I have not made any such distinction.
Sin causes harm.
You may not be able to perceive it, but that is a poor basis for arguing that there is no harm.
- Status
Sin causes harm.
You may not be able to perceive it, but that is a poor basis for arguing that there is no harm.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
No need to argue that there is none. But many of us dismiss the assertion that there is in the absence of supporting information.
B
Bradski
Guest
I didn’t say that. I only said I’d call the police because I would have considered it stealing.
In your candy store scenario, if the owner didn’t mind you taking it, then no harm was done. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary (and you seem adamant that you don’t), you seem to be grasping the argument at last.
I didn’t say that either. Premarital sex could be wrong in some cases (maybe it would make you late for the wedding). But in the case discussed, there doesn’t appear to be anything wrong with it at all that you can point to that could in any way be described as harm.
M
madtom
Guest
well then I guess that’s it. the whole point of my example was to show how something can be wrong even if no harm is done because I believe something can be inherently wrong, regardless of the consequences (or lack of consequences). of course something is more wrong depending on the amount of harm, and a wrongful act that causes no harm is only minimally sinful, but wrong and sinful nonetheless. this does come down to an opinion and a personal belief I suppose. If you want to argue that harm is necessary for something to be wrong, well, I can’t argue with you. That’s your opinion and not something that can be proven or disproven. I guess this is one of those rare moments I’ll just agree to disagree
B
Bradski
Guest
The question arises from that statement: why could something that causes no harm at all be possibly considered sinful? What on earth is the criteria for considering it such?
M
madtom
Guest
as I said previously, something can be inherently wrong. but let’s consider the opposite and see if that can help explain my point. can something that causes harm, even serious harm, be perfectly acceptable? if I see someone being raped and I shoot the rapist, killing him, I have clearly caused some serious harm. but did I do anything wrong? if doing harm does not necessarily make something wrong, then why would a lack of harm necessarily make something ok?
A
Aloysium
Guest
It is more a matter of what appears to cause no harm. Being unaware that one is an eternal soul, one’s actions are more likely to be directed towards transient, worldly ends. This can result in great harm to oneself.
B
Bradski
Guest
As far as I am aware, killing the rapist would still be considered wrong as far as the Catholic Church goes. Although I would be surprised to hear from anyone who would that you shouldn’t do it if that was the only option.
That said, there are many more examples of causing harm to prevent further suffering. Invasive surgery, scolding a child, telling someone a few home truths about the way they are acting, destroying the village to save the city. In every case, the amount of harm that could be considered reasonable is open to debate.
However…the opposite is not true. If something does not cause any harm at all, then there is not much we can really discuss. The only argument for calling something wrong if no harm is done is simply: ‘well, it just is…’.
This is like Alice throught he Looking Glass. A scenario has been put forward specifically stating that no harm has been done. Yet you still insist that it has. Yet you still cannot quantify it.
M
madtom
Guest
well no, the opposite IS true. I’m sorry that you don’t see it. And what is wrong about saying “wel it just is?” Do you not have a moral compass, a conscience that helps you understand right from wrong? do you not believe certain things are inherently wrong? I asked this question before, but you didn’t answer. are lying and cheating not inherently wrong, such that they are wrong irrespective of whether or not any harm is caused to someone else? if your answer is no, and you believe that harm MUST be caused for something to be wrong, well then as you said and as I said previously, there is nothing we can discuss. we simply disagree.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I would say that they are not inherently wrong. In some cases it may be morally preferable. I could give situations to illustrate, the simplest of which involves being asked if one is hiding Jews in her attic. Someone evaluating the situation with virtue ethics (assuming s/he highly values being truthful) might feel otherwise even though telling the truth here could cause someone unambiguous injury.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Look, there are two senses of the word wrong. There is wrong in the religious sense and wrong in the “legally relevant” sense. There are religions which believe Catholicism is spiritually harmful; but we can’t ban Catholicism because some other religion says its bad. The alleged “harm of Catholicism” is the sort of harm that is purely religious and not “legally relevant.”
The original poster (and many others here) get frustrated by this distinction because there is a persistent, medieval sort of attitude among many fervent religious believers which says that if something is morally wrong, it must also cause physical or social harm. Its really easy to find examples this attitude, for example people assert that abortion causes breast cancer and mental illness, despite there being no evidence for causal relationships.
