Walking With Leppers

Every day we encounter multiple instances when our ethics are put to a test. Whether it be kindness to the person driving ten miles under the speed limit in the fast lane, or not telling your boss they are full of shit, there is no shortage of circumstance in which we are given an option of treating a situation gracefully or errantly. Of the times we treat situations errantly, only a portion of those render negative consequences. Of the negative consequences, only a portion of those bring your character into question to others. If only a fraction of potential ethical missteps actually result in negative consequences, at what point in the process do we assume accountability? Where is the entry point of misconduct. Is it in thought, action, or consequence?

 When the word ‘sin’ is used, a majority of conversational avenues become closed. It is either because a) a person is committing a particular sin being referenced in said conversation and has no interest in admitting fault to their actions (when your Aunt says sex before marriage is sinful at a family reunion, but you and your girlfriend have three kids), or b) a person doesn’t believe in the verb ‘sin’ because he/she holds the belief that all actions are neutral, that there is no governing force of morality, and that all morality is simply a matter of perspective. If either of these are the case than there is no basis for making the proclamation that there is any such thing as an immoral act, therefore something as heinous as ‘sexual misconduct’ is only determined on a societal level and only wrong based on circumstance. While that may be true, and there is no scientific evidence to refute that claim, it leaves a major gap for excusing people for their shortcomings.

                While situational morality is something I don’t believe in, I also understand how easily it can be to find yourself determining how you feel about the actions of yourself or someone you admire based on your feelings of affection toward yourself or someone you admire. For example, when it comes out that a politician has been convicted of sexual misconduct, I find myself easily saying “throw them to the hounds”, but when someone I admire like Louis C.K. is exposed for behaving inappropriately toward women, I find myself looking for the easiest escape route, hoping to avoid making a moral judgement about his character. A frustrating example comes to mind when people who consider themselves politically left or right harshly criticize or attempt to downplay politicians who face allegations of misconduct (either sexual or other) as long as it is politically convenient at the time (cough cough Roy Moore/Bill Clinton).

                When you make a moral judgement as to the credibility of ones’ character based on instances of misconduct (sin) you are making what could be described as an evolutionary decision, based on its potential consequences to you or your family in its recurrence. In other words, if someone you know borrows money from you but fails to pay you back, you would be wise to no longer lend money to the individual. If you continued to do so, you would most certainly lose all your money, as the lack of remorse that individual had toward their neglect of repayment would provide them no ethical consequence for having never repaid their debts. In terms of survival only, it is never in our best interest to lend anyone money, or provide charity in any way. Scientifically, the only benefit to regarding sin as existent is in terms of its consequences on our survival. But if that’s the case, is there an evolutionary benefit to charity, grace, or forgiveness?

                The argument could be made that the dopamine release response to an act of charity is an evolutionary benefit. You could claim that the act of forgiveness relieves you of any negative and potentially harmful harbored feelings toward another, or that maintaining a relationship with someone who plays an important role in your well-being is worthwhile evolutionarily. But do either of these benefits outweigh the benefit of having never committed an act of charity? Scientifically, ethics are cold, brash, and baseless.

                The idea of ‘sin’ is simple, yet nowadays its nearly a sin just saying the word itself. It does, however, require that you view morality as something more than just determined by circumstance, and it also assumes that there is such a thing as free will. Of course our relation to sin as it aligns to religion is that it is the antithesis of Gods will and is a tool for Satan’s stranglehold on your spiritual well-being, but there is a more secularly digestible format in which to understand its significance— It is the idea that all animals on this planet commit acts of atrocity toward one another either reactionarily (emotionally) or instinctually in the name of survival—but humans are the only animals (that we can prove) have a recognition of these actions, their effect on others, the consequences they have on our own life, and an ability to make a conscious decision to deny these actions despite our emotions or instincts. (House pets, which humans trained, being the only exception.) At its core, the idea of sin is that we are given an opportunity to make a choice to do either right or wrong, and we choose to do wrong. We can make claims of other species' decision making based on ethics, but we cannot accurately determine whether it is based off of a moral code, or because it is evolutionarily advantageous. In the sense that there is provable, testable ethical decision making, we stand alone.

                While that isn’t so hard to understand (assuming you can first admit there is such a thing as right and wrong and that free will does indeed exist), the people who tend to use the term ‘sin’ in our society, most commonly, come across as judgmental, causing a reasonable defiance of their belief system and throwing out the simple idea that there is indeed a wrong way of dong things. There are many consequences on a societal level of dismissing the notion of sin—variations in a common right and wrong, denial of any right and wrong, lack of accountability for misconduct, etc. But what has caught my eye most recently is the magnification of sins committed by those whom we disagree with but disregarded when acted out by those who seemingly share rudimentary and convenient values with us. (politicians, actors, athletes. Friends, family, ourselves.)

                The flaw begins with the idea that it is our actions that define our character. That we can say one person is a “good” person because they have committed no obvious harmful actions, and another is “bad” because they have. You can never gain anything from judging a human or any other animal on this planet solely on their actions, nor would you be wise to be caught by surprise when a human or animal acts in a way that you deem immoral or unjust. While it may be evolutionarily beneficial to make a judgement as to potential action, there is no gain from judging their character wholly and independently based on actions. If you judge them only on past actions, you leave no room for the potential of reform. If a vicious wolf is kept in a cage and cannot bite you, does it cease to be vicious? If Hitler were to live a life of anti-Semitism, racism, and overall hatred, but were to have never stumbled upon the resources to act on his malice, would he then be a good man with incredible speech-making ability and leadership skills?

                No matter the nature of your upbringing, your career, your deicisions, or your actions, you are guaranteed to encounter thoughts and actions in yourself that you know are contrary to the well-being of your character. It is in our animalistic nature, even as children, to feel hatred, lust, jealousy, or malcontent. We feel this inevitably at some point within out lives. It is merely a matter of catching these inherent qualities as they occur, choosing not to act on them, and making an attempt to correct the soiled thought process that ushered their occurence before it becomes habitual. Worst case scenario, they continually occur and the inner-warfare of ethical thought continues with them. Best case scenario, they become secondary reactions This in itself is no grand statement or revelation in human psychology, but it does reveal a crucial point that is scientifically observable about sin.

                  Sin begins with thought. Bad actions are a product of bad thought. Good actions are not always a product of good thought, but rather a disregard for bad thought. It is an ugly reality, but it is a reality. The ability to do wrong dwells at the core of all of us as living creatures on this earth. The ability to recognize that, refuse to act on it, and work intently on redirecting and limiting those ill-thoughts is a beautiful opportunity that should not be taken for granted. And when it comes to making a judgement on another’s actions, recognizing their remorse, and eventually forgiving them for their actions, understanding the nature of sin within all of us (atheist, agnostic, religious, or whatever identity you lay claim to) makes for an easy point of reference. A point of reference necessary for understanding first the potential for sin in yourself, the potential for sin in others, and the ability to combat it and eventually conquer it.
.