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

Summary: This article delves into the profound philosophical question of the cause of sin and moral error, drawing insights from the Great Books of the Western World. We explore how thinkers from Plato to Kant grappled with the origins of human failing, focusing on the intricate interplay of the will, ignorance, passion, and the demands of duty. Ultimately, we argue that while various factors contribute, the ultimate cause often resides in a misdirection or corruption of the will, rendering individuals accountable for their transgressions against the good.

The Enduring Question: Why Do We Err?

From the earliest philosophical inquiries, humanity has wrestled with a fundamental, unsettling truth: we often fail to do what we know to be right. We transgress moral boundaries, act against our better judgment, and succumb to impulses that lead to suffering, both for ourselves and others. This phenomenon, which we broadly term sin or moral error, is not merely a theological concern but a profound philosophical puzzle. What, precisely, is its cause? Is it a defect of reason, a weakness of character, or something more insidious lurking within the human spirit? The sages of the Great Books of the Western World have offered myriad answers, each illuminating a facet of this complex human predicament.

Defining Sin: More Than Just Transgression

Before we can pinpoint its cause, we must first understand what sin entails from a philosophical perspective. While often imbued with religious connotations, philosophically, sin can be understood as a voluntary transgression against a known moral law, a universal principle, or the dictates of right reason. It is not merely a mistake born of ignorance, but an act or omission that reflects a failure to uphold one's moral duty.

A Philosophical Perspective

For thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, moral error often stemmed from a lack of knowledge or a failure of reason to properly guide action. Yet, this intellectualist view struggled to account for those instances where individuals know the good but choose otherwise. Later, Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas deepened this understanding, viewing sin as a turning away from God, the ultimate good, or a violation of divine and natural law. Immanuel Kant, eschewing theological frameworks, situated moral error in the failure to act from duty, a conscious violation of the moral law dictated by practical reason itself. What unites these diverse perspectives is the notion of a deliberate deviation from what is understood as right or good.

The Prime Suspect: The Will's Predicament

Perhaps the most persistent and compelling candidate for the ultimate cause of sin and moral error is the human will. This faculty of choice, unique in its capacity for self-determination, appears to be both the fount of virtue and the wellspring of vice.

Augustine's Volitional Turn

For St. Augustine, the problem of evil and sin was deeply personal and profoundly philosophical. In his Confessions and City of God, he grappled with how a good God could create a world with evil. His ultimate answer lay in the freedom of the will. Sin is not a substance or a positive entity, but rather a privation, a "turning away" (aversio) from the immutable good (God) towards mutable, lesser goods (conversio ad creaturam). The will, in its freedom, chooses wrongly, not because it is coerced, but because it is capable of misdirecting its love. This "defect of the will" is the cause of sin, not external forces or divine decree.

Aquinas and the Intellect's Influence

St. Thomas Aquinas, building upon Augustinian thought and Aristotelian psychology in his Summa Theologica, also placed the will at the center. For Aquinas, the intellect presents options to the will, discerning good from evil. However, the will retains its freedom to choose. Sin occurs when the will chooses what is perceived as a good, but is in fact a lesser or apparent good, over a true, greater good. This can happen due to ignorance of the intellect, or the undue influence of passion, which can cloud judgment. Yet, even in such cases, if the ignorance is vincible (could have been overcome) or the passion not overwhelming, the will is still culpable for its consent.

Kant's Radical Evil

Immanuel Kant, in works like Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason, introduced the concept of "radical evil" as a propensity within human nature to deviate from the moral law. This is not a specific act of sin, but a fundamental disposition of the will to prioritize self-love over the moral law. For Kant, the cause of moral error lies in the will's adoption of maxims that are not universally legislating, a failure to act purely from duty. Even when we perform outwardly moral actions, if our inner maxim is not one of duty, our will is not truly good. This "radical evil" is a freely chosen, fundamental orientation of the will that precedes individual acts of sin.

(Image: A detailed, allegorical painting depicting a figure standing at a crossroads, one path leading towards a sunlit, ordered landscape, the other towards a shadowed, chaotic abyss. The figure, with a contemplative yet anguished expression, holds a balanced scale, one side weighed down by earthly desires, the other by an ethereal light representing higher ideals. A subtle, guiding hand of reason or conscience appears faintly in the background, offering direction, yet the figure's gaze is fixed on the choice, emphasizing the internal struggle of the will.)

