Why do we sin?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I would regard sin as an anachronism. Sin is an act against the will of god. Since god is no longer a serious consideration with most people, I think 'sin' is out of date.

I don't think so. There are religious people around. According to demographics of atheism which is published in Wikithere are at most 13% atheist worldwide.

False dichotomy.

"Not atheist" does not mean religious.

I think very few people would call morally bad actions "sin". perhaps only a 3 - 4 %
. I have not heard a single person speak the word sin in my hearing since the 1960s.

[Hobbes' Choice]

As for your own definition, even if you accept the use of the word there is a massive problem with the phrase "accepted moral laws". This is a thing, no longer well defined - thankfully.

Why not? Religious people believe in a set of moral laws.

Our practice of ethics offers us a more nuanced and context related response to moral acts, in a such a way that we no longer have to follow strict moral laws; there is no more sin. People can act illegally, but do not "sin".

That is not true. Please read the first comment.

Your opening definition ;"incorrect act in a given situation." is far too general to be useful, and begs the question; how would we determine what is 'incorrect'? And if we know it is incorrect - why would we do it in the first place.

That is not a incorrect definition if you accept the sin are defined by God. God is all knowing hence an act could be incorrect, reaching to bad end, in a given situation.

Why would anyone feel guilt for an 'incorrect' act if they do not know it is incorrect?

They shouldn't if the act is not defined wrong.

And why would they feel guilt for knowingly and intentionally committing an act they know to be wrong?

Why not?

Guilt is a completely redundant emotion.

I don't think so. I think that guilt like other emotions has a deep root in human nature. Non of our emotion is bad per-se.

Since there are no religious people, I doubt whether sin or anything you say here is relevant.

[Ansiktsburk]

My 5 worst sins today and their reasons:
I played pokemon go in office. Why? Because the pokemons just turned up and tempted me. I couldnt resist.
I biked through a walk-only path in the Uppsala city park. Why? Because people bikes too fast on the bike lanes. They make me nervous. I am selfish.
I dropped a huge f-bomb (f*n) when I got home and all the groceries fell out of the plastic bag. Why? I was tired and didnt want that to happen. I am not stoic.
I biked and played pokemon go on my way home at the same time. Thus causing risk of collision, and stressing other people that thinks that 50+ guys shouldnt play pokemon go. And I got pretty stressed myself too. Why? Because I want to beat my wife who is on level 26. I am a chauvinist pig.
I just took my 3rd helping of Ice cream even though I really should loose some weight. why. Because I cannot help myself, I am not stoic.

From this we can learn that we humans sin because we are as weak as we are selfish and mean.

[bahman]

I would regard sin as an anachronism. Sin is an act against the will of god. Since god is no longer a serious consideration with most people, I think 'sin' is out of date.

I don't think so. There are religious people around. According to demographics of atheism which is published in Wikithere are at most 13% atheist worldwide.

False dichotomy.

"Not atheist" does not mean religious.

I think very few people would call morally bad actions "sin". perhaps only a 3 - 4 %
. I have not heard a single person speak the word sin in my hearing since the 1960s.

Where did you get that statistics from?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't think so. There are religious people around. According to demographics of atheism which is published in Wikithere are at most 13% atheist worldwide.

False dichotomy.

"Not atheist" does not mean religious.

I think very few people would call morally bad actions "sin". perhaps only a 3 - 4 %
. I have not heard a single person speak the word sin in my hearing since the 1960s.

Where did you get that statistics from?

Can't remember- but take a look at this,
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/26/o- ... tle-faith/
It said that only 3% are "very" religious, only 20% "fairly"

Sin is just not part of people's vocabulary.

[Greta]

I agree, Hobbes. Outside of the internet, I think the last person to mention sin to me, and incidentally, was my "lapsed Catholic" mum. The percentage of religious types on philosophy forums, as with politics, seems much higher than in the community at large. Instead of "sins" most will speak of right and wrong, and these days I personally think of these things in terms of destructiveness and entropy. Stuff happens.