Unfortunately, in order to be wrong in a “legally relevant” way, there has to be a well defined harm (i.e. no “spiritual wounds” or “aura tarnishing”) and evidence the harm actually exists (i.e. no made up “facts” or anecdotes)
A true, thoughtful religious believer should have no problem with this. There is no reason for *all *religious rules to be God’s way of getting us to avoid real harms. If God wants us to go to church once per week, we should just go to church once per week even if there isn’t any real world harm in missing church. It is intellectually dishonest to instead try to invent some story that says if you don’t go to church your business ventures will fail.
M
madtom
Guest
of course. that mirrors my example of killing someone who is raping another. I am talking about a lie (or cheating) that does not have a good intent.
But there is supporting information.
I pointed it out earlier.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Actually, it is not. I am telling you the truth. That you cannot, or refuse to hear it does not change the fact that we are eternal beings.
We have been created by God. It is His will that we come to Him.
This involves returning all he has given us back to him by doing His will.
His will is that we share what we are given with everyone.
If one does not do this, one is sinning.
Look around at the world today and tell me no harm is done.
S
Scientia_Dei
Guest
It hurts those who are around them and the very people particpating, Porn hurts the brain :So when someone is looking at porn, while they think they’re just being entertained, their brain is busy at work building pathways between whatever’s happening on their screen and feelings of arousal. [6] Here’s where it gets tricky: The kind of porn a user watches can—and usually does—change over time. [7] So as their brain continually wires together what they’re seeing with feeling aroused, what turns them on can change too. [8]
A few years ago, a researcher named Jim Faust did an experiment with rats. [9] As you’d probably guess, rats usually don’t like the smell of death. But Faust found a way to change that instinct. Faust put virgin male rats in cages with female rats that had been sprayed with a liquid that smelled like dead, rotting rat. As it turned out, the drive to mate was more powerful than the instinct to avoid the smell, and the rats hit it off.
Once the male rats learned to associate sex with the smell of death, Faust put them in cages with dowels soaked in the same death smell. Consistently the male rats would play with the smelly dowels as though it were soaked in something they loved.
If you’re wondering how rats could possibly be trained to go against such a powerful natural instinct, the answer is dopamine. Since dopamine is released during sex, the rats’ brains wired together the pleasure of dopamine’s release with the rotten smell.
Sounds pretty gross, right? Well here’s the thing—remember how we said all mammals have the same reward pathway in their brain? Those rats’ preferences were rewired into their brains with the same process that many porn users’ brains go through when they look at porn. [10] And more often than not, the images their brains are wiring sexual arousal to get more and more extreme. [11]
In a 2012 survey of 1,500 guys, 56% said their tastes in porn had become “increasingly extreme or deviant.” [12] Because consistent porn users’ brains quickly become accustomed to the porn they’ve already seen (See Porn Addiction Escalates), they typically have to constantly be moving on to more extreme forms of pornography to get aroused by it. [13] As a result, just like the rats, many porn users find themselves getting aroused by things that used to disgust them or that go against what they think is morally right. [14]
And once they start watching extreme and dangerous sex acts, these types of porn users are being taught that those behaviors are more normal and common than they are. [15] One study found that people exposed to significant amounts of porn thought things like sex with animals and violent sex were twice as common as what those not exposed to porn thought. [16] And when people believe a behavior is normal, they’re more likely to try it. [17]
Research has also found that watching degrading porn increases users’ dominating and harassing behavior toward women, [18] and leaves the user feeling less compassion for rape victims. [19] Porn watchers are also more likely to express attitudes supporting violence against women [20]—which is especially scary since those who support sexual violence are more likely to commit that kind of violence in real life. [21]
Because the person is watching porn with animals a bigger problem occurs. And that is he or she views the person as an animal, not like a human person. Further on degrading the act of sex. Homosexual sex hurts the particpants greatly. Homosexual men who act in sodomy have a higher chance to contract STDs, lowering their chances of long life. Homosexual women who act in sodomy actually become depressed because they are mentally unstable due to the fact that the only reason they acted in sodomy was for pleasure, but she feels used and forgotten after the act. homosexual acts ruin the human body because the actions contradict the purpose of the body, the list can go on and on. check out fightthenewdrug.com
A few years ago, a researcher named Jim Faust did an experiment with rats. [9] As you’d probably guess, rats usually don’t like the smell of death. But Faust found a way to change that instinct. Faust put virgin male rats in cages with female rats that had been sprayed with a liquid that smelled like dead, rotting rat. As it turned out, the drive to mate was more powerful than the instinct to avoid the smell, and the rats hit it off.
