J
jpm1977
Guest
Are sins arbitrary rules? Or are there common elements/goals that we can discern from what we know to be sins that enable us to understand why they are sins?
I read Atlas Shrugged over five years ago and don’t have the stamina to read again now, so if I remember this wrong please correct me, but I remember John Galt’s final soliloquy arguing for the primacy of reason as the ne plus ultra of Man. The argument, as I recall, was essentially was A cannot be B, so there is truth, and only man knows that fact, so far as we can tell. Reason is discerning and acting on truth, and the ability to reason is unique to Man, so reasoning (and honesty) is Man’s purpose and source of fulfillment. At least that’s what I took away from it.
Rand intended this argument as an atheistic moral code, and aggressively assaults all manner of religious faith in the book–even in the same speech by Galt. However, the more I’ve thought about this, her argument also serves as a basis and underpinning for the Catholic understanding of sin. (And, if Catholics believe there is a truth–and that the Catholic understanding is the truth, then isn’t it conceivable that people of other faiths and understandings would stumble upon it, even if from the wrong direction and for the wrong reason? After all, gravity exists whether I believe in it or not. And we see this every day, as the bad effects of sin affect believers and non-believers alike; just look around!)
So, I wonder if one could defend the argument that dishonesty is the logical underpinning of all sin? I ask for a couple reasons: 1) I don’t have kids, but when I do, and when they get too old for “I told you so” and too defiant for “The Church teaches…” I’d like to have a good argument for why something/anything is a sin, and 2) I have a lot of smart friends who aren’t Catholic and recoil from Catholic/religious teaching by instinct. To lay a logical underpinning that would lead them to the conclusion that there is truth in the Faith (as Rand lead me to actually quit being an agnostic and become a Catholic, which I’m sure wasn’t her intent), would be a great thing.
The thin edge of my nascent theory is that all sin involves some element of dishonesty, or trying to act as if A is not different than B, or that A is not A at all. For example, a dog can’t sin, but a dog can do things that would be a sin if a human did them. For example, a dog has sex with whatever female dog happens to wander by who’s in heat. Not a sin. But if a human did the same thing? A sin. A dog will fight and kill another dog for food and its not a sin. If a human does it, its murder. What is the distinction?
I think it is very similar to Rand’s A is not B thesis. Because there is truth, and humans can reason, our activities that are dishonest and against reason become sinful. Killing for food is using might and one’s self interest to the deprivation of another, as opposed to reason, and thus is a sin.
So, what are some others’ thoughts on this?
I’m not a professional philosopher; I’m an armchair one at best, and am really just a lawyer with a smattering of history and philosophy here and there, so if I"m committing any glaring logical errors, please don’t jump down my throat (not that anyone would!), but just let me know. I’m not married to my theory; but I kind of like it and think its a good debate/thought exercise.
I read Atlas Shrugged over five years ago and don’t have the stamina to read again now, so if I remember this wrong please correct me, but I remember John Galt’s final soliloquy arguing for the primacy of reason as the ne plus ultra of Man. The argument, as I recall, was essentially was A cannot be B, so there is truth, and only man knows that fact, so far as we can tell. Reason is discerning and acting on truth, and the ability to reason is unique to Man, so reasoning (and honesty) is Man’s purpose and source of fulfillment. At least that’s what I took away from it.
Rand intended this argument as an atheistic moral code, and aggressively assaults all manner of religious faith in the book–even in the same speech by Galt. However, the more I’ve thought about this, her argument also serves as a basis and underpinning for the Catholic understanding of sin. (And, if Catholics believe there is a truth–and that the Catholic understanding is the truth, then isn’t it conceivable that people of other faiths and understandings would stumble upon it, even if from the wrong direction and for the wrong reason? After all, gravity exists whether I believe in it or not. And we see this every day, as the bad effects of sin affect believers and non-believers alike; just look around!)
So, I wonder if one could defend the argument that dishonesty is the logical underpinning of all sin? I ask for a couple reasons: 1) I don’t have kids, but when I do, and when they get too old for “I told you so” and too defiant for “The Church teaches…” I’d like to have a good argument for why something/anything is a sin, and 2) I have a lot of smart friends who aren’t Catholic and recoil from Catholic/religious teaching by instinct. To lay a logical underpinning that would lead them to the conclusion that there is truth in the Faith (as Rand lead me to actually quit being an agnostic and become a Catholic, which I’m sure wasn’t her intent), would be a great thing.
The thin edge of my nascent theory is that all sin involves some element of dishonesty, or trying to act as if A is not different than B, or that A is not A at all. For example, a dog can’t sin, but a dog can do things that would be a sin if a human did them. For example, a dog has sex with whatever female dog happens to wander by who’s in heat. Not a sin. But if a human did the same thing? A sin. A dog will fight and kill another dog for food and its not a sin. If a human does it, its murder. What is the distinction?
I think it is very similar to Rand’s A is not B thesis. Because there is truth, and humans can reason, our activities that are dishonest and against reason become sinful. Killing for food is using might and one’s self interest to the deprivation of another, as opposed to reason, and thus is a sin.
So, what are some others’ thoughts on this?
I’m not a professional philosopher; I’m an armchair one at best, and am really just a lawyer with a smattering of history and philosophy here and there, so if I"m committing any glaring logical errors, please don’t jump down my throat (not that anyone would!), but just let me know. I’m not married to my theory; but I kind of like it and think its a good debate/thought exercise.