NationStates Jolt Archive

okay, so lets all keep in mind this is a purely hypothetical debate, I am NOT trying to change any laws, or anything else uberscary.

That being said......

My husband, my kid, and myself got into quite a deep theological debate on the way home from dinner last night.

Basically I have this theory (not scientific in nature btw) that all sin can be traced back to someone being selfish, self absorbed, self centered.....etc.

We were talking about that and the idea of intent got thrown into the mix, how far is too far? We talked about the cycle of sin

1 the temptation
2 the contepemplation
3 the competetion.

You can see it all laid out in the Adam and Eve story....

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

now, I know you are all way bored by now, but really read on.

We decided that the temptation is not a sin, but not if the contemplation was not. I won't say what side I am on, but we are going to pick up the discussion again tomorrow.

Now, for a non-Bible based senario (should you need it) if you find a person who is actively going to murder another person, but they are stopped before they get the chance to finish, should they be punished the same as someone who actually was successful?

(for the purposes of this thred prison is for punishment and not rehab, you actually know the intent of the person, there is no question what they are going to do)

yeah, I have to go to bed now, but I will hang around for a while. I will be back tomorrow to talk about it more.

EDIT: I almost forgot, we are "officially" debating about intent vs. actions vs. intentional actions, but if you guys want to also address my theory on self being the basis for sin, I am up for that also.

okay, so lets all keep in mind this is a purely hypothetical debate, I am NOT trying to change any laws, or anything else uberscary.

That being said......

My husband, my kid, and myself got into quite a deep theological debate on the way home from dinner last night.

Basically I have this theory (not scientific in nature btw) that all sin can be traced back to someone being selfish, self absorbed, self centered.....etc.

We were talking about that and the idea of intent got thrown into the mix, how far is too far? We talked about the cycle of sin

1 the temptation
2 the contepemplation
3 the competetion.

You can see it all laid out in the Adam and Eve story....



now, I know you are all way bored by now, but really read on.

We decided that the temptation is not a sin, but not if the contemplation was not. I won't say what side I am on, but we are going to pick up the discussion again tomorrow.

Now, for a non-Bible based senario (should you need it) if you find a person who is actively going to murder another person, but they are stopped before they get the chance to finish, should they be punished the same as someone who actually was successful?

(for the purposes of this thred prison is for punishment and not rehab, you actually know the intent of the person, there is no question what they are going to do)

yeah, I have to go to bed now, but I will hang around for a while. I will be back tomorrow to talk about it more.

EDIT: I almost forgot, we are "officially" debating about intent vs. actions vs. intentional actions, but if you guys want to also address my theory on self being the basis for sin, I am up for that also.

I'm too sleepy to properly address the intent vs. action issue tonight, but I will note that I tend to agree that selfishness is the basis of sin, evil, or whatever one calls it. I've actually had that very discussion with several friends, and as yet no one has successfully come up with anything definitively evil that was not also fundamentally and intrinsically selfish.

An action only counts if you commit it. (For me, too, it is too late to put together a good reply....may return tomorrow.)

i'm not quite sure how to answer this. intent to commit a crime/sin is not as bad as committing it, but wanting to do so is still wrong/a sin. being able to stop yourself from committing/wanting to commit it is the important thing. you have to remember that there are sins that do not require actions such as that of coveting what belongs to others.

I'm too sleepy to properly address the intent vs. action issue tonight, but I will note that I tend to agree that selfishness is the basis of sin, evil, or whatever one calls it. I've actually had that very discussion with several friends, and as yet no one has successfully come up with anything definitively evil that was not also fundamentally and intrinsically selfish.
I agree with that. I think it's a better topic than the one that was intended to be the subject of this debate, partly because it's easier to define.

But as for the real topic, I don't believe that intent is as bad as action. If I earnestly try to kill someone and fail utterly, not harming them at all, then I tend to think that less evil has been done than if my .45 bullet shatters their forehead and passes through the frontal lobe, exiting behind the ear. In both situations I had the moral guilt of desiring someone's death and working towards their death as best I could. But if they actually die, then I have done an irreparable thing.

I tend to think that the idea of sin is really completely based in intent. I do not think that an action is a sin unless the person committing it knows that is a sin and commits it anyways. Intent to commit a sinful action is, in my mind, a sin in and of itself. This includes, "Well, I would do it, but then my wife would divorce me/I'd go to jail (although I don't think all actions that send you to jail are necessarily sinful)/etc." If the only reason that you are not doing something is that you might get hit with a stick for it, you have just as much intent as someone who carries it out - just not the follow through.

As for sin coming from selfishness, I think that this is probably true. I can't think of a sin that I would not consider to be based in selfishness.

