I ask this question because I was rereading Plato's Euthyphro today and was reminded of the homosexual argument. For those of you unfamiliar with the dialogue, let me summarize here. For the full dialogue, please link.
In the dialogue, Socrates points out plenty of flaws in Euthyphro's reasoning of what piety is. I highly recommend it, especially for logicians. The argument can be summed up as this (and I'm paraphrasing).
Socrates: What is piety?
Euthyphro: Doing as I am doing (Prosecuting my father for murdering someone).
Socrates: Ah, but that's not an answer, it is an example of piety. What is the rule of piety?
Euthyphro: The gods love everything that is pious and they hate everything that is impious.
Soc: Different gods love different things. One action would be such that one god would love it and another would hate it. And something cannot be both pious and impious at the same time.
Euth: Piety is loved by all the gods. There would be no dispute among them.
Soc: So our definition of piety is to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither.
Euth: Yes.
Soc: Well, do the gods love these pious things because the thing is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it?
Euth: I don't understand.
Soc: Gods loves pious things because they are pious or for some other reason?
Euth: That is the reason.
Soc: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved.
Euth: Yes.
Soc: So therefore you have not answered my question of what piety is. You say the gods love it because it is pious, and still have not explained to me what piety is.
You can see clearly how Euthyphro's reasoning is exploited by Socrates as being circular, and yet I get the same logic in the same argument and people still do not seem to understand.
I have continuously asked the question of "What makes something a sin" of plenty of people, religious and nonreligious, and I perpetually get two different schools of thought.
(Please note that these are generic answers, and that I have gotten different logic from religious followers as well, but this is the most common).
The religious: "Sins are sins because they are listed as such in the [Insert Holy Book of Choice]." (Which, translates to Euthyphro's "Piety is dear to the gods" and we all know how that reasoning turned out. Just substitute "listed as such in" for "hated" and "Holy Book" for "by the gods.")
The nonreligious: "Sins are sins because they harm yourself or someone else, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically."
Now, you'll note a vast difference in reasoning between the religious and the nonreligious. I have gotten a few other answers to this question, but for the sake of this article we are going to use just these two arguments, for simplicity's sake. We've already examined the flaws in argument A, let's look at argument B.
Apply the example of murder to argument B like a sort of algebra equation. X+Y= SIN (And no, folks, that doesn't mean "sine").
X= The act
Y= The effect
X= Murder
Y= Takes a life
Murder + Takes a life = Harm = Sin.
However, let's toss another variable into the equation. Let's toss Z into the equation, Z being the cause of the murder.
Z= Self defense.
By law, if there was no other option other than killing your attacker, that person is generally acquitted. Did he still commit a sin? By definition B, yes, because he hurt someone else, and yet you feel more uncertain about this definition than maybe you did before.
I will now admit to you all that argument B is in fact my own argument and definition that I have given to the question of "What is a sin?" So I am trying to examine my own logic.
The reason I'm doing all this is because I'm generally asking people out there to think about their logic, their morals, and where these things come from. Why do you, personally, and not your parents, or your friends, or your religion, believe something is wrong? What makes something like for example homosexuality such a shady area? Why do some people swear by its immorality, and others praise it as a defiant expression of love? What makes the things we do evil, and what makes them good?
There are, of course, clear cut good and evil acts. Donating a million dollars to Cancer research is obviously a "good" act, and genocide is obviously "bad."
And perhaps we should examine these before we examine the gray areas of morality, and decide firmly what makes these good and bad deeds.
Well ironically, my examination of it comes up with a similar explanation as definition B. Good things are good because they help yourself or others, and bad things are bad because they hurt yourself or others.
But what if in helping others, you hurt yourself? Or in helping yourself, you hurt others? Some may argue that helping yourself at the expense of others is a sin, and hurting yourself for others' benefit is a sacrifice.
But then this ruins the set definition, because it leads to a paradox.
And then there are so-called "victimless crimes" or "link" and that just opens up a whole new can of worms.
