The Enduring Conundrum: Unpacking The Problem of Sin and Will

The human experience is perpetually shadowed by the perplexing interplay of sin and will. From ancient Greek tragedy to modern existential angst, philosophers and theologians alike have grappled with the fundamental problem: if we possess a will, how can we choose to do evil when we know what is good? This exploration delves into the historical and philosophical landscape of this profound problem, drawing extensively from the intellectual bedrock of the Great Books of the Western World. We will dissect the nature of sin, the essence of will, and the intricate ways these concepts have shaped our understanding of moral responsibility, freedom, and the very fabric of human nature.

Defining the Core Concepts: Sin, Will, Good and Evil

Before we embark on our historical journey, it is imperative to establish a working understanding of our central terms. These concepts, while seemingly straightforward, carry layers of philosophical and theological nuance.

What is Sin?

The term sin often conjures theological images, yet its philosophical implications are far broader.

  • Theologically: Sin is typically understood as a transgression against divine law or a separation from God. It implies a moral failing, a deliberate turning away from the Creator.
  • Philosophically: Sin can be interpreted as:
    • Moral Error: A deviation from the rational, virtuous, or ethical path.
    • Ignorance: As posited by Socrates, all wrongdoing stems from a lack of knowledge of the good.
    • Weakness of Will (Akrasia): Knowing what is good but failing to act on it.
    • Active Malice: A deliberate choice to inflict harm or pursue evil.

The problem of sin thus transcends mere religious doctrine, touching upon the very foundations of ethics and human agency.

The Enigma of Will

The concept of will is perhaps the most crucial and contentious element in our discussion. It refers to the faculty of the mind that chooses, decides, and initiates action.

  • Freedom of Will: The capacity to make choices that are not predetermined by external forces or internal compulsions. This is often termed "free will."
  • Determinism: The belief that all events, including human choices, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
  • Compatibilism: The view that free will and determinism can coexist, often by redefining "free will" as the ability to act according to one's desires, even if those desires are determined.

The problem arises precisely because the existence of a free will seems to make the choice of sin all the more perplexing. Why would a truly free agent choose self-destruction or evil?

The Dichotomy of Good and Evil

Good and Evil serve as the moral compass against which sin is measured and by which the will is guided (or misguided).

  • Objective Good/Evil: Belief in universal, absolute moral truths that exist independently of human opinion.
  • Subjective Good/Evil: Belief that morality is relative to individual or cultural perspectives.
  • Metaphysical Good/Evil: Good as existence, perfection, or being; evil as a privation, absence, or corruption of good.

The definition of good and evil directly impacts our understanding of the problem of sin and the will's role in choosing between them.

A Philosophical Odyssey: Sin and Will Through the Ages

The problem of sin and will has occupied the greatest minds throughout Western intellectual history. We turn to the Great Books of the Western World to trace this enduring debate.

Ancient Greek Foundations: Ignorance or Choice?

The earliest philosophical inquiries into wrongdoing set the stage for later discussions of sin and will.

  • Socrates (as depicted by Plato): Famously asserted that "no one does evil willingly." For Socrates, all wrongdoing stems from ignorance of the good. If one truly knew what was good, they would invariably choose it. This view minimizes the role of a will that chooses evil deliberately, framing sin as an intellectual failing rather than a moral one.
    • Relevant Texts: Plato's Apology, Protagoras.
  • Aristotle: While acknowledging the influence of knowledge, Aristotle introduced the concept of akrasia, or weakness of will. He observed that people often know what is good but fail to act on it due to appetites, emotions, or habit. This introduces a more complex role for the will – one that can be overcome or swayed by non-rational elements, thus providing an early framework for understanding sin as a deliberate, albeit flawed, choice.
    • Relevant Text: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

The Augustinian Revolution: The Corrupted Will

Perhaps no philosopher grappled with the problem of sin and will more profoundly than St. Augustine of Hippo. His reflections, born from personal struggle and theological inquiry, fundamentally reshaped Western thought.

  • The Fall and Original Sin: Augustine posited that humanity inherited a corrupted will from Adam's original sin. This corruption means that the will is naturally inclined towards evil rather than good, even when reason dictates otherwise.
  • The Will as the Cause of Evil: Augustine famously declared that evil is not a substance but a privation of good, a turning away of the will from the higher good (God) to lesser goods. The will, though created good, possesses the capacity to choose badly.
  • Freedom and Grace: While the will is free to choose evil, it requires divine grace to choose good consistently. This introduces a tension between human freedom and divine sovereignty, a central problem for centuries to come.
    • Relevant Texts: Augustine's Confessions, City of God.

Medieval Scholasticism: Reason, Will, and Natural Law

Following Augustine, medieval thinkers, notably Thomas Aquinas, sought to integrate reason, faith, and the understanding of will and sin.

  • Aquinas: Distinguished between the intellect and the will. The intellect apprehends the good, and the will then moves towards it. Sin, for Aquinas, is primarily a deviation from right reason and natural law. While the will is free, it is meant to follow the dictates of reason. The problem of sin arises when the will chooses a perceived good that is not a true good as discerned by reason, often influenced by passions.
    • Relevant Text: Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica.

