The Problem of Sin and Will: A Philosophical Inquiry

The human condition is perpetually entangled in a profound paradox: our inherent capacity for reasoned choice, or will, frequently leads us to actions we ourselves deem sinful or evil. This isn't merely a theological conundrum; it is a foundational problem that has haunted philosophers from antiquity to the present day, forcing us to grapple with the very nature of human agency, moral responsibility, and the distinction between Good and Evil. At its core, the inquiry asks: If we possess free will, why do we so often choose to transgress, and what does this tell us about our nature and our place in the moral universe?

Unpacking the Concepts: Sin and Will

To navigate this intricate landscape, we must first define our terms, understanding them not just in their common usage, but through the lens of philosophical tradition.

What is Sin?

Philosophically, sin extends beyond mere religious transgression. It represents a deviation from a perceived moral order, a deliberate act or omission that causes harm, violates a universal moral law, or falls short of an ideal human excellence.

  • Theological Perspective: Often, sin is understood as an offense against God, a breach of divine law, leading to guilt and alienation. This perspective, deeply explored in the Great Books by thinkers like Augustine of Hippo, views sin not just as an act, but as a state of being – a turning away from the highest good. Augustine famously characterized sin as a privation of good, a lack rather than a positive evil, where the will chooses lesser goods over the supreme good.
  • Secular Philosophical Perspective: Here, sin might be reframed as moral error, wrongdoing, or vice. It's a failure of moral reasoning or an act that contravenes ethical principles, such as justice, benevolence, or autonomy. For Aristotle, virtue lies in the mean, and sin (or vice) would be an excess or deficiency, a failure of practical wisdom (phronesis).

What is Will?

The will is perhaps the most contested faculty in all of philosophy. It is generally understood as the capacity for conscious choice, intention, and decision-making. It is the part of us that initiates action, that determines what we shall do.

  • Free Will vs. Determinism: This is the bedrock debate. Does our will operate freely, unconstrained by prior causes, allowing us genuine alternatives? Or are our choices predetermined by genetics, environment, divine decree, or the laws of physics?
  • The Will as a Rational Faculty: Thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, building on Aristotle, saw the will as a rational appetite, guided by the intellect. The intellect apprehends the good, and the will then moves towards it. The problem then arises: how can the will, guided by reason, choose something harmful or evil?
  • The Will as an Irrational Force: Other philosophers, particularly later ones like Arthur Schopenhauer or Friedrich Nietzsche, conceived of the will as a more primal, often irrational, driving force, preceding or even dominating reason.

The Core Problem: How Can a Good Will Choose Evil?

Here we arrive at the very heart of the problem: If the will is our faculty for choosing, and if we are inherently oriented towards the good, how can we knowingly or unknowingly choose evil or commit sin?

The Socratic Paradox and the Role of Ignorance

Socrates famously asserted that "no one knowingly does evil." For him and Plato, sin or wrongdoing was primarily a result of ignorance. If one truly understood what was good, they would invariably choose it. Therefore, to choose evil was to misunderstand the true good. This perspective suggests that education and enlightenment are the primary antidotes to sin. The will, in this view, is always directed towards what it perceives as good, even if that perception is flawed.

Augustine's Struggle: The Divided Will

Augustine of Hippo, in his Confessions, grappled intensely with the internal conflict of the will. He observed that even when he knew what was good (and desired it intellectually), his will often pulled him towards sin. He spoke of the "two wills," a divided self, where the lower, concupiscent desires could overcome the higher, rational aspirations. This led him to the concept of original sin, suggesting a fundamental flaw or weakness inherited by humanity that corrupts the will and inclines it towards evil, making it difficult to choose the good even when understood.

Reason, Passion, and the Will

Many philosophers have explored the interplay between reason, emotion (or passion), and the will.

  • Plato's Chariot Allegory: Reason (the charioteer) must guide the spirited and appetitive parts of the soul (the horses) to maintain harmony and steer towards the good. A failure of reason to control passion can lead to sin.
  • Aristotle's Akrasia (Weakness of Will): Aristotle recognized that one might know the good but still fail to act on it due to a lack of self-control or overwhelming desire. This is not ignorance, but a failure of the will to follow reason.
  • Stoicism: Emphasized the control of passions through reason as the path to virtue and freedom from sin. The will should align itself with cosmic reason (Logos).
  • David Hume: Argued that "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." If Hume is right, then our will is fundamentally driven by desires, and reason merely finds the means to satisfy them, complicating the idea of a purely rational will choosing Good and Evil.