Some people have to be more likely to inflict damage on others. The law of averages suggests that some will be more or less destructively inclined, and that may change during one's life. It makes as much sense to punish "sinners" as it does to punish the unemployed; each group is the inevitable product of structures - physical structures and economic structures respectively.

Speaking from experience, many of the "sins" I committed were the result of poor impulse control. That is, I regret my "sins", but I don't beat myself about them; if I could have done better at the time then I would have done. Given our tiny sensory access to reality and many other fundamental limitations, it's not as though we are truly in control of ourselves. We simply do what we can and hope for the best.

So the notion of "sin" is oppressive, designed to engender guilt and empower those who dispense guilt. Better to think in terms of mistakes, learning, understanding, growth and development - and keeping a sense of humour so that our regular stumbles don't get us down.

[thedoc]

Although just think of how the behavior of many women would change when they're around me with that reformulation.

You might be surprised at how many are willing, but you would need to accept the rejection as well.

How would we have rejections where someone does unto others as they would have one do unto them though?

Not everyone follows the "Golden Rule" even as I have rewritten it.

[thedoc]

No- "no one knowingly is bad"

I have to disagree with this, I have encountered people who have knowingly done bad things, and felt no guilt about it.

That;s because at that moment they do it; they are not bothered that, or do not agree that, the act is wrong. But do not take it up with me - you need to take that up with Socrates.

Read my post again, I said that they knowingly do bad things, that means they know it is wrong when they do it, they do not believe that it is not wrong, but I agree that they are not bothered by it, and probably feel no guilt about doing a bad thing.

[Greta]

... I said that they knowingly do bad things, that means they know it is wrong when they do it, they do not believe that it is not wrong, but I agree that they are not bothered by it, and probably feel no guilt about doing a bad thing.

Some people are simply damaged goods. They can be ostensibly rational, but in their sociopathy they are completely off beam and, inevitably, they will be emotionally undeveloped and unstable.

[Walker]

I agree, Hobbes. Outside of the internet, I think the last person to mention sin to me, and incidentally, was my "lapsed Catholic" mum. The percentage of religious types on philosophy forums, as with politics, seems much higher than in the community at large. Instead of "sins" most will speak of right and wrong, and these days I personally think of these things in terms of destructiveness and entropy. Stuff happens.

Some people have to be more likely to inflict damage on others. The law of averages suggests that some will be more or less destructively inclined, and that may change during one's life. It makes as much sense to punish "sinners" as it does to punish the unemployed; each group is the inevitable product of structures - physical structures and economic structures respectively.

Speaking from experience, many of the "sins" I committed were the result of poor impulse control. That is, I regret my "sins", but I don't beat myself about them; if I could have done better at the time then I would have done. Given our tiny sensory access to reality and many other fundamental limitations, it's not as though we are truly in control of ourselves. We simply do what we can and hope for the best.

So the notion of "sin" is oppressive, designed to engender guilt and empower those who dispense guilt. Better to think in terms of mistakes, learning, understanding, growth and development - and keeping a sense of humour so that our regular stumbles don't get us down.

Funny, viewing religion as if curious aliens never before seeing such things. Sin and forgiveness go hand-in-hand. Without redemption there is no hope and without hope, even for the next meal, one has become bloated and complacent, ripe for the fall. Call sin what you will, and insist that others also ponder with limited range of human comprehension. Sin is merely a method of indoctrinated control, love is merely good feelings, the earth is merely a small planet, we are merely specks in the universe, our lives are as significant as merely. The control of language and the eradication of the concepts that shape language such as sin soon has everyone tweeting like morally bereft birds, with complimentary conceptual breadth and comprehension of significance, though pretty in plumage.

[Walker]

An act is a sin only if you know it’s a sin.

I agree.

This distinguishes sin from crime, since ignorance is no defense before the law, that is, unless you’re special.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Then your crimes are treated as sins and since you have expressed regret for your claimed ignorance that led to crimes now considered e-sins and forgivable because you are special, you are forgiven, Politician.