Early Modern Challenges: Determinism and Autonomy

The Enlightenment brought new perspectives on the will, often challenging traditional notions of sin and moral responsibility.

  • Baruch Spinoza: A radical determinist, Spinoza argued that free will is an illusion. All human actions, like all events in nature, are causally determined. What we perceive as free will is merely our ignorance of the true causes of our actions. In this framework, sin loses its moral culpability in the traditional sense, becoming simply a natural event. The problem then shifts from why we choose evil to why we perceive ourselves as choosing evil.
    • Relevant Text: Spinoza's Ethics.
  • Immanuel Kant: In stark contrast to Spinoza, Kant championing the autonomy of the rational will. For Kant, true freedom lies in the will's ability to act according to a self-imposed moral law, derived from reason (the Categorical Imperative), rather than inclination or external authority. Sin (or immoral action) is thus a failure of the will to universalize its maxims, a choice to act heteronomously rather than autonomously. The problem of evil becomes a problem of the will's failure to adhere to its own rational duty.
    • Relevant Texts: Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Critique of Practical Reason.

(Image: A detailed classical drawing depicting a person torn between two allegorical figures—one representing Virtue (clad in flowing robes, holding a book or scales), and the other representing Vice (more alluring or chaotic, perhaps holding tempting fruit or a weapon). The central figure, with an expression of anguish or indecision, gestures towards both, symbolizing the internal struggle of the will choosing between good and evil.)

19th and 20th Century Revaluations: Beyond Good and Evil

Later philosophers continued to deconstruct and redefine the problem.

  • Friedrich Nietzsche: Famously challenged the very foundations of Good and Evil, arguing that these concepts, particularly as understood in Christian morality, are constructs, often born of resentment (the "slave morality"). He posited the "will to power" as the fundamental drive of all life, suggesting that our understanding of sin and virtue needs a "revaluation of all values." For Nietzsche, the problem isn't why we choose evil, but who defines evil and good in the first place, and to what end.
    • Relevant Texts: Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morality.

Key Debates and Lingering Questions

The historical journey reveals the multifaceted nature of the problem of sin and will. Several core debates continue to animate philosophical discourse.

The Free Will vs. Determinism Dilemma

This is the perennial problem. If our will is truly free, then our moral responsibility for sin is clear. However, if all actions are determined, then how can we be genuinely culpable?

Perspective Core Tenet Implication for Sin
Libertarianism The will is truly free and undetermined; agents could have chosen otherwise. Sin is a genuine, morally blameworthy choice for which the agent is fully responsible.
Hard Determinism All events, including choices, are causally predetermined; free will is an illusion. Sin is merely an inevitable outcome of prior causes; moral blame is problematic.
Compatibilism Free will (as acting according to one's desires) and determinism can coexist. Sin is a choice made by the will, even if that will is determined. Responsibility can still be assigned.

The Nature of Evil: Active Force or Absence?

Is evil a positive, active force, or is it merely the absence or privation of good?

  • Privation Theory (Augustine, Aquinas): Evil is not a substance but a lack of good, much like darkness is the absence of light. Sin is the will's turning away from the true good. This helps reconcile the existence of evil with a benevolent Creator.
  • Radical Evil (Kant): While not a substance, Kant spoke of a "radical evil" in human nature, a propensity to prioritize self-love over moral law, a deep-seated inclination in the will to deviate from the good.
  • Active Malice: Some perspectives suggest evil can be an intentional, destructive force, a deliberate choice by the will to cause suffering or harm for its own sake.

Moral Responsibility and Accountability

If the will is not entirely free, or if sin stems from ignorance or a corrupted nature, what then becomes of moral responsibility?

  • Mitigation: Factors like compulsion, ignorance, or mental illness often mitigate culpability for sin in legal and ethical systems.
  • Education and Correction: If sin is ignorance, then education and enlightenment are the cures. If it's a corrupted will, then moral formation, therapy, or divine grace might be necessary.
  • Societal Responsibility: To what extent do societal structures, upbringing, or environmental factors influence the will's choices, thereby sharing responsibility for individual sin?

Conclusion: The Enduring Problem

The problem of sin and will remains one of philosophy's most profound and persistent challenges. From the Socratic paradox to Nietzsche's revaluation, the Great Books of the Western World provide a rich tapestry of thought, demonstrating that there are no easy answers. Whether sin is understood as an intellectual error, a corrupted inclination, a failure of autonomous reason, or a mere social construct, its relationship to the human will continues to provoke deep introspection. Understanding this complex interplay is not merely an academic exercise; it is fundamental to how we conceive of human nature, morality, justice, and our place in the cosmos. The journey to comprehend why we choose evil when we know good is, in essence, the journey of understanding ourselves.

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Augustine free will problem of evil""

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Kant autonomy will categorical imperative""

Share this post