Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In some ways I suppose we can find alternative definitions for any word and also of course alternative definitions are all too often used in this forum. Like alternative facts, but the definition I provided for sin is pretty standard. From where are you getting an alternative definition? Link please, because I've not been able to find it. Just curious...
Cambridge dictionary and dictionary.com says the same as one definition of 'sin': "the offense of breaking, or the breaking of, a religious or moral law".
Cambridge dictionary and dictionary.com says the same as one definition of 'sin': "the offense of breaking, or the breaking of, a religious or moral law".
Per technical definition, sure, but "sin" is primarily used in a religious sense, freighted with blame, shame and condemnation, so why not just talk in objective terms like "beneficial" or "harmful" rather than "righteous" or "sinful"? After all, the objective all all moral systems is sustainably beneficial effects on society; beliefs about why things are helpful or not are kind of beside the point. Personally, I would not use the term "sin" because it switches off people's brains, even if they're turned on to begin with.
I'm mostly a red wine drinker too, but beer as well when the occasion seems more like a beer occasion. I've always got a bottle of red and Sierra Nevada beers readily available in the house. We have my special Bloody Marys with our customary BSB I cook up on Sundays. Mine with vodka. My wife's is always a virgin. Tequila is always good for margaritas, but we don't have those here all that often. Not sure there is a tropical cocktail with any of those alcohols that I don't also enjoy on occasion. While in Ireland and Scotland, I got into tasting some whiskey after dinner, and I kept having a little whiskey now and then after we got back home, but after finishing off the last bottle of whiskey earlier this year, I've not bought another.
My SIL and her significant other used to be pretty good drinkers, but they stopped drinking alcohol altogether earlier this year. Last time we visited them over Thanksgiving, they had a pretty good selection of non-alcoholic beers that I don't prefer over the real beers they try to imitate, but they're not all that bad. One micro brew in particular was very tasty. I can't remember the name. The non-alcohol Guinness (that I see Montana is advertising lately) is not too bad either, but not as good as the real Guinness, and of course the "real" Guinness you can buy in America is not as good as the Guinness you can get on tap in Ireland.
Here's to a happy and tasty new year! With or without the alcohol.
"Everything in moderation. Including moderation."
Hanging out tomorrow night with my 83-year-old neighbor/friend. There will be red wine. She drinks a glass or two every night, but if we hang out and make a night of it, we will drink two bottles easily to accompany the shrimp and cheese and eggplant rollatini and whatever other munchies we decide we will need. Maybe some stuffed mushrooms.
We're in the same townhouse complex (actually both on the condo board, she's the prez) so no need to worry about driving.
Per technical definition, sure, but "sin" is primarily used in a religious sense, freighted with blame, shame and condemnation, so why not just talk in objective terms like "beneficial" or "harmful" rather than "righteous" or "sinful"? After all, the objective all all moral systems is sustainably beneficial effects on society; beliefs about why things are helpful or not are kind of beside the point. Personally, I would not use the term "sin" because it switches off people's brains, even if they're turned on to begin with.
I think murder and rape are sins...but NOT because of any religious context.
I am not one who believes that morality is only based on religion.
Cambridge dictionary and dictionary.com says the same as one definition of 'sin': "the offense of breaking, or the breaking of, a religious or moral law".
Moral law usually references (universal) natural law and punishment - not ‘sin’.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I think murder and rape are sins...but NOT because of any religious context.
Murder and rape are crimes; we don’t imprison folks for committing a sin.
Moral law usually references (universal) natural law and punishment - not ‘sin’.
Murder and rape are crimes; we don’t imprison folks for committing a sin.
1. I don't care what it "usually" references. If you don't like the definition I am using, even when I explain why I am using it...tough luck.
2. I don't not murder or rape because of laws. I do not murder or rape because those are against the moral code of our society and most societies, simply based on the non-religious interpretation of the Golden Rule.
2. I don't not murder or rape because of laws. I do not murder or rape because those are against the moral code of our society and most societies, simply based on the non-religious interpretation of the Golden Rule.
That it’s relative to moral law assumes that everyone believes killing a person is wrong and that punishment is right i.e. that’s the point.
Natural law was always a problematic concept for me. There are ultimately no 'laws' in ethics, much as Kant may have tried with the Categorical Imperative (which is a close cousin of the Golden Rule) and Bentham/Mill did with their 'maximize benefit, minimize harm' foundation for utilitarianism. I am a fan of both, especially utilitarianism, but all ethical systems are ultimately human constructs. Natural law implies laws that are discoverable in nature and granted to us by some third party, presumably a deity. Now, there are principles that anthropologists report to be cultural universals, meaning, they are a characteristic of every known human society. Prohibitions against murder of in-group members presumably qualify as examples of a cultural universal. I'm sure there's a googleable list. But natural law? That's got too much religious baggage in my view as well, even if it was influential in the evolution of secular ethical systems
Natural law implies laws that are discoverable in nature and granted to us by some third party, presumably a deity.
Natural law is an ethical theory that asserts humans are born with a moral compass of sorts that governs their reasoning and behavior; it’s not relative to a ‘third party’ or a (belief in a) deity, in and of itself.
Natural law was always a problematic concept for me. There are ultimately no 'laws' in ethics, much as Kant may have tried with the Categorical Imperative (which is a close cousin of the Golden Rule) and Bentham/Mill did with their 'maximize benefit, minimize harm' foundation for utilitarianism. I am a fan of both, especially utilitarianism, but all ethical systems are ultimately human constructs. Natural law implies laws that are discoverable in nature and granted to us by some third party, presumably a deity. Now, there are principles that anthropologists report to be cultural universals, meaning, they are a characteristic of every known human society. Prohibitions against murder of in-group members presumably qualify as examples of a cultural universal. I'm sure there's a googleable list. But natural law? That's got too much religious baggage in my view as well, even if it was influential in the evolution of secular ethical systems
I think it's a simple matter that some harms are so extreme and have so few exceptions that there is wide agreement on them ... murder, sex with people too immature to give informed consent (children), or who don't give consent (rape), etc; things like that are so universally accepted that they "feel" like some sort of universal moral law because the only people you'd ever have to argue or defend those things are maybe to a sociopath. Indeed, sociopathy is basically the absence of working mirror neurons (= lack of empathy) and morality is based on empathy so the "moral clarity" of some issues vs others is probably a function of how they are purely matters of empathy on matters so universal that they are relatable to most anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