As for whether or not a person who intended to commit murder should be punished the same as someone who did it, I think it would come down to the particular situation. Someone who spent a great deal of time planning a murder will most likely do it again, and is thus a danger to society. They should thus be treated like someone who has committed murder (assuming that we really do somehow know their intent and motivation for certain.) An "almost" crime of passion, however, is unlikely to be repeated, and I think a stern talking to and maybe a psychiatric evaluation would do it.

Of course, I'm really tired right now and this might all be hogwash. =)

i'm not quite sure how to answer this. intent to commit a crime/sin is not as bad as committing it, but wanting to do so is still wrong/a sin. being able to stop yourself from committing/wanting to commit it is the important thing. you have to remember that there are sins that do not require actions such as that of coveting what belongs to others.


I agree with that. I think it's a better topic than the one that was intended to be the subject of this debate, partly because it's easier to define.

But as for the real topic, I don't believe that intent is as bad as action. If I earnestly try to kill someone and fail utterly, not harming them at all, then I tend to think that less evil has been done than if my .45 bullet shatters their forehead and passes through the frontal lobe, exiting behind the ear. In both situations I had the moral guilt of desiring someone's death and working towards their death as best I could. But if they actually die, then I have done an irreparable thing.

for the purposes of this thred, you actually know their intent, it's not a passing thought, it's a situation where they actually are actively trying to kill someone and you stop them, they would not have stopped on their own and after they are stopped they are quite clear that their intent was to kill the person.
Does that change anything for you?

I tend to think that the idea of sin is really completely based in intent. I do not think that an action is a sin unless the person committing it knows that is a sin and commits it anyways. Intent to commit a sinful action is, in my mind, a sin in and of itself. This includes, "Well, I would do it, but then my wife would divorce me/I'd go to jail (although I don't think all actions that send you to jail are necessarily sinful)/etc."
see? I am from the "it's always wrong but sometimes neccessary to break the law" camp.



If the only reason that you are not doing something is that you might get hit with a stick for it, you have just as much intent as someone who carries it out - just not the follow through.
that's almost exactly what I said. My husband is on the "other side" but it's probably for the purpose of debate, I think he plays "devil's advocate" a lot to facilitate discussions.

As for sin coming from selfishness, I think that this is probably true. I can't think of a sin that I would not consider to be based in selfishness.
I never can either.

As for whether or not a person who intended to commit murder should be punished the same as someone who did it, I think it would come down to the particular situation. Someone who spent a great deal of time planning a murder will most likely do it again, and is thus a danger to society. They should thus be treated like someone who has committed murder (assuming that we really do somehow know their intent and motivation for certain.) An "almost" crime of passion, however, is unlikely to be repeated, and I think a stern talking to and maybe a psychiatric evaluation would do it.
for the purposes of the thred, they have been thinking about it, lusting after it (if you will) and fully intend to kill the person and you are aware of their intent in detail. (yeah it's not a "real world" situation, you have God-like knowledge of their psyche)

Of course, I'm really tired right now and this might all be hogwash. =)
yeah, I was really tired last night, not sure if the OP is coherent or not.

bump for the afternoon crowd.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

We've altered this to "Thou shalt not commit adultery", but in it's original phrasing it's fairly apparent that god considered the temptation to sin as bad as the sin itself. Afterall it made it into the big 10.

Now as for selfishness being the cause of sin. Murder is caused by rage, rage isn't inherently selfish.

certainly if you want to avoid sin you need to fix your intent. even if you dont DO anything, the desire is enough to be a sin, the intent must be worse, the active intent as bad as doing the deed itself as it is only circumstances that kept you from doing whatever it is you intended to do.

if you dont start with what is in your mind, you cant possibly avoid sin.

as to law, conspiracy to commit a serious crime deserves serious punishment. wanting to commit a crime and even planning it in a nonserious manner (like figuring out how to rob the local bank and get away with it) is harmless and should go unpunished.

I think an attempted murderer should get a harsher punishment than a murderer. Why? Because he's a failure. We should not encourage failure. ;)

The OT teaches is that a doctor who works as hard as he can to save a life, it is as if he has saved a life, reguardless of the patients survival or death. It goes on to teach that a doctor who works on a patient half-heartedly, it is as if he killed the patient, again, reguardless of the status of the patient.

HOWEVER, this is not intention that is being measured, but actions taken. What this means is that the OT sees actions - not results and not intention - as the most important aspect of sin or obedience.

The Dr. whoworked half hartedly may have intended to work hard, and then failed to do so for any number of reasons. The Dr. who worked really hard may not have intended to do so, for example, if he hated the patient for personal reasons, but then ACTED differently, and worked hard, because he values life.

okay, so lets all keep in mind this is a purely hypothetical debate, I am NOT trying to change any laws, or anything else uberscary.