I think that crime is different from sin, crime is defined by a social system whereas sin is defined by God.

It means Americans forgive sin but not crime. The cynical politician instills the perception that the crime is a sin, based on the reasoning that she was ignorant of the law. Ignorance of wrongdoing is a sin, and forgiveable. After all, who among us has not sinned.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I have to disagree with this, I have encountered people who have knowingly done bad things, and felt no guilt about it.

That;s because at that moment they do it; they are not bothered that, or do not agree that, the act is wrong. But do not take it up with me - you need to take that up with Socrates.

Read my post again, I said that they knowingly do bad things, that means they know it is wrong when they do it, they do not believe that it is not wrong, but I agree that they are not bothered by it, and probably feel no guilt about doing a bad thing.

No, they think it is called bad, but it is okay for them to do it.

Guilt is for children, who act without thought.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I agree, Hobbes. Outside of the internet, I think the last person to mention sin to me, and incidentally, was my "lapsed Catholic" mum. The percentage of religious types on philosophy forums, as with politics, seems much higher than in the community at large. Instead of "sins" most will speak of right and wrong, and these days I personally think of these things in terms of destructiveness and entropy. Stuff happens.

Some people have to be more likely to inflict damage on others. The law of averages suggests that some will be more or less destructively inclined, and that may change during one's life. It makes as much sense to punish "sinners" as it does to punish the unemployed; each group is the inevitable product of structures - physical structures and economic structures respectively.

Speaking from experience, many of the "sins" I committed were the result of poor impulse control. That is, I regret my "sins", but I don't beat myself about them; if I could have done better at the time then I would have done. Given our tiny sensory access to reality and many other fundamental limitations, it's not as though we are truly in control of ourselves. We simply do what we can and hope for the best.

So the notion of "sin" is oppressive, designed to engender guilt and empower those who dispense guilt. Better to think in terms of mistakes, learning, understanding, growth and development - and keeping a sense of humour so that our regular stumbles don't get us down.

In a world without god, sin is an empty word. There are many things i consider bad, and others good. I live my life by the aspirations I have for the rest of humanity. I do not perfectly follow the Categorical Imperative, but close to it.

There are laws and the breaking of laws. I think there are higher ideals that the law, and would consider breaking a law for a reasonable cause. In fact I do it most everyday; exceed the speed limits (when it is safe to do so). I would not stop at smoking Pot, or taking any drug on the basis of the law. It is my body and I shall use or abuse it as I see fit. There is no doubt the medical profession is quite willing to abuse my body with prescribed drugs rather than provide more expensive and more effective remedies.

Ethics has to rise above the law, otherwise laws would never change and bad laws would soon become the norm.

[Greta]

In a world without god, sin is an empty word. There are many things i consider bad, and others good. I live my life by the aspirations I have for the rest of humanity. I do not perfectly follow the Categorical Imperative, but close to it.

There are laws and the breaking of laws. I think there are higher ideals that the law, and would consider breaking a law for a reasonable cause. In fact I do it most everyday; exceed the speed limits (when it is safe to do so). I would not stop at smoking Pot, or taking any drug on the basis of the law. It is my body and I shall use or abuse it as I see fit. There is no doubt the medical profession is quite willing to abuse my body with prescribed drugs rather than provide more expensive and more effective remedies.

Ethics has to rise above the law, otherwise laws would never change and bad laws would soon become the norm.

The relationship between ethics and the law can be illustrated with a Venn diagram. Obviously there's many differing opinions on how large the intersection between the two is. My father, and many of his generation, were obedient on principle. Unquestioning, or barely questioning, obedience to authority was thought to be virtuous.

