Did Adam and Eve have complete dominion of reason over appetite?

[o_mlly]

If sin is alienation, then for sure we are all born alienated from God and others to certain degrees

Alienation is the effect. Sin is the cause.

Do you have a negative view towards mankind, such that the alienation is something bad about people?

To be alienated from God is evil. One who denies the existence of sin has a distorted view of mankind.

Or, is it something we can understand as part of the human condition, that it is nobody’s “fault”, but somehow part of the creative process?

The question is not “either/or” but “and/both.” The human condition seeks a harmonious relationship with creation and with the Creator. If one willing neglects the latter dismissing the voice within that calls them to unite then the fault is theirs.

At death, one’s creative process ends. The disposition of one’s soul at death becomes permanent for all eternity. One takes from this life not only that disposition but all the virtues and vices, merit and temporal punishment gained in a lifetime. Judgement follows.

 

[o_mlly]

Observation and introspection is not psychoanalysis, is it?

One does not “introspect” another. Psychoanalyzing the soul of another is dangerous. Psychoanalyzing figurative beings is absurd.

I guess that your ongoing questioning serves in part to string out your thread’s post count. However, it appears to me you are dangerously close to promoting the fundamental option as an acceptable moral theology. It is not. The fundamental option is condemned in Persona Humana and Veritas Splendor. I suggest reading these documents will help resolve your “thousand questions” saving you from that terrible one doubt about the nature of sin.

 

[Gorgias]

No, personal belief dictates subjective moral content. It appears to them that what they were doing is correct. They are therefore not guilty.

That’s the wrong inference, though. You move from subjective (“it appears to them”) to objective (“they are not guilty”) without any valid support.

If you wanted to be consistent, you’d have to stay subjective: “it appears to them that what they were doing is correct; they, therefore, believe they’re not guilty.” Now that would be a logically consistent statement. (The problem, for your assertion, is that it wouldn’t prove lack of guilt. )

You need the ability to understand that an act is moral rather than ability to exercise the situation in order to know that an act is moral.

No. ‘Acts’, devoid of any other condition, do not inherently have moral content. Moral actors, on the other hand, who act with intent, bring moral content into play. Another counter-example for you:

• A wind storm blows across the ocean. A small vessel is dashed against the rocks, killing all on board.

Is there moral content in that act? Does the wind or the sea bear moral culpability for the deaths of the passengers? Of course not.

Now let’s look at it a different way:

• A terrorist steps onto a small vessel. He pilots it straight into the rocks, killing all aboard.

Is this an act with moral impact? Yes, it is. The terrorist has acted immorally, killing innocents.

Can you see? An act – if not performed by a moral actor – has no moral content.

 

[OneSheep]

Their sin was freely choosing the irrational choice. They had the same grace as the Blessed Mother, yet choose death anyways.

The first sin was not trivial disobedience or succumbing to disordered appetites. They had full order over their faculties, but desired knowledge that belonged to God alone, and deliberately disobeyed God to steal that knowledge.

So a person who “has full order over their faculties” can be irrational? Doesn’t it seem that they had something less than “full order” over their ability to reason? Do you have the experience of having full order over your faculties, yet are irrational?

 

[STT]

That’s the wrong inference, though. You move from subjective (“it appears to them”) to objective (“they are not guilty”) without any valid support.

If you wanted to be consistent, you’d have to stay subjective: “it appears to them that what they were doing is correct; they, therefore, believe they’re not guilty.” Now that would be a logically consistent statement. (The problem, for your assertion, is that it wouldn’t prove lack of guilt. )

I agree. There is nothing like objective morality.

No. ‘Acts’, devoid of any other condition, do not inherently have moral content. Moral actors , on the other hand, who act with intent , bring moral content into play. Another counter-example for you:

• A wind storm blows across the ocean. A small vessel is dashed against the rocks, killing all on board.

Is there moral content in that act? Does the wind or the sea bear moral culpability for the deaths of the passengers? Of course not .

Now let’s look at it a different way:

• A terrorist steps onto a small vessel. He pilots it straight into the rocks, killing all aboard.

Is this an act with moral impact? Yes, it is. The terrorist has acted immorally, killing innocents.

Can you see? An act – if not performed by a moral actor – has no moral content .

You need a agent who understand moral content of a situation. What I am stressing is that there is no need for free will in order to understand content of a situation. Without free will our act is always moral if morality is justifiable.

 

[Gorgias]

You need a agent who understand moral content of a situation. What I am stressing is that there is no need for free will in order to understand content of a situation. Without free will our act is always moral if morality is justifiable.

No. Without free will, there is no moral dimension to our act. The morality of an act (according to the Church) depends, among other things, on the intention of the actor. If there is no free will to choose one act over another, then there is no intent. It’s not that there’s “good intent”, it’s that there’s “no intent”. And therefore, no moral content to the act.

