2024-07-20
For today, I would like to consider the ideas of sin and of vice, to tease apart a vague meaning. I often use these words, somewhat interchangeably, to describe certain actions of mine. Yet, why are certain behaviours sinful or vicious, and others not?
Regarding the distinction between sin and vice, it appears at first glance that sin is a more voluntary action, whereas vice is an action one is given to, yet has less conscious control over. Of course, this becomes blurry at a point, namely in those situations where an action would be conscious and deliberate in a sense, yet is coerced in a way by an underlying proclivity (which could be weak or strong).
Yet, whatever distinction may be found, both sin and vice share an underlying nature, a form of the sin if one will. To this underlying nature we may apply the adjective bad, or undesirable.
Now, firstly let us explore the question of whether sin or vice, which I shall hereon out call just sin, are inherent to particular actions. Certainly, it would be trivial to enumerate those actions in which sin tends to inhere.
Firstly would be the bodily desires of eating and breeding; these may become sinful if the person tends to eat excessively, or more often, eat an imbalanced diet, for instance excessively consuming sugar; regarding the latter, it may become sinful if performed to a point of inurement, or if sight of the partner is lost for the act itself, or if not performed towards the ends of reproduction or love (the act is neither propagative nor romantic, but sexual).
Secondly would be to do with those substances that induce a dependence, namely drugs. Arguably, those actions enumerated firstly are also of this nature. Of course, the drug itself can be used in a good way; it however has the nature that it often brings about further use of itself.
Thirdly could be those actions which are contrary to what is wanted; for instance, I have a habit of biting my nails. There may be other behaviours, for instance avoidance of certain interactions, or the reflexive utterance of particular undesirable phrases, that may be sinful. I as a young man made it protocol never to swear, save for the word damn; when as an adult I relaxed this rule, I found undesirable words stumbling against my will from my mouth upon even only marginally discomfiting events occurring.
There are certainly other actions that vicious or sinful in nature.
Yet, through the enumeration of these it is clear that many actions are not necessarily sinful, but are instead able to be committed in a sinful way. For instance, regarding sex, it may be romantic (non-sinful; except if infidelity is involved, I suppose) or propagative (excessive reproduction is a rare vice, but certainly possible...) or sexual (potentially inherently sinful?). We may quality acts to be sinful: sex qualified so as to be rape would be necessarily sinful, surely.
Going the other way, can we strip actions of qualifications then so as to relieve them of their sinful nature?
Then, there is some aspect in the mode of the action wherein sin inheres, yet it is (except if the act is qualified so as to be sin) not inherent to the act. Then, ought I see if the sin is relating to the person committing the act, rather than to the act itself?
To begin with, could sin be defined only by the terms applied to it, namely by bad or undesirable? In other words, similarly to how the term weed does not relate to a clearly defined set of plants but rather is applied only to those plants that are undesirable, could sin be specifically those actions that are undesirable? Likewise, when considering actions often repeated, could be that vice is such when undesirable; when desirable however may term such routine, or some other positive word?
Honestly, I've no way to refute this. It seems to be the case. Yet then, what makes an action good or bad? It seems that if I engage in an action, the degree to which I term it sin depends upon my view of it...
So: why is a particular action good or bad?
If a particular action is a vice, then does it stand to mean it is [un]desirable?
I think that the actions and the conscious experience ought to be separate. For instance, I can perform an action, yet not desire to do it, or regret it. Often the mind tricks one with an urge, and upon appeasement of the urge, a regret is felt as the person has returned to sanity, so to speak.
Then, specifically, is a sin an act committed in the period of non-sanity, which upon return to sanity is regretted?
This seems a closer approximation.
Whilst I would not say that all acts committed in sanity are good (oil barons exist; arguably, they are given to avarice though), sin never appears to be committed lucidly.
Hence, could I say that avoidance of sin must either entail avoidance of non-lucidity, or an alteration of circumstance or of inherent nature so as to prevent undesirable acts from occurring during period of (potentially unavoidable) non-lucidity?
If so, this clarifies a way to avoid sinful action. Actions ought be taken during lucidity to avoid undesirable actions during non-lucidity. For instance, if masturbation is undesirable yet regularly committed during non-lucid periods, then, during lucidity, one can say, go to the park. This change in environment results in a change of behaviour, which is environmentally conditioned. As the non-lucid behaviour in the park (say, of sleeping upon the field, or of people-watching) is more desirable than the non-lucid behaviour in the bedroom (masturbation), this act alleviates the sin. Willpower is an ineffective idea as sin occurs during non-lucidity, in which no conscious control can be exerted; if lucid, then all actions committed are not sinful, as they are intentional.
(I've just napped a bit; upon awakening, I'm still tired...)
It could be useful at some point to attempt, though this is unique likely to each person, to try find at what points non-lucidity occurs.
I think I've run out of things to say. If philosophy is self-help, then I've gotten as much from this as I need. I should now work on implementing this, and see how it goes. The main point in mulling over sin is to try understand the nature, if only a little, of my own mind and the sins and vices associated with it. So, let's leave it here: have a good one.
Or - to resume it as soon as I've stopped: what of nail biting? Is it possible to avoid situations of non-lucidity that arouse this vice? Likewise, is it really possible to avoid non-lucidity altogether? Really, non-lucidity is poorly defined itself. I'm not sure. Perhaps strategies for using this theory are a different discussion to the development of the theory itself, however it feels like I have already discovered a shortcoming... it is a rule of thumb, heuristic, phenomenological only...
Ok, I'm tired. Have a good one.