The law is made simple because laws need to be fair and universal to retain public support - and its failure to do so in the case of VIPs has eroded that trust and support. Politicians dosed up on alcohol and prescription drugs pontificating about pot. In the US in recent decades over a dozen conservative high profile male homophobes were either caught out playing, or soliciting for, a game of hide the sausage with male partners. Clergy pontificating on sexual morals caught our messing with altar boys. Declarations about the "sanctity of life" by politicians happy to send thousands to their death in pointless wars. Leaders of the religion of peace speaking hate and provoking war. Leaders of the religion of love making policies that harm the most needy and vulnerable. Orwell was right - war is Peace, Hate is Love.

As you know, I think humanity-as-a-whole is increasingly becoming a self interested entity in itself. Societies are becoming increasingly uncaring towards individuals. The more there are of us, the more expendable we are, apparently. I can appreciate that nature will take its course, and probably must do so. I hope The System grows up to be a useful entity that eventually seeds other worlds with life and hi tech. I wish The System all the best. However, in the meantime I say "screw the The System" . The hypocritical sanctimony in high places gives me no reason to cooperate more than necessary. If a law is made for the safety and convenience of others, no problem. Alas, many laws are made for the wealthy and powerful - corporations, VIPs and religions, with precious little regard for utilitarian concerns, although the issues will be deceitfully framed as such.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In a world without god, sin is an empty word. There are many things i consider bad, and others good. I live my life by the aspirations I have for the rest of humanity. I do not perfectly follow the Categorical Imperative, but close to it.

There are laws and the breaking of laws. I think there are higher ideals that the law, and would consider breaking a law for a reasonable cause. In fact I do it most everyday; exceed the speed limits (when it is safe to do so). I would not stop at smoking Pot, or taking any drug on the basis of the law. It is my body and I shall use or abuse it as I see fit. There is no doubt the medical profession is quite willing to abuse my body with prescribed drugs rather than provide more expensive and more effective remedies.

Ethics has to rise above the law, otherwise laws would never change and bad laws would soon become the norm.

The relationship between ethics and the law can be illustrated with a Venn diagram. Obviously there's many differing opinions on how large the intersection between the two is. My father, and many of his generation, were obedient on principle. Unquestioning, or barely questioning, obedience to authority was thought to be virtuous.

The law is made simple because laws need to be fair and universal to retain public support - and its failure to do so in the case of VIPs has eroded that trust and support. Politicians dosed up on alcohol and prescription drugs pontificating about pot. In the US in recent decades over a dozen conservative high profile male homophobes were either caught out playing, or soliciting for, a game of hide the sausage with male partners. Clergy pontificating on sexual morals caught our messing with altar boys. Declarations about the "sanctity of life" by politicians happy to send thousands to their death in pointless wars. Leaders of the religion of peace speaking hate and provoking war. Leaders of the religion of love making policies that harm the most needy and vulnerable. Orwell was right - war is Peace, Hate is Love.

As you know, I think humanity-as-a-whole is increasingly becoming a self interested entity in itself. Societies are becoming increasingly uncaring towards individuals. The more there are of us, the more expendable we are, apparently. I can appreciate that nature will take its course, and probably must do so. I hope The System grows up to be a useful entity that eventually seeds other worlds with life and hi tech. I wish The System all the best. However, in the meantime I say "screw the The System" . The hypocritical sanctimony in high places gives me no reason to cooperate more than necessary. If a law is made for the safety and convenience of others, no problem. Alas, many laws are made for the wealthy and powerful - corporations, VIPs and religions, with precious little regard for utilitarian concerns, although the issues will be deceitfully framed as such.

I'm not interested in screwing the system. The fact that Trump can valorise not paying taxes is a symptom of major failure. The rich preach the gospel of small government, and use that to load taxation onto the lowest paid, whilst they reap the benefits. They promote the freedom of the individual which the public swallow, and denigrate the notion of society and the community but this is the very thing, the only thing that can break their power.
Drugs laws are a distraction they use to imprison and control the poor; immigration is a smoke screen to avoid the public looking too closely at what is really happening. Whilst the rich preach against foreigners, at the front door, they fill their factories with foreigners and exploit their cheap labour at the back door.