...unless it hurts someone else

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is a standard disclaimer for those incorrect arguments which assert that atheists want to be “free to do whatever they want”. It is pointed out that “freedom to do whatever anyone wants” is NOT something atheists advocate. It is always corrected by stipulating “unless it hurts someone else”. Most of the time this stops the conversation, but recently I saw one poster, who said something extremely strange.

And this is what he said:

Catholics believe that all sin hurts everyone. There’s no sin that doesn’t hurt others.

I never heard such a strange assertion. And then he adds more to it. He says:

When one advocates for hedonism, one is advocating for “me first”, regardless of the consequences to others. The “short attention span” you refer to is more accurately described as a certain myopia – it’s not that it doesn’t hurt others, it’s that the short-sightedness that’s part of that perspective causes one to not see how it hurts others.

Let’s find out what ways and means how a “sinful” act hurts everyone else?

Example: Some Catholic person misses mass for some mundane, frivolous reason. How would such an act “hurt” someone, who lives on the other side of the globe?

Or another: Some teenager has this normal urge to masturbate. He has been told that “playing” with his private parts is a serious sin, but does it anyhow. How does this act hurt some aborigine in Australia, who has never heard of this kid, and what he did? Or the idea that masturbation is a serious sin?

By the way: “atheism” does not equal or lead to hedonism.

Anyone is welcome to explain. Or point out that this concept is sheer nonsense.

 

[Bradski]

I’ve heard the same claim. And I had the same reaction to it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’ve read a form of that argument in trying to explain away clamping down on heretics and other religious dissenters. It’s the fallback to the realm of the vague when concrete evidence of actual hurting isn’t there.

 

[Gorgias]

This is a standard disclaimer for those incorrect arguments

So… your opinion is, a priori, the ‘correct argument’? Well… that’s convenient…

It is pointed out that “freedom to do whatever anyone wants” is NOT something atheists advocate. It is always corrected by stipulating “unless it hurts someone else”.

So, perhaps, if you wish to advance the conversation, you might begin to identify your criteria for “hurting someone else.”

recently I saw one poster, who said something extremely strange.

Not to fear. We think the same thing about some of the statements from your team, too.

And this is what he said:

Catholics believe that all sin hurts everyone. There’s no sin that doesn’t hurt others.

I never heard such a strange assertion.

So, not that you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, but here’s what the Church writes in its catechism:

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.

When you hear a Catholic saying that “sin harms all”, this is what he means. Sin is an offense, first and foremost, against God. In addition, it wounds our nature; therefore, when a person sins, he does harm to himself – and as a result, his future actions are affected, as are his interactions with others.

I’m not saying that there’s an effect that is in all cases immediate, direct, and universal; but there is a negative effect that spreads outwards in waves. In a way, it’s a variant of the “butterfly effect” notion.

Let’s find out what ways and means how a “sinful” act hurts everyone else?

Let’s!

Example: Some Catholic person misses mass for some mundane, frivolous reason. How would such an act “hurt” someone, who lives on the other side of the globe?

This is only able to be answered anecdotally, of course. But, let me serve up a possible scenario:

By missing Mass, this person misses the opportunity to participate in a collection that goes to help the missions in a third world country. Therefore, less resources go to the people of that company. Therefore, someone on the other side of the globe is ‘hurt’ by one Catholic’s decision to avoid Mass.

See? Not so strange.

Or another: Some teenager has this normal urge to masturbate. He has been told that “playing” with his private parts is a serious sin, but does it anyhow. How does this act hurt some aborigine in Australia, who has never heard of this kid, and what he did? Or the idea that masturbation is a serious sin?

I’m not saying that the particular sin is visited on all in an equal measure and in an identical way. That would be a foolish assertion. However, I am asserting that sin harms the person who commits it, and it changes him; this change is visited, in various ways, upon those with whom he comes in contact. That’s all I’m asserting. Nothing ‘strange’ there.

By the way: “atheism” does not equal or lead to hedonism.

You state that your code is “I do what I want.” Unless you desire pain, this means that you desire what brings you pleasure. You do know the definition of hedonism… don’t you?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Vera,

In a theological sense, I would imagine it referring to spiritual harm, as in you’re damaging your good standing with God. This is sense of death that Adam and Eve probably experienced just for a simple act of disobedience.

 

[Bradski]

However, I am asserting that sin harms the person who commits it, and it changes him; this change is visited, in various ways, upon those with whom he comes in contact.

That’s a step back from saying that ‘all sin hurts everyone’. But the above statement* might* be correct if everyone who sinned had a consequent guilty conscience and that affected their relationship with others.

Maybe it’s a sin only if you feel guilty? Otherwise, there is no change.

In a theological sense, I would imagine it referring to spiritual harm, as in you’re damaging your good standing with God. This is sense of death that Adam and Eve probably experienced just for a simple act of disobedience.

Sin might well damage your good standing with the boss. But that’s not the same as all sin hurting everyone.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s a step back from saying that ‘all sin hurts everyone’.

