Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Buzzard3]

Sins are just man-made agreements. Wow, that's original ...

[Leontiskos]

Are sins merely man-made laws?

No, and for several reasons. Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist. If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.

If the author thinks that sin is a law, or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law, then he is just redefining words willy-nilly in an entirely unphilosophical and unhelpful way. Neither St. Matthew, Mephistopheles, nor Bill Maher would be tempted to affirm that sin is a law or that sin is the breaking of a man-made law.

[Good_Egg]

Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.

If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.

Very good. I think you've shown that the proposition as stated is false by definition, from the everyday meaning of the words.

If it is permissible to speculate, I suspect that the intended underlying proposition is "divine law does not exist". And the argument for that proposition goes something like:

The feelings that we associate with the concept of sin - guilt, shame, moral disapproval of the actions of others - are adequately explained by the human social dynamics around man-made law. We know that man-made law exists, and that many believe that it carries moral weight - that we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of our society. So it is unnecessary to postulate divine law in order to explain our experience of sin. So by Occam's razor we should assume that divine law does not exist.

[Leontiskos]

Sin is not a law, it is the breaking of a law. The question then is whether sin is the breaking of a man-made law. Everyone knows that sin is the breaking of a divine law, not a man-made law. If divine law does not exist, then sin does not exist.

If divine law does exist, and we can transgress it, then sin exists.

Very good. I think you've shown that the proposition as stated is false by definition, from the everyday meaning of the words.

Thank you. I think that's right.

If it is permissible to speculate, I suspect that the intended underlying proposition is "divine law does not exist".

I also agree with this.

And the argument for that proposition goes something like:

The feelings that we associate with the concept of sin - guilt, shame, moral disapproval of the actions of others - are adequately explained by the human social dynamics around man-made law. We know that man-made law exists, and that many believe that it carries moral weight - that we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of our society. So it is unnecessary to postulate divine law in order to explain our experience of sin. So by Occam's razor we should assume that divine law does not exist.

Yes, that is a cogent argument. To be clear, the idea is that the religious person has mistaken an experience of mundane wrongdoing for sin, because they have mistaken a man-made law for a divine law.

This is helpful because now we have moved from a rhetorical claim to the outline of a real argument. Certainly if the experience associated with the concept of sin can be intuitively explained without recourse to divine law, then we would have one good reason to think that people who believe in sin are mistaken. This is the crucial premise in your argument, and I think it would need to be defended.

[AgentSmith]

I would say that it's precisely because we're animals (sin is permissible) that sin is an idea that transcends humans i.e. it has other-worldly origins. You wouldn't expect a dog to do tricks like we see on TV shows unless it has been taught them (by superior beings, humans). We have to be taught to be good (it's not ingrained, virtue) as children, through adolescence, to adulthood. Who taught the first humans about morality? That's the question that gets me all excited!

[Slavedevice]

Sin is traditionally based on a book written by people in the Middle East area of the world. By force and economic gangsterism, other cultures shockingly now think this book relates to them! It’s the biggest shim sham in all of history. Nordic people had a nature worshiping type spirituality and had totally more liberal views on things like sexuality. The biblical laws were designed to make people FEAR god and to promote male dominance. Most cultures/religions agree that such things as murder (of course) are unacceptable (but not “sin” that you are doomed to hell for)

[detail]

There are several types of sins, one is the man made agreement , that provides a society with enough peace in order not to collapse. There is an instinctive sin feeling, even existent for animals, that is somehow different. The inner feeling for sin, is nothing made by society but is just a derivation of an instinctive feeling for guilt. Moral values and feelings somehow seem to differ. The one is made by man, the other is somehow created by the beeing itself. The sin can be a moral concept or is just a more subtile version of guilt as a feeling, that makes one somehow uneasy.

[Slavedevice]

To @Detail”. The concept of SIN is not innate. Sin is unique to Abrahamic religion! Eastern and Pagan religions have no such concept as SIN. I agree people have feelings that are more like SYMPATHETIC to other’s suffering. But things like monogamy, sexuality, etc are not innate. Most traditional sins are man made

[Good_Egg]

Sin is unique to Abrahamic religion! Eastern and Pagan religions have no such concept as SIN.

I would have thought that most religions involve some moral "rules", and hold certain actions (theft, murder etc) to be morally wrong.

What's the difference between saying "murder is morally wrong" and saying "murder is a sin" ? Is there any ?

Or is the latter just the former expressed in the language of Abrahamic religion ?

[GrayArea]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

By us human beings saying and agreeing that sins are objective & absolute instead of being man-made agreements, we paradoxically make it so that they are man-made. Because this information was stated by ourselves.

[Good_Egg]

By us human beings saying and agreeing that sins are objective & absolute instead of being man-made agreements, we paradoxically make it so that they are man-made. Because this information was stated by ourselves.

Don't follow the logic here. If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?

[GrayArea]

By us human beings saying and agreeing that sins are objective & absolute instead of being man-made agreements, we paradoxically make it so that they are man-made. Because this information was stated by ourselves.