Once the male rats learned to associate sex with the smell of death, Faust put them in cages with dowels soaked in the same death smell. Consistently the male rats would play with the smelly dowels as though it were soaked in something they loved.
If you’re wondering how rats could possibly be trained to go against such a powerful natural instinct, the answer is dopamine. Since dopamine is released during sex, the rats’ brains wired together the pleasure of dopamine’s release with the rotten smell.
Sounds pretty gross, right? Well here’s the thing—remember how we said all mammals have the same reward pathway in their brain? Those rats’ preferences were rewired into their brains with the same process that many porn users’ brains go through when they look at porn. [10] And more often than not, the images their brains are wiring sexual arousal to get more and more extreme. [11]
In a 2012 survey of 1,500 guys, 56% said their tastes in porn had become “increasingly extreme or deviant.” [12] Because consistent porn users’ brains quickly become accustomed to the porn they’ve already seen (See Porn Addiction Escalates), they typically have to constantly be moving on to more extreme forms of pornography to get aroused by it. [13] As a result, just like the rats, many porn users find themselves getting aroused by things that used to disgust them or that go against what they think is morally right. [14]
And once they start watching extreme and dangerous sex acts, these types of porn users are being taught that those behaviors are more normal and common than they are. [15] One study found that people exposed to significant amounts of porn thought things like sex with animals and violent sex were twice as common as what those not exposed to porn thought. [16] And when people believe a behavior is normal, they’re more likely to try it. [17]
Research has also found that watching degrading porn increases users’ dominating and harassing behavior toward women, [18] and leaves the user feeling less compassion for rape victims. [19] Porn watchers are also more likely to express attitudes supporting violence against women [20]—which is especially scary since those who support sexual violence are more likely to commit that kind of violence in real life. [21]
Because the person is watching porn with animals a bigger problem occurs. And that is he or she views the person as an animal, not like a human person. Further on degrading the act of sex. Homosexual sex hurts the particpants greatly. Homosexual men who act in sodomy have a higher chance to contract STDs, lowering their chances of long life. Homosexual women who act in sodomy actually become depressed because they are mentally unstable due to the fact that the only reason they acted in sodomy was for pleasure, but she feels used and forgotten after the act. homosexual acts ruin the human body because the actions contradict the purpose of the body, the list can go on and on. check out fightthenewdrug.com
A
Aloysium
Guest
Thanks for the article and web site.
F
frobert
Guest
Excellent observation that gets to the heart of the problem. A Buddhist would eliminate the sinful aspect but would say that an immoral act would be harmful to the person committing the act and only through full knowledge would we know if it is harmful to others. For the Buddhist the act is not considered a sin but rather ignorance and ignorance can be self-remedied by knowledge.Could such a world view have the edge on a world view of sin can that be committed and forgiven over and over.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I disagree.
The ignorance is at a level of being itself.
Enlightenment is not a matter of gaining information, figuring it out, or any cognitive process.
It invloves a transformation of who one is.
That is why koans exist - to paralyze the rational mind so that the Supreme Identity reveals Himself.
The concept of Karma is similar to the idea of sin as it speaks to a change that occurs in the person through his actions. It is not simply a matter of what goes around comes around.
From my perspective, very few people reach Nirvana, very many will find God through His Church.
F
frobert
Guest
You misunderstand, it has nothing to do with Nirvana or the supernatural. Let me put it another way, I go to confession week after week confessing a sin that I want to stop but I am unable. The good Father gives a penance and tells me I must pray for grace to stop. Next week same thing. As a Buddhist (I am not) I go to a Lama and tell him about a behavior which I want to stop but can not. The Lama would likely ask some questions and supply the appropriate education or path to it that will allow me to discover how I am hurting myself, others or both. Both the consequences and remedy for the unwanted behavior now belong to me. Certainly a priest can do the same and probably a few do but that is not the frame in which the christian religion works.
B
Bradski
Guest
Are we introducing a new criteria here? Do we have to consider an action that ‘does not have a good intent’?
In that case, if a couple does something that does not cause them or anyone else harm and there is no bad intent, it cannot be wrong.
- Status