That being said......

My husband, my kid, and myself got into quite a deep theological debate on the way home from dinner last night.

Basically I have this theory (not scientific in nature btw) that all sin can be traced back to someone being selfish, self absorbed, self centered.....etc.

We were talking about that and the idea of intent got thrown into the mix, how far is too far? We talked about the cycle of sin

1 the temptation
2 the contepemplation
3 the competetion.

You can see it all laid out in the Adam and Eve story....



now, I know you are all way bored by now, but really read on.

We decided that the temptation is not a sin, but not if the contemplation was not. I won't say what side I am on, but we are going to pick up the discussion again tomorrow. for me, if one accepts God into their heart, then any evil thoughts taints the heart and closes it to God.

so the sin starts with accepting the temptation. note, Accepting the temptation, not being tempted. we are all tempted from time to time, but fighting the temptation is what we all need to do.

I'm just glad God is so forgiving.


for your three points...
1 the temptation
2 the contepemplation
3 the competetion.

how do you define it.

for me, Temptation is when you are enticed...
Contemplation is the acceptance of the temptation and the planning of the sin
and Completion is doing the sin.

is this the same for you?

Now as for selfishness being the cause of sin. Murder is caused by rage, rage isn't inherently selfish.

Rage may not be, but giving into that rage without regard for others (which would be necessary since you obviously are not considering the welfare of the person you are killing) is definitely selfish.

And all murder is not caused by rage. Some people kill for money. Some attempt to hire murderers to get their child on the cheerleading squad. And so on...

The OT teaches is that a doctor who works as hard as he can to save a life, it is as if he has saved a life, reguardless of the patients survival or death. It goes on to teach that a doctor who works on a patient half-heartedly, it is as if he killed the patient, again, reguardless of the status of the patient.

HOWEVER, this is not intention that is being measured, but actions taken. What this means is that the OT sees actions - not results and not intention - as the most important aspect of sin or obedience.

The Dr. whoworked half hartedly may have intended to work hard, and then failed to do so for any number of reasons. The Dr. who worked really hard may not have intended to do so, for example, if he hated the patient for personal reasons, but then ACTED differently, and worked hard, because he values life.

I have to disagree. The term "half-heartedly" doesn't refer to actions themselves, but to the motivation - the enthusiasm -behind them. As you pointed out, a doctor who works "half-heartedly" may be entirely successful - doing everything he needs to do. It is the fact that he didn't put his entire effort into it - the fact that his intent was focused elsewhere, that labels his actions as half-hearted.

how do you define it.

for me, Temptation is when you are enticed...
Contemplation is the acceptance of the temptation and the planning of the sin
and Completion is doing the sin.

is this the same for you?
pretty much, my husband gave the following example

he see's a beautiful woman, realizing that she is sexy is temptation
thinking about having sex with her is contemplation
actually having sex with her would be the completetion of the process.

Rage may not be, but giving into that rage without regard for others (which would be necessary since you obviously are not considering the welfare of the person you are killing) is definitely selfish.

And all murder is not caused by rage. Some people kill for money. Some attempt to hire murderers to get their child on the cheerleading squad. And so on...

true, you have to figure rage down to the base, the reason for being enraged to the point to kill someone is that you feel you have been wronged, and that you must seek revenge, all selfish.

pretty much, my husband gave the following example

he see's a beautiful woman, realizing that she is sexy is temptation
thinking about having sex with her is contemplation
actually having sex with her would be the completetion of the process.

I would have to add another step in there. In between thinking about doing something and actually doing it lies the issue of intent. It is in that decision-making process that sin can lie (I think), even if no action is taken. If he thinks about having sex with her but has absolutely no intentions of going through with it, it isn't sinful - it's just a physical reaction to her being attractive. If he thinks, "Of course, I wouldn't, because I have made a committment to my wife and breaking that committment would be wrong," or even, "Of course, I wouldn't, because it would hurt Smunkee," there is no sin, because he has continued to be faithful. There was never any intent to carry out the action.

If, on the other hand, he really truly wishes to have sex with her, but refrains only because you might find out and divorce him, he may as well have just done it, as far as I am concerned. His unfaithfulness in that case would be no less than actually taking the action.

If the only reason that you are not doing something is that you might get hit with a stick for it, you have just as much intent as someone who carries it out
My husband is on the "other side"
pretty much, my husband gave the following example

he sees a beautiful woman, realizing that she is sexy is temptation
thinking about having sex with her is contemplation
actually having sex with her would be the completetion of the process.

This only leaves one logical conclusion - your husband has been thinking about having sex with some other woman. Sorry. ;)

But if you lose the discussion, he doesn't need to feel bad about it.