Don't follow the logic here. If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?

Yes. Even though it is true objectively AND physically, it is still a man-made agreement. However, the important thing to know is that before gravity is agreed as true by humans, it is first agreed as true by the universe. In fact, the reason why it is agreed as true by humans is because it is agreed as true by the universe / laws of physics.

But unlike this aspect of laws of physics, sins are only a man-made agreement that is not agreed as true by the universe. And it is only agreed as true by humans because we want it that way, not the Universe.

(As in, there is nothing in the Universe that physically makes it impossible to sin like how it is physically impossible to go against the laws of physics. It only tries to restrain us using human logic, where we have a choice to either succumb to it or ignore it.)

The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be.

That is to say, you made me realize that I owe some more explanation to you regarding my previous post—Just simply by us thinking that sins are objective, our thoughts can make it look like sins are objective. In our thoughts, the objectiveness and subjectiveness of sins are not distinguished. Because that's what thinking something is true means.

But they are not, and this is not decided by us, and is rather decided by the universe that we live in. This is proven by my previous statement "The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be."

[Good_Egg]

If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?

Yes. Even though it is true objectively AND physically, it is still a man-made agreement. However, the important thing to know is that before gravity is agreed as true by humans, it is first agreed as true by the universe. In fact, the reason why it is agreed as true by humans is because it is agreed as true by the universe / laws of physics.

That's fair enough. It becomes a socially-agreed cultural truth as well as an objective physical truth when enough people in the culture believe it.

But unlike this aspect of laws of physics, sins are only a man-made agreement that is not agreed as true by the universe. And it is only agreed as true by humans because we want it that way, not the Universe.

(As in, there is nothing in the Universe that physically makes it impossible to sin like how it is physically impossible to go against the laws of physics. It only tries to restrain us using human logic, where we have a choice to either succumb to it or ignore it.)

The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be.

There's a difference between saying water cannot flow uphill and saying water should not flow uphill.

Yes there is nothing in the Universe that makes it physically impossible to commit murder (to take one example of an act that most of us would, as part of our man-made agreement, agree was a sin). But that was never what morality claimed. Morality claims that we should not murder.

You're right - the question is how much of an objective reality that agreement reflects. Is there some sort of truth of the universe that murder is bad, to which that human agreement is a response ? Or is it merely an arbitrary social convention ?

Could we all turn around and agree that we're all fine with murder now ? Or would we run into consequences that we could not ignore ? Consequences not at the level of physics but at the level of recognisable badness ?

If the only level of objective reality you will accept is physics then you've chosen to define away any possibility of objective morality.

Whereas Kant has it that if you can will it to be a universal rule that people may murder each other at will then the act isn't sinful. Again, with a sense of "can" that is weaker than physical impossibility. Because lying to oneself is possible...

[GrayArea]

If I state that gravity objectively exists, does that turn it into a man-made agreement ?

Yes. Even though it is true objectively AND physically, it is still a man-made agreement. However, the important thing to know is that before gravity is agreed as true by humans, it is first agreed as true by the universe. In fact, the reason why it is agreed as true by humans is because it is agreed as true by the universe / laws of physics.

That's fair enough. It becomes a socially-agreed cultural truth as well as an objective physical truth when enough people in the culture believe it.

But unlike this aspect of laws of physics, sins are only a man-made agreement that is not agreed as true by the universe. And it is only agreed as true by humans because we want it that way, not the Universe.

(As in, there is nothing in the Universe that physically makes it impossible to sin like how it is physically impossible to go against the laws of physics. It only tries to restrain us using human logic, where we have a choice to either succumb to it or ignore it.)

The difference between the laws of physics and human morals is that the first one cannot be ignored even though it is a man-made agreement, but the second one can be.

There's a difference between saying water cannot flow uphill and saying water should not flow uphill.

Yes there is nothing in the Universe that makes it physically impossible to commit murder (to take one example of an act that most of us would, as part of our man-made agreement, agree was a sin). But that was never what morality claimed. Morality claims that we should not murder.

You're right - the question is how much of an objective reality that agreement reflects. Is there some sort of truth of the universe that murder is bad, to which that human agreement is a response ? Or is it merely an arbitrary social convention ?

Could we all turn around and agree that we're all fine with murder now ? Or would we run into consequences that we could not ignore ? Consequences not at the level of physics but at the level of recognisable badness ?

If the only level of objective reality you will accept is physics then you've chosen to define away any possibility of objective morality.

Whereas Kant has it that if you can will it to be a universal rule that people may murder each other at will then the act isn't sinful. Again, with a sense of "can" that is weaker than physical impossibility. Because lying to oneself is possible...

The prohibition of the act of sinning is a man-made agreement, whereas the sin or the result itself that is committed through an act of sinning is objective. But this is only from a human perspective. From the "Universe's" perspective, it does not matter if a lifeform lives or dies. The Universe is still itself. In fact, its existence is directly defined little by little, through these individual events themselves.

[Leontiskos]

There's a difference between saying water cannot flow uphill and saying water should not flow uphill...

Great post!