 

[STT]

No. Without free will, there is no moral dimension to our act. The morality of an act (according to the Church) depends, among other things, on the intention of the actor. If there is no free will to choose one act over another, then there is no intent. It’s not that there’s “good intent”, it’s that there’s “no intent”. And therefore, no moral content to the act.

Do you need free will to understand the morality of a situation?

 

[Gorgias]

Do you need free will to understand to judge the morality of a situation?

No. I can observe a variety of situations, and engage in the mental exercise of analyzing the morality in the situation.

However, in order to perform an act that has moral content, I must have the ability to freely choose one course of action over another. Devoid of that ability to choose, I cannot claim I am taking an action that is either moral or immoral.

 

[STT]

No. I can observe a variety of situations, and engage in the mental exercise of analyzing the morality in the situation.

Great.

However, in order to perform an act that has moral content, I must have the ability to freely choose one course of action over another. Devoid of that ability to choose , I cannot claim I am taking an action that is either moral or immoral.

Ability to choose could be based on rationality. We rationally compare a situation and choose the option which score higher rationally. We don’t really need free will. It is absurd.

 

[Gorgias]

Ability to choose could be based on rationality.

No. You’re conflating two distinct faculties.

We rationally compare a situation and choose the option which score higher rationally.

Rationality doesn’t imply choice. It implies ratiocination. Choice can be the consequent action out of rationality, but the two are not the same.

We don’t really need free will. It is absurd.

Nah… you may think so, and that might be the basis for your assertions here… but that’s not the case at all.

 

[STT]

Could you decide in a situation only based on rationality? You are in a situation to choose vanilla ice cream and chocolate one. You like chocolate ice cream more and you choose that. Isn’t that a rational decision? You can of curse make free decision and choose vanilla ice cream.

 

[OneSheep]

I think that they believed what they were doing is not a crime. They were blind and made a poor choice.

Yes, they were blind. They thought that they were doing something good. Just for the use of language, though, a person could reasonably find them “guilty” in terms of imputing the crimes to them, and of course any punishment administered by society would be appropriate, correct?

I think a “bottom-line” aspect here is, “do I understand and forgive the worst players in history”? If one holds something against these individuals, then it is our calling to do so.

Sounds like you have understood and forgiven.

This means that there exists a point between that it is neither thought nor act. This point cannot be affected by thought otherwise it is a part of chain of thought. Therefore this point is free decision point.

Even at the “free decision point”, however, there is some impulse involved. In addition, the person is only “free” to make choices that he or she knows are options, and when one’s perception of the options is hindered in some way, this definitely compromises our ability to reason.

 

[Gorgias]

OneSheep:

This depends on the definition of “guilt”, does it not? For example, perhaps we can find the perpetrators of mass murder forgivable “because they know not what they do”, but Hitler and Pol Pot are still imputable for their crimes. They chose the crimes, but they were ignorant. They were guilty of the crimes, that is, imputed to the origin of the crime, but we can understand their poor choices in light of their blindness. Does this accurately restate your position?

I think that they believed what they were doing is not a crime. They were blind and made a poor choice.

The question, though, isn’t merely whether they were ‘blind’, or whether they ‘made poor choices’ – it’s whether those choices are morally imputable to them!

I think a “bottom-line” aspect here is, “do I understand and forgive the worst players in history”? If one holds something against these individuals, then it is our calling to do so.

Sounds like you have understood and forgiven.

There’s a difference between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘imputation of moral guilt’. @STT seems to be talking about the latter and asserting that there was no guilt to begin with.

(Interestingly, that means that he would see no need to forgive – where there is not guilt, there is no forgiveness necessary.)

Could you decide in a situation only based on rationality? You are in a situation to choose vanilla ice cream and chocolate one. You like chocolate ice cream more and you choose that. Isn’t that a rational decision? You can of curse make free decision and choose vanilla ice cream.

I think I’d make two points:

first, we’re talking about free will in the context of morality. There is no moral content that I can see in your example of “chocolate or vanilla?”. So, the example doesn’t really touch upon the issues we’re discussing here.

However, I think that, if I were to suggest that there’s no such thing as free will, then I’d be suggesting that there is only determinism. So, in that case, in which a person has no free will, I think we’d have to argue that the decision was hardwired in the person or in the context of the situation, such that there’s only the appearance of a choice.

 

[STT]

Just for the use of language, though, a person could reasonably find them “guilty” in terms of imputing the crimes to them, and of course any punishment administered by society would be appropriate, correct?

Correctness of punishment depends on view point of individuals. It is not absolute. Normally majority rules.

 

[STT]

The question, though, isn’t merely whether they were ‘blind’, or whether they ‘made poor choices’ – it’s whether those choices are morally imputable to them!

Majority rules.