I would have to add another step in there. *snip*

Aye, I wanted to post something like that. (Glad I read your post first, saved my a lot of time)

I'm too sleepy to properly address the intent vs. action issue tonight, but I will note that I tend to agree that selfishness is the basis of sin, evil, or whatever one calls it. I've actually had that very discussion with several friends, and as yet no one has successfully come up with anything definitively evil that was not also fundamentally and intrinsically selfish.

Has anyone come up with any action that isn't "fundamentally and intrisically selfish"?

This only leaves one logical conclusion - your husband has been thinking about having sex with some other woman. Sorry. ;)

But if you lose the discussion, he doesn't need to feel bad about it.

actually he confirmed today he was argueing the "other side" to be able to have debate, it's just not fun debating when we all agree.

However, if it were true that he was "thinking about it" I really have no control over his thoughts and in fact choose to believe him when he says he is not.

Sin doesn't have to be selfish. The world is filled with fanatics, vigilantes, and Robin Hood-wannabes who do evil things for the good of someone else or for the good of some "ideal."

As to the main topic: It takes action before you have justification to punish someone. Once they've acted, however, the question of whether they intended to do it or not is an important consideration.

As to the main topic: It takes action before you have justification to punish someone. Once they've acted, however, the question of whether they intended to do it or not is an important consideration.

But if you actually could know someone's intent, then you would know that anyone intending to go around murdering people is a danger to those around them. A big reason that such criminals are removed from society is that danger - not just punishment.

actually he confirmed today he was argueing the "other side" to be able to have debate, it's just not fun debating when we all agree.
Yeah, of course :D

However, if it were true that he was "thinking about it" I really have no control over his thoughts and in fact choose to believe him when he says he is not.

:)

(Note, as was said in a previous post, there's a big difference between thinking about it and actually wishing to do it - I joked about the first, but wouldn't assume the latter!)

Absolutely. If I try to kill someone and fail, for whatever reason, there's no way my actions can be seen as somehow less bad simply because I didn't get the result I wanted.

If I'm a sniper trying to kill the President, but a freak gust of wind means that I only winged him, how can anyone justify treating me differently from how they'd treat me if I'd killed the President? My success of failure was beyond my control.

The same applies to me being stopped by others.

A big reason that such criminals are removed from society is that danger - not just punishment.
So you believe that some people are inherently evil or dangerous?
Anyone can develop the "intent" to kill someone, all it takes is for the conditions to be right, and just because they have intent for a brief period of time doesn't mean that they won't think better of it later (at which point they may never think about it again).

pretty much, my husband gave the following example

he see's a beautiful woman, realizing that she is sexy is temptation
thinking about having sex with her is contemplation
actually having sex with her would be the completetion of the process.and the sin would be the contemplation.

In the law, the 'intent' you're talking about is equated with 'attempt.'

Playing devil's advocate:
The best explanation I can come up with of why attempt (intent) should not be punished to the same extent as successful crime, even if all that seperates murder from attempted murder is poor aim, is that whatever turn of fate acquited the victim of death acquits, in equal measure, the criminal of guilt.

In a theory of right, like Kant's, where things deserve punishment because they are concretely wrong, it could be argued that factors which prevent a murderer from acting on his intent are morally arbitrary - he has rational agency, a jammed gun does not. On this argument, full punishment for someone who was unsuccessful in his attempt would be justified.

and the sin would be the contemplation.

of course.

The fleeting thought that she is sexy is biology, he can't really help that, but to linger on it? that's a choice....

of course.

The fleeting thought that she is sexy is biology, he can't really help that, but to linger on it? that's a choice....
*nods* now pardon me while I go and sin some more... :D

So you believe that some people are inherently evil or dangerous?
Anyone can develop the "intent" to kill someone, all it takes is for the conditions to be right, and just because they have intent for a brief period of time doesn't mean that they won't think better of it later (at which point they may never think about it again).

Anyone can think about killing someone. Intent would mean that the person is actually primed to do it - to plan it out and go through with it, not that they just thought about it and then dismissed it.

Most students, at some point in time, think about blowing up their school or something like that. However, very, very few start planning how, designing bombs, etc. The latter are dangerous, as they have intent. The former are just normal people who briefly think about doing something bad.

In Smunkee's example, not only did they think about it and plan it, but are about to do it when you stop them. There is no "might have thought better of it later," when they are engaged in the act.

As for "inherently evil or dangerous" - I don't think people are born inherently evil, but I do believe they can develop to be evil. And I do think that those who would commit premeditated murder are dangerous to society. We might be able to rehabilitate them and we might not. Rehabilitation has been much less successful with violent crime.