Sin

​Sin
 
In a previous blog I invited the reader to consider a more mature concept of what some call the “I am”  and some call the whole working as one unit.  I further suggested that we need to be concerned with actions or behavior which adversely affects the working of the whole – destroys the balance.  Traditionally many culture have suggested that behavior which seemed to upset the balance should be called sin.  Further, in an attempt to force individuals to behave in a way which some claimed benefited the whole, the concept of pleasing a god was introduced.  Just in case one was not moved by the threat of punishment in this life journey the concept of eternity was also introduced.   Thus, if one displeased the god of one’s understanding than one could be thrown into the fires of hell forever.  Under this model immoral and sinful was synonymous.  The theory seem to be that humans needed to be fearful of this punishment to prevent them from engaging in behavior that supposedly offended the god of one’s understanding as interrupted by a human or some group of humans.   The fact that the very behavior which certain humans decided was going to acutely displease the god of one’s understanding if person X engaged in it but not if person Y engaged in it (frequently a person in authority) was often not addressed.    The concept of justice came to be associated with this system and has, to this day, been duplicated in our civil society.  Punishment for what some in the community decides offends the god of one’s understanding is righteously melted out by those in authority.
 
Often the behavior which is alleged to be offensive to the god of one’s understanding and, thus, to the civil authorities is:
 

• Not harmful to the balance of the whole but is harmful to the status quo of the particular segment of a community.
• Was originally based on an unscientific understanding because of scientific tools than available
• Benefits some industry such as the private prison system as well as local, state and federal prison system which need a lot of materials and supplies to function.
• Are accepted or punished depending on the ability to hire high priced, skilled individuals such as attorneys, accountants and others.
• Is labeled as immoral or unlawful based on the power status of those engaging in a particular behavior.
• Is labeled as immoral or unlawful depending on who wins control. Thus, killing by someone on behalf of the state is not only moral but perhaps heroic while killing  in other circumstances is immoral or unlawful.  Manipulating the system for millions of dollars might, if one is a war contractor or a supplier for a prison might be moral and lawful while doing  the same for small gain might be immoral and unlawful.
• Is aligned with one’s prejudices and/or biases such as racism or sexism.

 
As so-called civilized societies move forward the members of those societies must begin to reexamine the motivations and long-term consequences for labeling and punishing certain behavior as immoral or unlawful.   The same societies must decide if justice is going to continue to be mitigated by prejudice, bias, status, wealth, and unscientific information.  First, of course, one must decide one’s long-term goals.   If there are no long-term goals but merely short-term ones based on who can gather the most wealth, power or other temporary gains then there is no immoral behavior but only what the system will tolerate.  If the goal is to punish any behavior which someone (probably a group of males with power) decided was displeasing to the god of their underfunding and for which there is no scientific evidence that it adversely affects the balance of the whole then the society may want to rethink what is unlawful or immoral.
 
I am not suggesting that these are simple issues with clear cut answers. I am suggesting that perhaps:
 

• Rules or laws should equally apply to all who are mentally healthy enough to be capable of rational thought (as we learn more about the human brain the understanding of “free will” might also change).
• The “rights” of environmental entities might be as important as those of humans.
• Behavior which is displeasing to some might not be a sufficient basis to declare it immoral or unlawful.
• We might be more reluctant to blame the god of one’s understanding for decisions of what is moral or lawful.

 
Written February 3, 2021
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org