The Enduring Conundrum of the Human Spirit: Navigating The Problem of Sin and Will
The human condition, in its profound depth and perplexing contradictions, has perhaps no greater problem than the intricate relationship between sin and will. From the earliest philosophical inquiries to the most rigorous theological treatises, thinkers have grappled with why beings capable of reason and aspiring to the good so often choose paths of transgression. This pillar page delves into the philosophical and theological journey through the Great Books of the Western World, exploring the nature of the will, the definition of sin, and the perennial problem of good and evil as they converge in the human act of choosing. We shall examine how various traditions have understood our capacity for moral failure, the extent of our freedom, and the implications for responsibility and redemption.
Defining the Terms: Sin, Will, and the Human Predicament
To embark upon this intellectual odyssey, we must first establish a common understanding of the core concepts that form the bedrock of our inquiry. The problem of sin and will is not merely an academic exercise but a profound reflection on the very essence of human agency and morality.
What is Sin? A Philosophical and Theological Inquiry
While often associated with religious doctrine, sin in a broader philosophical sense refers to a transgression against a moral or divine law, a deviation from what is considered right, good, or virtuous. It is not merely an error of judgment, but an active or passive participation in evil, or at least a lesser good, when a greater good was available.
- Theological Perspective: Often framed as an offense against God, a breach of covenant, or a failure to live up to divine expectations. (e.g., Augustine's conception of sin as a turning away from God).
- Philosophical Perspective: Can be understood as akrasia (weakness of will), a failure to act according to one's better judgment, or a deliberate choice of a perceived evil over a known good. It is a disruption of order, a disharmony within the self or society.
The Nature of the Will: Our Faculty of Choice
The will is that faculty of the soul or mind by which we choose, decide, and act. It is the engine of our agency, the power to initiate action, to assent or dissent, to desire or reject. Without will, moral action, and indeed moral responsibility, would be inconceivable.
- Rational Will: Often seen as guided by reason, aiming towards what the intellect perceives as good.
- Appetitive Will: Driven by desires, passions, and inclinations, which may or may not align with reason.
- Free Will: The capacity to choose between alternative courses of action, uncoerced by external forces or internal compulsions. This concept is central to the problem of sin.
The problem arises precisely because this powerful faculty, the will, which is ostensibly oriented towards the good, so often chooses that which leads to sin, thereby introducing evil into the world and into the self.
Historical Perspectives from the Great Books: A Journey Through Thought
The great minds of Western civilization have wrestled with The Problem of Sin and Will across millennia, each epoch offering unique insights and challenges.
Ancient Greece: The Seeds of Moral Failing
While the concept of "sin" as a theological transgression was not central, Greek philosophy deeply explored moral failing and the choice between good and evil.
- Plato: In dialogues like the Republic, Plato posits that evil arises from ignorance. No one wills to do evil knowingly; rather, they pursue what they mistakenly believe to be good. The will is often swayed by appetites and desires that obscure rational judgment. The problem here is one of intellectual enlightenment.
- Aristotle: In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle delves into akrasia or "incontinence," where one knows what is good but fails to act accordingly due to passion or desire. This suggests a conflict within the will itself, a failure of the rational part to command the appetitive. He distinguishes this from vice, where one actively chooses evil and believes it to be good. The will is responsible for habituating virtue or vice.
Early Christianity: Augustine and the Weight of Original Sin
Saint Augustine of Hippo, a towering figure from the Great Books, fundamentally reshaped the understanding of sin and will.
- The Problem of Evil: Augustine grappled with how evil could exist if God, who is perfectly good, created everything. He concluded that evil is not a substance but a privation of good, a turning away from God.
- Free Will and Original Sin: Augustine asserted that humanity possesses free will, which is essential for moral responsibility. However, he introduced the doctrine of Original Sin, arguing that Adam's first sin corrupted human nature, weakening the will and inclining it towards evil. This means that while we still have free will, it is now a will that struggles against concupiscence and is prone to sin. The problem shifts from mere ignorance to a profound, inherited defect of the will itself.
- Grace: For Augustine, only divine grace can truly restore the will to its proper orientation towards God, enabling it to choose the ultimate good.
Medieval Scholasticism: Aquinas on Intellect, Will, and Sin
Saint Thomas Aquinas, synthesizing Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, offered a nuanced account in his Summa Theologica.
- Intellect Precedes Will: Aquinas argued that the will is a rational appetite; it desires what the intellect apprehends as good. Therefore, the intellect presents the good to the will.
- The Nature of Sin: Sin is fundamentally a disordered act of the will—a choice of an apparent good (a particular, finite good) over the ultimate good (God). It is a privation of the rectitude that an act ought to have.
- Invincible Ignorance: Aquinas recognized that ignorance can diminish or remove the voluntariness of an act, and thus its sinfulness. However, culpable ignorance (where one wills not to know) does not excuse. The problem here is how the will can choose something other than the ultimate good presented by the intellect.
Enlightenment and Modernity: Autonomy, Duty, and the Re-evaluation of Good and Evil
The modern era brought new perspectives, emphasizing human autonomy and challenging traditional notions of sin.
