If we will happiness by necessity then how is sin possible?

[Buber]

I’m wondering how the mental experience at the moment of choosing to sin is supposed to be like. Aquinas says that man’s will tends to happiness by necessity in an analogous way that the intellect grasps the first principles of reason. It is only with regard to the method or means by which to achieve happiness that the will can be free to choose between alternatives.

Yet I find it hard to grasp precisely when the moment of sin occurs or how it is even possible to consciously sin. let’s say you have a supposedly sinful appetite for excessive amount of food. Your intellect either clearly sees that acting on it would turn you away from your ultimate end (which you will by necessity) and so is necessarily repulsed by it, or it doesn’t see it clearly, which means that as the matter stands before the intellect it looks like as if it’s possible that indulging in the appetite is not against your ultimate end/reason/God’s will. But then how can it truly be sinful to allow the appetite to run its course? Don’t you have to know that something you’re about to do is sinful to be guilty? (and I’m not talking about the distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance since we can ask the exact same question about the moment when the will didn’t act on the responsibility to inform the conscience).

A possible response I may think about is that it’s enough for the intellect to grasp that there is a certain amount of (epistemological or subjective) probability that an action would be sinful (and perhaps a much lower probability that avoiding the action would be so) for the will to be culpable. But this seems a little bit artificial.

 

[LiamQ]

Your intellect either clearly sees that acting on it would turn you away from your ultimate end (which you will by necessity) and so is necessarily repulsed by it, or it doesn’t see it clearly, which means that as the matter stands before the intellect it looks like as if it’s possible that indulging in the appetite is not against your ultimate end/reason/God’s will. But then how can it truly be sinful to allow the appetite to run its course?

Our intellect is fallen and darkened by sin, our will is often plagued with vice, and we are often far too willing to make rationalizations. In fact, your second condition is another way of describing a rationalization, and no one would commit evil if they didn’t convince themselves they were in some way committing good.

The variable is culpability, and you are asking for a scientific way to determine inner culpability when no such feat is possible, at least to someone who is not the party in question. Only God has the wisdom and the knowledge to justly determine whether our rationalizing sin is something we are culpable for.

But clearly, at least in some case, such culpability exists. We see this in life all the time. People often break down and, in quiet and even sad moments, admit that courses of action they’ve taken were ones they were only pursuing because of knowingly impure motivations.

Perhaps sometimes we commit adultery because we convince ourselves our spouse doesn’t love us and this other person does and we love them and love is wonderful and should be pursued. But some other times, perhaps we admit love was not the issue, and we did those things because we were angry and we wanted to cause pain and we wanted to fantasize they we had different life circumstances. Some people require years and years of therapy just to find their rationalizations.

Anyway, the facts I mentioned in my first paragraph are why we as human beings have several decades to sort ourselves out by cooperating with God’s grace, and why culpability can often be difficult to determine. If we had none of those impediments—if we were as the angels are, utterly free of matter and therefore purely spiritual—we would have one choice, and that one choice would be our choice for all eternity.

 

[Buber]

I don’t just seek a scientific way to determine inner culpability. My aim is rather to introspectively be clearly aware when a sinful act or omission is considered so that it would be easier for my will to gather the strength to avoid it. Our will is indeed far too willing to make rationalizations but this recognition alone only explains but is not enough to guide the intellect concerning how to show or make an alarm call when precisely one is about to make the choice to rationalize rather than see the truth precisely for what it is (or any other sinful choice).

So I’m not at all denying the reality of sin but rather would like to be able to see it coming before the fact and not just contemplate and regret things backwardly. Your example about the adulterous rationalizer for whom it takes years of therapy just to find his or her erroneous rationalizations further emphasizes the need to have some tools for discerning such errors introspectively before they happen.

What you say in the last paragraph is interesting. It means that for us to make our innermost personal choices requires several decades. If true, it would mean it’s impossible to advance spiritually without a gradual process during which sin happens. But is it true? isn’t it theoretically possible for humans at decide at some point in life to stop sinning completely (after all, isn’t it the most rational and fulfilling thing to do?) and subsequently succeed in committing no sins culpably thereafter?

 

[kdbueno]

Divine law is rigid, but national law is comprehended according to the spirit of God.