I think I’d make two points:

first, we’re talking about free will in the context of morality. There is no moral content that I can see in your example of “chocolate or vanilla?”. So, the example doesn’t really touch upon the issues we’re discussing here.

However, I think that, if I were to suggest that there’s no such thing as free will, then I’d be suggesting that there is only determinism. So, in that case, in which a person has no free will, I think we’d have to argue that the decision was hardwired in the person or in the context of the situation, such that there’s only the appearance of a choice.

I think I was clear when I describe rational decision versus free decision. If you think that A>B where A and B is your rational scores for two options, a and b, then you choose A. A and B could be anything, ice creams, performing crime or not performing crime, etc.

And yes, the process of decision is functional or deterministic when we are dealing with a rational decision but we can make them.

Now the question is what is the point of free will if it allows us to make a poor choice?

 

[OneSheep]

Alienation is the effect. Sin is the cause.

Is this something like “Billy sinned, so God shuns him”? The thing is, that when Billy sinned, there was already somewhat a state of alienation do some degree. For example, where was A&E’s connection to God at the time of their poor choice? Did you notice that they did not have the sense that God was guiding their decision? This is already an alienation from relationship, is it not?

To be alienated from God is evil. One who denies the existence of sin has a distorted view of mankind.

In one sense, there is no such thing as complete alienation from God, because God is within every person. What does it mean, in your mind, to “deny the existence of sin”?

The human condition seeks a harmonious relationship with creation and with the Creator.

Yes!

If one willing neglects the latter dismissing the voice within that calls them to unite then the fault is theirs.

Do you have the experience, or have you observed, a person dismissing the voice while having “complete dominion of reason”? Or in the context of true awareness of what they are doing?

Note: I’m not talking about hindsight, when a person says “I should have known better”, I’m talking about at-the-time-of-making-the-decision.

Judgement follows.

Are you familiar with this statement?:

Pope Francis
‏Verified account @Pontifex

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.

One does not “introspect” another.

Correct. Introspection is what is happens when people ask questions, and we think about the answers.

 

[OneSheep]

Psychoanalyzing the soul of another is dangerous. Psychoanalyzing figurative beings is absurd.

I would say that psychoanalyzing without full understanding is ignorance, and can be a roadblock to empathy. Psychoanalysis in its true form is what one does within, not what someone does to someone else. But asking questions is a compassionate means to understanding. Are you suspecting some malicious motive to my questions?

I guess that your ongoing questioning serves in part to string out your thread’s post count.

Well, you may guess that, but according to forum rules, it is much more adherent to ask a person what their motives are than to make assumptions. Do you see where introspection comes into play? Are you projecting “OneSheep is asking questions because he wants to string out the thread count” because that is why you would be asking questions?

, it appears to me you are dangerously close to promoting the fundamental option as an acceptable moral theology.

So again, it is more in keeping with forum rules to ask, "are you trying to promote the “fundamental option”?

Actually, I had to familiarize myself with that terminology in order to understand what you are saying I am “dangerously close to”. I think you can see that the quote above from Pope Francis closes all debate about the “fundamental option”. The arguments made for and against the “option” appear to be coming from the position of seeing an image of God who does not always understand and forgive.

saving you from that terrible one doubt about the nature of sin.

This goes back to the question you did not answer.

Do you have a negative view of mankind? Does God want us to believe that there is something wrong with us?

 

[OneSheep]

– it’s whether those choices are morally imputable to them!

There’s a difference between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘imputation of moral guilt’.

What do you mean by “morally imputable”? “Imputable” is already a matter of fact, Hitler and Pol Pot did great evil, period.

(Interestingly, that means that he would see no need to forgive – where there is not guilt, there is no forgiveness necessary.)

I think that their is a terminology issue.

 

[Gorgias]

What do you mean by “morally imputable”? “Imputable” is already a matter of fact, Hitler and Pol Pot did great evil, period.

I mean that they are responsible for their act. If we concur with @STT, who says they’re not guilty, then they’re not responsible.

On the other hand, there’s the notion of ‘forgiveness’, but that’s distinct from ‘responsibility’.

Majority rules.

Ahh… moral judgment by popular assent. Ain’t democracy grand?

If you think that A>B where A and B is your rational scores for two options, a and b, then you choose A.

Yes, but the thought (“A>B”) is distinct from the act (“I choose A”). You were conflating the two. I can certainly think “A>B” without taking an action based on that thought.

Now the question is what is the point of free will if it allows us to make a poor choice?

The point is that it enables us to make a choice.

 

[OneSheep]

Correctness of punishment depends on view point of individuals. It is not absolute. Normally majority rules.

True. What I meant by “appropriate” is that society has a subjective means of meting punishment, but some kind of punishment is appropriate in order to discourage people who are lacking in empathy/awareness from carrying out hurtful acts.