No, I don’t think so. It’s the old “Prell shampoo” commercial. If my sin hurts me, and I come in contact with you in a way that’s different than I would have (had I not sinned), then my sin affects you. And, therefore, since it affects you, it affects all those with whom you come in contact. “For want of a nail,” as it were. And so on… and so on… and so on…

But the above statement* might* be correct if everyone who sinned had a consequent guilty conscience and that affected their relationship with others.

I’d say that you’re making an unreasonable presumption: you’re presuming that the only effect is one that proceeds from a feeling of guilt. In other words, you’re presuming that there’s only a subjective dimension to sin. That’s not the case: Catholics assert that sin is an objective reality. If that’s the case, then there are objective effects that do not depend on subjective feelings.

I realize that this can be a tough one for an atheist to follow. At the very least, there’s the reasonably common meme among atheists that there is no such thing as an objective morality, and that all morality is subjective. This is one of the places where that disjunction is felt: the Church will assert objective truth, while others will assert only subjective opinion, and that difference leads to widely divergent opinions on topics such as the present one.

 

[psalm90]

St Paul teaches that the Church is the body of Christ, Christ as its head and all the members part of this spiritual body. So, (i.e. in this sense which may make no sense to an atheist) a sin affects the entire body of Christ and all others, depending on the nature of the sin.

Masturbation is a sin against the God-given dignity of the body (the earth and all it contains belongs to God). A Catholic would only define masturbation as a sin, according to divine revelation and the teaching of the Church. So, ignoring the authority of revelation and teaching may seem like a drop in the ocean, but, it is wrong. Its consequences are not defined in terms of physics, but physics is a possible analogy, where this sin is one vector that adds to others and detracts from the moral character of all.

The atheist point of view rejects most if not all of this. The ‘thread’ running through what I said above was faith itself, which the atheist rejects.

The problem snowballs as you up the ante to say, what difference does it make if I kill one person (we have SO many). Or, further, what’s wrong with killing a whole group of people, i.e. genocide? To the atheist, they’re just objects, “alive” one moment and dead the next.

The problem of the atheist is always looking through the wrong end of the telescope and trivializing everything. To the moral relativist (by definition) nothing is absolute, so they are blind to the “zero” point on the axis of what is evil. Atheist’s can’t find that point or just mentally reject it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The problem snowballs as you up the ante to say, what difference does it make if I kill one person (we have SO many). Or, further, what’s wrong with killing a whole group of people, i.e. genocide? To the atheist, they’re just objects, “alive” one moment and dead the next.

The topic is about those acts which don’t affect others. Murder clearly does. There is an incredibly bright line between some teenager masturbating and that same teenager killing someone.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread

Anyone is welcome to explain. Or point out that this concept is sheer nonsense

 

[NeedImprovement]

Here’s an excerpt from a piece by Father George Morelli of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese entitled The Wounds in the Body of Christ

However, in the Eastern Church there is no such thing as a solitary sin. Even an infraction done in total privacy is a wound to the totality of mankind created by God. Just as an injury to any part of our body actually affects the entire body, so too, all of us are affected by the sins of even the ‘least’ one who makes up God’s human creation.

 

[St_Francis]

Catholics believe in a spiritual realm as well as a material realm. Atheists believe only in the latter. In order to understand the Catholic point of view, atheists need to, for the sake of discussion, accept the spiritual realm temporarily.

Imagine that the spiritual realm is like the air surrounding the earth. Each time someone sins, it contributes to a sort of spiritual global warming, and each time someone refrains from committing sin, it is like cleaning the air a little.

Isn’t each person on earth encouraged to reduce his or her carbon footstep? So we Catholics understand that each person on earth is encouraged to reduce his or her sin footprint.

Just as all humanity is connected through the atmosphere, so is all humanity connected through the spiritual astmosphere. And just as your neglecting to tune up your car and making unnecessary trips affects everyone else, so does the pollution of individual sin.

 

[Dorothy]

The Church…the Body of Christ on earth…is weakened when even one sin done in private and doesn’t seem to affect anyone, is committed.

Also, when sincere prayer is increased in others, and good acts done out of love for the Lord occur…then the Body of Christ on earth, the Church, is strengthened.

 

[inocente]

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.

When you hear a Catholic saying that “sin harms all”, this is what he means. Sin is an offense, first and foremost, against God.

Are you sure that’s what the CCC means?

I can see how the Holocaust harmed all and offended God. But to claim, for instance, that one person dressing immodestly, in contravention of CCC 2521, is in any sense comparable is surely trivializing the deaths of the six million?

*This is only able to be answered anecdotally, of course. But, let me serve up a possible scenario:

By missing Mass, this person misses the opportunity to participate in a collection that goes to help the missions in a third world country. Therefore, less resources go to the people of that company. Therefore, someone on the other side of the globe is ‘hurt’ by one Catholic’s decision to avoid Mass.

