The Cellar - View Single Post

smoothmoniker · 05-12-2003, 08:28 PM

interesting thread, whit.

I think you can argue for the "original sin" idea in two ways.

The first is kind of implied in your framing of the question. If we are not born with some penchant toward doing evil, then where do we learn it from? If the answer is from society (as seems to be the common culprit), how do you account for the ethical impulse of the group being evil when the ethical impulse of each individual is toward good? Is there some latent evil in social behavior that is not evident in "natural man" (apart from social interaction)? If so, how is this different from the idea of original sin?

The second line of reasoning is, I think, more interesting. There seems to be several aspects of the human condition that are peculiar, for lack of a better term. One of these is the almost universal admiration toward, and desire for, ethical heroes. We inherently admire the Good, the True, the Courageous, and particularly those individuals that embody them, the Mother Theresas, the Martin Luther Kings, the Ghandis, etc.

If there is a (nearly) universal desire to achieve and embody these ideas, and yet a just as nearly universal complete inability of humans as individuals, and society as a collective, to achieve them, there must be something disconnected, broken, or incomplete in the transition from moral thought to human behavior. Call this whatever you like, but "original sin" seems to fit.

This may devolve the thread a bit, but collectively, these "peculiarities" of the human condition seem to indicate that humanity was (take your pick: created, conditioned, evolved, designed) to be something other than that which it presently exists as.

-sm

[ed: i's grammur is fer suck]

05-12-2003, 08:28 PM	#5
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	interesting thread, whit. I think you can argue for the "original sin" idea in two ways. The first is kind of implied in your framing of the question. If we are not born with some penchant toward doing evil, then where do we learn it from? If the answer is from society (as seems to be the common culprit), how do you account for the ethical impulse of the group being evil when the ethical impulse of each individual is toward good? Is there some latent evil in social behavior that is not evident in "natural man" (apart from social interaction)? If so, how is this different from the idea of original sin? The second line of reasoning is, I think, more interesting. There seems to be several aspects of the human condition that are peculiar, for lack of a better term. One of these is the almost universal admiration toward, and desire for, ethical heroes. We inherently admire the Good, the True, the Courageous, and particularly those individuals that embody them, the Mother Theresas, the Martin Luther Kings, the Ghandis, etc. If there is a (nearly) universal desire to achieve and embody these ideas, and yet a just as nearly universal complete inability of humans as individuals, and society as a collective, to achieve them, there must be something disconnected, broken, or incomplete in the transition from moral thought to human behavior. Call this whatever you like, but "original sin" seems to fit. This may devolve the thread a bit, but collectively, these "peculiarities" of the human condition seem to indicate that humanity was (take your pick: created, conditioned, evolved, designed) to be something other than that which it presently exists as. -sm [ed: i's grammur is fer suck] Last edited by smoothmoniker; 05-12-2003 at 08:31 PM.