So I open up the forums to you, Socrates and Platos of the modern age, to contemplate this question: What makes a sin?
In the dialogue, Socrates points out plenty of flaws in Euthyphro's reasoning of what piety is. I highly recommend it, especially for logicians. The argument can be summed up as this (and I'm paraphrasing).
Socrates: What is piety?
Euthyphro: Doing as I am doing (Prosecuting my father for murdering someone).
Socrates: Ah, but that's not an answer, it is an example of piety. What is the rule of piety?
Euthyphro: The gods love everything that is pious and they hate everything that is impious.
Soc: Different gods love different things. One action would be such that one god would love it and another would hate it. And something cannot be both pious and impious at the same time.
Euth: Piety is loved by all the gods. There would be no dispute among them.
Soc: So our definition of piety is to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither.
Euth: Yes.
Soc: Well, do the gods love these pious things because the thing is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it?
Euth: I don't understand.
Soc: Gods loves pious things because they are pious or for some other reason?
Euth: That is the reason.
Soc: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved.
Euth: Yes.
Soc: So therefore you have not answered my question of what piety is. You say the gods love it because it is pious, and still have not explained to me what piety is.
You can see clearly how Euthyphro's reasoning is exploited by Socrates as being circular, and yet I get the same logic in the same argument and people still do not seem to understand.
I have continuously asked the question of "What makes something a sin" of plenty of people, religious and nonreligious, and I perpetually get two different schools of thought.
(Please note that these are generic answers, and that I have gotten different logic from religious followers as well, but this is the most common).
The religious: "Sins are sins because they are listed as such in the [Insert Holy Book of Choice]." (Which, translates to Euthyphro's "Piety is dear to the gods" and we all know how that reasoning turned out. Just substitute "listed as such in" for "hated" and "Holy Book" for "by the gods.")
The nonreligious: "Sins are sins because they harm yourself or someone else, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically."
Now, you'll note a vast difference in reasoning between the religious and the nonreligious. I have gotten a few other answers to this question, but for the sake of this article we are going to use just these two arguments, for simplicity's sake. We've already examined the flaws in argument A, let's look at argument B.
Apply the example of murder to argument B like a sort of algebra equation. X+Y= SIN (And no, folks, that doesn't mean "sine").
X= The act
Y= The effect
X= Murder
Y= Takes a life
Murder + Takes a life = Harm = Sin.
However, let's toss another variable into the equation. Let's toss Z into the equation, Z being the cause of the murder.
Z= Self defense.
By law, if there was no other option other than killing your attacker, that person is generally acquitted. Did he still commit a sin? By definition B, yes, because he hurt someone else, and yet you feel more uncertain about this definition than maybe you did before.
I will now admit to you all that argument B is in fact my own argument and definition that I have given to the question of "What is a sin?" So I am trying to examine my own logic.
The reason I'm doing all this is because I'm generally asking people out there to think about their logic, their morals, and where these things come from. Why do you, personally, and not your parents, or your friends, or your religion, believe something is wrong? What makes something like for example homosexuality such a shady area? Why do some people swear by its immorality, and others praise it as a defiant expression of love? What makes the things we do evil, and what makes them good?
There are, of course, clear cut good and evil acts. Donating a million dollars to Cancer research is obviously a "good" act, and genocide is obviously "bad."
And perhaps we should examine these before we examine the gray areas of morality, and decide firmly what makes these good and bad deeds.
Well ironically, my examination of it comes up with a similar explanation as definition B. Good things are good because they help yourself or others, and bad things are bad because they hurt yourself or others.
But what if in helping others, you hurt yourself? Or in helping yourself, you hurt others? Some may argue that helping yourself at the expense of others is a sin, and hurting yourself for others' benefit is a sacrifice.
But then this ruins the set definition, because it leads to a paradox.
And then there are so-called "victimless crimes" or "link" and that just opens up a whole new can of worms.
So I open up the forums to you, Socrates and Platos of the modern age, to contemplate this question: What makes a sin?