The Labyrinth of Wrongdoing: Unpacking the Cause of Sin and Moral Error

The human condition is perpetually shadowed by the spectre of wrongdoing. From the petty transgression to the heinous crime, sin and moral error punctuate our histories, personal and collective. But what lies at the heart of this deviation? What cause compels us away from what we ought to do, from our perceived duty? This is a question that has preoccupied the greatest minds of Western thought, challenging our understanding of human nature, free will, and the very fabric of morality. This article delves into the profound philosophical question of what causes sin and moral error. Drawing from the rich tradition of the Great Books, we explore various perspectives, from the Socratic notion of ignorance to the Augustinian concept of a deficient will, examining how intellect, passion, and crucially, our capacity for choice—our will—interplay in our deviation from duty and the path of virtue.

The Elusive Nature of Sin and Moral Error

Before we can pinpoint the cause, we must first clarify our terms. In a philosophical context, sin often refers to a transgression against divine law or a fundamental moral principle, carrying connotations of guilt and spiritual failing. Moral error, while overlapping, tends to be a broader term, encompassing any action, thought, or omission that deviates from what is considered morally right or virtuous, regardless of religious implication. Both, however, represent a failure to live up to an ideal or an obligation.

Tracing the Roots: Philosophical Perspectives on Causation

The Great Books offer a mosaic of theories regarding the cause of moral failing. These perspectives often highlight different facets of human psychology and moral agency.

1. Ignorance: The Socratic-Platonic View

Perhaps the earliest and most influential perspective is that all wrongdoing stems from ignorance. Socrates famously asserted that "no one does wrong willingly." If one truly knew what was good, they would pursue it.

  • Plato elaborated on this, suggesting that moral error arises when the rational part of the soul fails to understand the true Good, or when it is overcome by the spirited or appetitive parts. The cause here is a lack of knowledge or an inability to apply it correctly.

2. Passion and Appetite: Aristotle's Akrasia

While acknowledging ignorance, Aristotle introduced a more nuanced understanding, particularly with his concept of akrasia, often translated as "weakness of will" or "incontinence."

  • Here, an individual knows what is good and what their duty entails, but their actions are swayed by overwhelming passions, desires, or appetites. The will is present, but it is overcome by non-rational forces. The cause is not a lack of knowledge, but a failure of the rational part of the soul to maintain control over the irrational.

3. The Deficiency of the Will: Augustine and Aquinas

For Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas, the will takes centre stage as the primary cause of sin.

  • Augustine grappled profoundly with the problem of evil, concluding that sin is not a substance but a privation or deficiency of good. The will freely chooses to turn away from the immutable Good (God) towards a lesser, mutable good. This is not ignorance, but a deliberate misdirection of the will. The cause is a perverse will that chooses to "enjoy" what it should merely "use."
  • Aquinas built upon this, positing that sin is a voluntary act that deviates from the rule of reason and divine law. While ignorance can diminish culpability, true sin involves a knowing and voluntary choice of the will to act against duty or moral law. The cause is ultimately found in the will's freedom to choose wrongly.

4. The Rejection of Duty: Kant's Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant shifted the focus to duty and the moral law. For Kant, moral error—or acting immorally—is a failure to act from duty, specifically from respect for the moral law itself.

  • The cause of such error is not necessarily ignorance or passion, but a will that chooses to act on maxims that cannot be universalized, or that treats humanity merely as a means rather than an end. It is a failure of the will to align itself with the dictates of practical reason and the categorical imperative.

The Indispensable Role of the Will

Across these diverse perspectives, the human will emerges as a central, if complex, cause of sin and moral error.

  • Freedom of Choice: The capacity to choose otherwise, to act against inclination or even perceived self-interest, is what makes moral judgment possible. If we were simply automatons, driven solely by external forces or internal programming, the concepts of sin and duty would lose their meaning.
  • Responsibility: It is the will's freedom that grounds our moral responsibility. When we attribute sin or moral error to an individual, we are implicitly acknowledging their capacity to have chosen differently, to have fulfilled their duty.

Table 1: Key Philosophical Causes of Moral Error

Philosopher/Tradition Primary Cause of Sin/Moral Error Role of the Will
Socrates/Plato Ignorance of the Good Secondary (Will follows intellect)
Aristotle Weakness of Will (Akrasia), Overpowered by Passion The Will is present but overcome
Augustine/Aquinas Deficiency or Perversion of the Will (choosing lesser good) Primary (Free Will chooses wrongly)
Kant Failure to act from Duty, Will acts on non-universalizable maxims Central (Will's alignment with moral law)

Internal vs. External Influences

While the will is often seen as the proximate cause, it operates within a complex web of influences:

  • Internal Factors: These include our innate predispositions, temperament, desires, cognitive biases, and even our level of self-awareness. A strong passion, unchecked by reason, can certainly nudge the will towards error.
  • External Factors: Society, culture, upbringing, education, economic conditions, and even physical environment can all shape our moral landscape and influence the choices our will makes. While these are not direct causes of sin in the same way as a free choice, they can create conditions that make moral error more likely or more difficult to avoid.

(Image: A classical painting depicting the allegory of choice or temptation, perhaps Hercules at the crossroads, or an individual wrestling with two opposing figures representing virtue and vice. The central figure is looking conflicted, with one path leading to light and order, the other to shadow and chaos, symbolizing the internal struggle of the will.)

Implications for Moral Responsibility

Understanding the cause of sin and moral error profoundly impacts how we attribute responsibility and how we approach moral education and reform.

  • If error is purely ignorance, the solution lies in teaching and enlightenment.
  • If it is weakness of will, the focus shifts to character building, self-discipline, and strengthening the rational control over passions.
  • If it is a deliberate perversion of the will, then accountability, repentance, and a reorientation towards the good become paramount.

Ultimately, the journey through the Great Books reveals that there is no single, simplistic cause. Instead, sin and moral error arise from a dynamic interplay of intellect, emotion, and, most crucially, the free, often enigmatic, choice of the human will in the face of its duty.

Further Exploration

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Akrasia Explained""

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Augustine Free Will and Evil Philosophy""

Share this post