(Image: A detailed classical oil painting depicting Saint Augustine in deep contemplation, perhaps with a skull or an open book, his expression showing intellectual struggle and spiritual anguish, symbolizing the internal conflict of the will and the problem of sin.)

Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility

The problem of sin and will is inextricably linked to the debate over free will and determinism, for without genuine freedom of choice, the very notion of moral responsibility for sin collapses.

The Deterministic Challenge

If all our actions are predetermined, whether by divine decree (theological determinism), the laws of nature (causal determinism), or psychological conditioning, then our choices are mere illusions. In such a scenario, how can we be held accountable for sin? If my will is not genuinely free to choose otherwise, then "ought implies can" becomes problematic: I cannot be obligated to do good if I cannot choose to do good.

Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism

  • Incompatibilists: Argue that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. If determinism is true, there is no free will, and therefore no genuine moral responsibility for sin. Thinkers like Immanuel Kant fall into this camp, positing that moral law requires free will. For Kant, the will must be autonomous, self-legislating, for actions to have moral worth.
  • Compatibilists: Attempt to reconcile free will with determinism. They argue that freedom of the will means acting according to one's desires and intentions, even if those desires and intentions are themselves causally determined. As long as one is not coerced, one is free, and therefore responsible for their sin. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke offer early forms of compatibilism.

The Foundation of Good and Evil

The entire edifice of Good and Evil, and our systems of praise and blame, punishment and reward, rests upon the assumption of free will. If we are merely automatons, our moral judgments become meaningless. The problem of sin then transforms into a study of inevitable outcomes rather than culpable choices. The weight of this problem is immense, impacting not only our understanding of individual morality but also societal justice.

Manifestations of Sin and the Pursuit of Good

The philosophical inquiry into sin and will is not merely theoretical; it has profound implications for how we understand human behavior and strive for a better existence.

Types of Sin and Evil

Beyond theological categories, philosophy distinguishes various forms of wrongdoing:

  • Moral Evil: Actions resulting from the deliberate choices of agents, causing harm or suffering (e.g., murder, theft, deceit). This is the primary focus when discussing the will and sin.
  • Natural Evil: Suffering and destruction caused by natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, diseases). This raises the "problem of evil" for theologians but is distinct from the problem of the will choosing sin.
  • Sins of Omission: The failure to act when one has a moral obligation to do so. This highlights the active role of the will not just in doing, but in refraining.

The Path to Virtue

Philosophy has consistently offered pathways to mitigate sin and foster good:

  • Virtue Ethics (Aristotle): Emphasizes character development. By cultivating virtues like courage, temperance, and justice, the will is trained to habitually choose the good. The goal is to become the kind of person who naturally chooses rightly.
  • Deontology (Kant): Focuses on moral duty and universalizable rules. The will acts morally when it chooses actions based on principles that could apply to everyone, respecting the inherent dignity of rational beings. Sin is a failure to act from duty or to respect rational autonomy.
  • Consequentialism (Utilitarianism): Judges actions based on their outcomes. The will chooses actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Sin would be an action that leads to overall suffering or diminishes net happiness.

The Modern Perspective: Burden of Freedom

In the 20th century, existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre argued that we are "condemned to be free." This radical freedom means we are entirely responsible for our choices and, by extension, for defining what Good and Evil mean for us. There is no preordained human nature or divine law to guide the will; we create our essence through our choices. This perspective places an immense burden on the will, making sin not just a transgression but an act of self-betrayal or bad faith, where one denies their radical freedom and responsibility.

Conclusion: An Enduring Inquiry

The problem of sin and will remains one of philosophy's most enduring and complex questions. It forces us to peer into the very core of what it means to be human: a creature endowed with the formidable power of choice, yet often prone to actions that contradict our highest aspirations. From the intellectual failings posited by Socrates to Augustine's tormented inner struggles, from the categorical imperatives of Kant to the radical freedom of Sartre, the inquiry into how and why we choose Good and Evil continues to shape our understanding of ethics, agency, and responsibility. It is a dialogue that demands constant reflection, for in grappling with the nature of our will and the reality of sin, we ultimately seek to define the essence of our moral selves.

YouTube Video Suggestions:

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Augustine on Free Will and Evil""
2. ## 📹 Related Video: What is Philosophy?

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Philosophy of Free Will vs Determinism Explained""

Share this post