I have one abortion, 3 won’t matter. That then gives a silent acquiescence to sin. If I missed Mass, a few more won’t matter because it does not add to the intrinsic seriousness of the sin of missing one Mass.

Obviously these are additional sins. In that it only takes one mortal sin to put us in hell, yes every mortal sin after that does not matter in that respect. I would bet the punishment one can expect though fits the crime/crimes. That is how justice works.

On the other hand, one can counter that argument with that missing one Mass and continues to do so or one abortion that leads to three carries it’s own separate instrinsic evil, above and beyond the seriousness of the sin itself. I think the Church would come down on the side of this argument, otherwise we could miss mass for weeks or years, have 3 abortions and hope to get to confession in time.

The is a question for a theologian. Most interesting though.

I agree. I believe my priest has a advanced degree as a moral theologian, so maybe I will try and get his opinion on it.

Just had a thought. This is why we confess numbers of times for most sins. If a woman confesses “I’ve had an abortion”, it’s assumed to be one. Otherwise, the woman is required to say how many abortions. Same for missing Mass. You have to say how many and how long. So, yes, I think there’s an increasing or separate seriousness based upon the number of times the sin is repeated.

I think that is more about being truthful and not so much about remembering the exact number. Obviously someone would remember how many abortions they had, but for instance someone who struggled with masturbation is probably not keeping a tally. They would probably very simply just say “I have masturbated a few times this week”. We should be as honest and specific as we can reasonably be though.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I agree that only God can judge, but it seems reasonable to make an assumption that being responsible for killing millions has more gravity than killing one, no?

Objectively, yes.
Morally, no.