Ignorance and Passion: Conditions or Causes?

While the will appears central, other factors undoubtedly play a role in moral error. Are ignorance and passion mere conditions that influence the will, or can they be considered direct causes of sin?

Plato's Intellectualism

Plato, particularly in the Gorgias and Republic, famously argued that "no one willingly does wrong." For him, wrongdoing was primarily a result of ignorance—a failure to know what is truly good. If one truly understood the good, one would invariably pursue it. In this view, the cause of sin is a defect of knowledge or intellect. However, this raises the question of how one comes to be ignorant of the good, suggesting a deeper underlying issue.

Aristotle's Nuance on Involuntariness

Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, distinguished between voluntary and involuntary actions. Actions performed under compulsion or through invincible ignorance (ignorance that one could not reasonably overcome) are involuntary and thus do not incur moral blame. However, culpable ignorance—that which one should have overcome—does not absolve responsibility. While ignorance and passion can certainly influence one's choices, Aristotle maintained that a morally blameworthy action requires a voluntary element, ultimately tracing back to the agent's will.

The Weight of Duty: Transgressing the Moral Law

For many philosophers, particularly Kant, the concept of duty is inextricably linked to understanding sin. Moral error is fundamentally a failure to fulfill one's duty, a transgression of the moral law. When the will chooses to act according to inclinations rather than the categorical imperative, it commits a moral wrong. The cause here is the will's deliberate refusal to subordinate self-interest to the universal demands of reason. This isn't just a mistake; it's a rebellion against the very structure of morality.

The diverse perspectives from the Great Books reveal that the cause of sin and moral error is rarely monolithic. It is often a complex interplay of internal and external factors, with the will acting as the crucial nexus where these influences are either affirmed or resisted.

Factor Description Primary Proponents Relationship to Sin/Moral Error
The Will The faculty of choice, self-determination, and intentional action. Augustine, Aquinas, Kant Ultimate Cause: The will's free choice to turn away from the good (Augustine), choose an apparent good over a true good (Aquinas), or adopt maxims contrary to the moral law (Kant). It is the source of moral accountability.
Ignorance Lack of knowledge about what is good, right, or the consequences of actions. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas Condition/Contributing Factor: Can lead to unintentional wrongdoing (Plato). If vincible (culpable), it still implies a failure of the will to seek knowledge (Aquinas). If invincible, it may mitigate blame, but does not represent a moral failing of the will in itself (Aristotle).
Passion/Appetite Strong emotions, desires, or inclinations that can cloud judgment or overpower reason. Aristotle, Aquinas Condition/Contributing Factor: Can influence the will by presenting a good as more desirable than it truly is, or by weakening resolve. The will's consent to these passions makes the action sinful (Aquinas).
External Factors Social pressures, upbringing, environmental influences, temptation. Various (often discussed in context of responsibility) Indirect Influence: Can create conditions that make sin more likely by shaping inclinations or presenting opportunities. However, the will still retains the ultimate choice to yield or resist.
Duty The obligation to act in accordance with moral law, irrespective of inclination or consequence. Kant Standard of Transgression: Sin is defined as a failure to act from duty, a conscious violation of the moral law. The will's choice to prioritize self-interest over duty is the cause of this transgression.

Conclusion: The Perennial Challenge of Moral Accountability

In journeying through the wisdom of the Great Books, we find that the cause of sin and moral error is a profound and multifaceted enigma. While ignorance and passion can undoubtedly cloud judgment and sway our inclinations, the prevailing philosophical consensus points to the human will as the ultimate locus of responsibility. It is in the will's capacity for free choice – its ability to choose against reason, against knowledge, and against the clear dictates of duty – that the true cause of our moral failings resides. This understanding does not simplify the human condition but rather underscores the immense weight of our moral freedom and the perennial challenge of directing our will towards the good. The struggle against sin is, at its core, a struggle for the mastery and proper orientation of our own inner liberty.

Video by: The School of Life

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

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Kant's Ethics: Duty, Good Will & Categorical Imperative Explained""

Share this post