See? Not so strange.*

If that’s your reason to go to church, I can save you ever going again.

Jesus warns against a public show of giving: “when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” - Matt 6

So whether or not you go to church, it’s better to make a direct debit, or to otherwise transfer online. An added bonus is that here in Spain at least, the tax authority computer then knows your donations and reduces your tax bill, so you can donate the tax saved as well.

 

[Bookcat]

Certainly sin hurts the person who commits it and often others around them in some way.

*I do not know that it should be put that one persons a particular single sin “hurts everyone” - that is every other person - personally.
*
Perhaps that is an *“overstep” *regarding the reality that is involved with sin.

Though yes sin does have* wider effects *than the person who sins…

It also can bring about* “social sin”.*

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

 

[esieffe]

Sins like blasphemy against God, our Lord, our Holy Mother, and the Eucharist, do in fact hurt all of us. Others have to make reparations for these sins, so as members of the human race, we are all held to account in varying degrees for the actions of others. "

Another example:
Debbie" will go to Heaven because she died in a state of grace, but she lived during a period of war in her country, that was an admonishment from God from all the wickedness that people living there perpetuated. Debbie had converted, but still suffered from the effects of war.
:twocents:

 

[omgriley]

Are you sure that’s what the CCC means?

I can see how the Holocaust harmed all and offended God. But to claim, for instance, that one person dressing immodestly, in contravention of CCC 2521, is in any sense comparable is surely trivializing the deaths of the six million?

Trivializing? You were the one who brought up the Holocaust. No one here was comparing the two.

In any event, dressing immodestly is bad for a few reasons. One of which is because it often involves using your body to elicit a sexual stimulation from someone other than your spouse. That goes against the dignity and respect due to the human body (e.g. “have some self-respect”). Now, reasonable people can come to an agreement on what is and what is not modest dress. For instance, no one is saying you need to dress like a Puritan, but it’s certainly not OK to dress like a whore either.

Jesus warns against a public show of giving: “when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” - Matt 6

Jesus isn’t warning against public donations. That in and of itself is perfectly fine. For example, I can use a public donation to show others how to be charitable. His point is to give for the sake of charity, instead of for the sake of being noticed or receiving praise. You see examples of this constantly where people refuse to give alms unless their acknowledged for it.

An added bonus is that here in Spain at least, the tax authority computer then knows your donations and reduces your tax bill, so you can donate the tax saved as well.

By your standards this would amount to a public donation of the type Our Blessed Lord warned against. Donating to charity while being noticed publicly (by the government) to receive a benefit (tax deductions).

 

[inocente]

Debbie" will go to Heaven because she died in a state of grace, but she lived during a period of war in her country, that was an admonishment from God from all the wickedness that people living there perpetuated. Debbie had converted, but still suffered from the effects of war.
:twocents:

Reminded me of this:

"A Roman Catholic priest has asked Pope Benedict to revoke his appointment as a bishop in Austria, after his promotion led to protests within the Church.

Gerhard Maria Wagner said the “fierce criticism” had persuaded him to ask not to be named auxiliary bishop of Linz.

Father Wagner has described Hurricane Katrina as God’s punishment for the sins of New Orleans" - news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7892198.stm

Seems he didn’t believe that “all sin hurts everyone”, rather that divine justice involves unacceptable levels of collateral damage.

 

[Vonsalza]

Reminded me of this:

"A Roman Catholic priest has asked Pope Benedict…

Smells like “Red Herring”.

 

[inocente]

Trivializing? You were the one who brought up the Holocaust. No one here was comparing the two.

I know. I did. Because if the claim is that dressing immodestly causes offense to God, and that the Holocaust causes offense to God, then it is legitimate to ask those making the claim whether they cause equal offense to God? Or does dressing immodestly cause more offense than the Holocaust? Less? How much less?

There are lots of questions, such as should I dress modestly in the shower and bath to avoid offending God?

In any event, dressing immodestly is bad for a few reasons. One of which is because it often involves using your body to elicit a sexual stimulation from someone other than your spouse. That goes against the dignity and respect due to the human body (e.g. “have some self-respect”). Now, reasonable people can come to an agreement on what is and what is not modest dress. For instance, no one is saying you need to dress like a Puritan, but it’s certainly not OK to dress like a whore either.

I think people may differ on which skirt lengths are appropriate on the beach, and this may indicate that God isn’t offended. After all, He’s seen us all naked anyway.

*Jesus isn’t warning against public donations. That in and of itself is perfectly fine. For example, I can use a public donation to show others how to be charitable. His point is to give for the sake of charity, instead of for the sake of being noticed or receiving praise. You see examples of this constantly where people refuse to give alms unless their acknowledged for it.

By your standards this would amount to a public donation of the type Our Blessed Lord warned against. Donating to charity while being noticed publicly (by the government) to receive a benefit (tax deductions).*

You give the tax deduction to charity, and that way increase your contribution. Still, if you think Jesus warns you to keep donations secret from computers, what can I say.