- Immanuel Kant: In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant championed the Good Will as the only thing unconditionally good. For Kant, a will is good not because of its consequences, but because it acts out of duty, in accordance with the moral law (the categorical imperative). Sin or moral transgression for Kant is a failure of the will to act from duty, a choice to prioritize inclination over reason. The problem is one of aligning one's subjective maxims with universal moral law.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: In Emile or The Social Contract, Rousseau famously declared that "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." He argued that humans are naturally good, and society, with its corrupting influences, introduces evil and sin. The will is initially pure, but external pressures distort it.
- Friedrich Nietzsche: In Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche radically critiqued the traditional concepts of good and evil, arguing they were social constructs, particularly "slave morality" designed to suppress the strong. He challenged the very notion of sin as a concept that diminishes human vitality and will to power. For Nietzsche, the problem is not sin, but the weakness of will that succumbs to such debilitating moral frameworks.
The Intricacies of Free Will and Moral Responsibility
At the heart of The Problem of Sin and Will lies the enduring philosophical debate about free will. If our will is not truly free, can we be held morally responsible for our sins?
Determinism vs. Free Will: A Perennial Conflict
- Determinism: The belief that all events, including human choices and actions, are ultimately determined by prior causes. If this is true, then our will is merely an effect of preceding causes, and true freedom of choice is an illusion.
- Libertarianism: The view that humans do possess free will, meaning they could have chosen otherwise, even given the same prior conditions. This is often seen as essential for moral responsibility and the concept of sin.
- Compatibilism: The attempt to reconcile free will with determinism, arguing that freedom is compatible with causation. A person is free if they act according to their own will, even if that will itself is determined. The problem here is whether such "freedom" is sufficient for moral responsibility as we intuitively understand it.
Factors Influencing the Will: Ignorance, Passion, and Habit
Even if free will exists, its exercise is complex and often compromised. Philosophers have long recognized various factors that can diminish the voluntariness and thus the sinfulness of an act.
| Factor | Description | Impact on Will |
|---|---|---|
| Ignorance | Lack of knowledge about the moral implications of an act or the facts surrounding it. | Can diminish or remove culpability for sin, especially if invincible (unavoidable). |
| Passion | Strong emotions (anger, fear, lust, etc.) that can overwhelm reason and sway the will. | Can lessen responsibility, but if cultivated or indulged, can increase it. |
| Habit | Repeated actions that become ingrained, making it difficult to choose otherwise. | Formed by prior choices of the will, but once established, can constrain future choices. |
| Coercion | External force or threat that compels an action against one's inner will. | Can negate the voluntariness of an act, rendering it non-sinful or less so. |
These factors illustrate the vulnerability of the will and the complex interplay between internal states and external circumstances in the commission of sin. The problem is not just that we sin, but why we sin, even when we know better.
Can One Will Evil for its Own Sake?
This profound question has haunted philosophers. Most classical thinkers, from Plato to Aquinas, argued that the will always seeks a perceived good, even when choosing something objectively evil. They believed that no one wills evil as evil; rather, they mistake a lesser good for a greater one, or pursue a particular good (e.g., pleasure, power) in a disordered way. However, some modern thinkers, particularly in literature and psychology, suggest the possibility of a perverse will that delights in evil for its own sake, a phenomenon sometimes termed "malice." This represents a truly disturbing aspect of the problem of sin and will.
The Problem of Good and Evil in Relation to Sin
The concepts of good and evil are inextricably linked to sin. Sin is often defined as a deviation from the good, but what precisely constitutes good and evil?
Is Sin Merely a Deviation from Good, or an Active Embrace of Evil?
This question lies at the core of many ethical and theological systems.
- Sin as Privation (Augustine, Aquinas): Evil is understood as a lack or absence of good (privatio boni), not as a positive entity. Therefore, sin is a turning away from the ultimate good, a failure to achieve the good that ought to be present. It's an absence of rectitude.
- Sin as Active Transgression: Others argue that sin is more than just an absence; it is an active, deliberate choice to violate moral norms, inflict harm, or embrace evil. This implies a more robust and intentional engagement with evil as a positive force.
The Paradox of Choosing Evil When Good is Known
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of The Problem of Sin and Will is why rational beings, capable of discerning the good, so often choose what they know to be evil or detrimental. This problem manifests as:
- Akrasia (Weakness of Will): Knowing the good but failing to do it due to overpowering desires or emotions (Aristotle).
- Deliberate Malice: Consciously choosing to harm or transgress, sometimes even finding satisfaction in the act itself (a more extreme, and debated, possibility).
This paradox challenges our understanding of rationality and the inherent orientation of the will towards the good. It suggests a fundamental fracture within the human spirit, a struggle between what we know we should do and what we will to do.
The Problem of Suffering and the Existence of Evil
The existence of sin and evil in the world also gives rise to the classic problem of suffering, particularly for those who believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God (theodicy). If God is all-good and all-powerful, why does evil exist? The philosophical response often centers on free will: the capacity for humans to choose sin is a necessary condition for genuine love and moral agency, even if it brings the risk of evil into the world.
Contemporary Philosophical Debates and Implications
The historical discourse continues to inform modern ethical thought, albeit often in secularized forms
📹 Related Video: What is Philosophy?
Video by: The School of Life
💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: "The Problem of Sin and Will philosophy"