Semantics of Sin
We all know about the so-called seven deadly sins: envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth, and wrath. These are curious words; we do well to delve into their meaning. What is the correct semantic theory of sin words? We can contrast these words with other words in the moral vocabulary: murder, theft, lying, ingratitude, promise-breaking, betrayal, and others. These words designate types of action that are intrinsically and necessarily immoral; it isn’t that these things are immoral only when excessive or extreme or out of control. But the sin words aren’t like that; they designate types of action that are only immoral when excessive or extreme or out of control. The underlying act isn’t immoral at all, just its degree. Let’s go through them one by one to verify this claim.
The dictionary will be our guide. For “envy” the OED gives us “discontented or resentful longing aroused by another’s possessions, qualities, or luck”. On the face of it this does not amount to sin (“an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law”). Surely, you can long for what someone else has without doing or thinking anything immoral—you might long for their virtue, for example. This may lead to discontent and even resentment, but not to any immoral behavior. We get closer to sin when we read in the Shorter OEDof “hostility, malice, enmity” occasioned by such longing: that is, envy is sinful when and only when it leads to such attitudes or actions. Malicious envy is bad but not envy as such. True, the longing involved can easily lead to bad envious behavior, but the longing is not itself a sin—or else we are all doomed before we get started. Of course, we often wish for what others have. The underlying desire or emotion is not the sin but rather its expression in bad behavior and attitude. So, don’t berate yourself for feeling envy, or fear eternal damnation, just don’t give in to any tendencies you may have towards nasty behavior directed against the envied individual.
For “gluttony” we read “habitual greed or excess in eating”. That gets it right straight off the bat: there is nothing sinful about acting on a healthy appetite or lengthy starvation, just don’t do it excessively or selfishly. Suppose you first consume a good amount of food but then go on to stuff yourself excessively: that is not a good thing to do, especially if others are thereby deprived. But the underlying act of eating a lot is not in itself bad—as murdering or stealing even in moderation clearly is. The sin is one of excess not merely eating heartily. Do it, by all means, but don’t overdo it. But we don’t say “Break promises, by all means, but don’t over-break them!” Gluttony is (habitually, compulsively) eating beyond requirements, not eating till you are adequately full when hungry. There is nothing even a bit wrong about eating as such—as there is always something a bit wrong about murdering, however moderate. Sins are sins according to degree, not by nature or definition of the act in question.
The third deadly sin is called variously “greed” or “avarice”, so we get “intense or selfish desire for wealth, power, or food” and “extreme greed for wealth or material gain”, respectively. A pattern is emerging: it isn’t a desire for wealth, power, and food that is the problem, or even a strong desire for these things; it is extreme or excessive desire for them. Not so for murder and theft: here any desire for these things, or action based on such desire, is morally wrong. What counts as extreme or excessive is left open, but it is supposed that there is such a thing as too much such desire—enough to tip the balance into sin. It is not sinful to desire wealth, power, and food, even strongly, but it is sinful to do this excessively (whatever that means). When the desire for material gain reaches a certain point, it turns from healthy accumulation to mortal sin (capitalists will feel relieved).
Now we come to lust, everyone’s favorite deadly sin. The dictionary supplies “strong sexual desire” and then adds “a sensuous appetite regarded as sinful”. Well, which is it? Clearly, there is nothing sinful about strong sexual desire—isn’t all sexual desire strong (or nearly all)? Two people in love will be strongly sexually attracted to each other—is that supposed to be bad? Of course not—what, we should all be weakly attracted to the one we love? Not even the hint of a sin is in sight here. We only get into sin territory when we say “regarded as sinful”. The word “regarded” is doing sterling work here—rightly or wrongly so regarded? Obviously not wrongly, but then rightly on what basis? We might try “excessively”, but relative to what? Perhaps the idea is that we shade into sinful lust, as opposed to healthy sexual appetite, when we do it all day every day, or anywhere we happen to be, or make undue noise. This is all pretty shaky stuff, and doesn’t really correspond to the intent of the concept—which is really to press a puritanical agenda. In any case, it is hard to see what the sin is supposed to be—it certainly isn’t tantamount to rape or assault. The underlying act is hardly sinful by anyone’s standards—badly wanting to sleep with your lover is not any kind of crime or moral failing. It is difficult to see why lust is on the list at all, now or ever, lexically speaking.[1] Perhaps a lust for puritanical punishment lies behind it.
Pride is an interesting case: why should having a high opinion of oneself be a sin? If solidly based, it is simply an acknowledgment of truth. Proper pride is not improper! Can’t you be proud that you are not guilty of the other sins on the list, given that you are not? The puzzle is removed by noting the dictionary definition, but it is important to see that pride as such is not sinful: what is bad is “the quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself”. The sin is in the error not in the nature of the attitude—exaggerating one’s own qualities, not soberly recognizing them for what they are. If you are proud of your tennis stroke or handwriting, you may simply be aware of their merits; the fault comes when you overestimate these qualities. This may be just bad judgement on your part, or it may spring from a need to compete with others irrespective of the facts. In any case, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about pride, as long as it is correct and rationally based. Having a good opinion of yourself is nothing like being a liar or a thief or a traitor. Would Newton go to hell for having a good opinion of his scientific abilities?
Sloth is an odd one too: how does it differ from taking a well-earned rest? The OED gives us “reluctance to work or make an effort; laziness”. Don’t you think a coalminer after a long strenuous shift deserves to put his feet up? He is very reluctant to do any more work or make an effort of any kind; he feels “lazy”. Taking a rest is no kind of immoral act. What is objectionable is being excessively work-shy—never working, always shirking. The hard question is when taking a rest turns into culpable laziness—the alleged sin of sloth. What is the criterion for this? When is the sin upon you? Many people don’t get enough rest because they are afflicted with the “protestant work ethic”; many are “addicted” to work; many can’t leave their work “at the office”. This is a fault that can rise to the level of wrongdoing, as in neglecting one’s family or one’s “deeper self”. And it is hardly a sin to sleep in on Saturday morning. What is bad is laziness in the face of moral demands—not giving a shit about anybody but yourself. Moral sloth is a sin, no question; but much inactivity has no moral dimension—it’s just lying about doing nothing. Sloth can be sinful (immoral), but it isn’t always. Doing nothing all day is nothing like actively murdering and robbing.
Finally, my personal favorite, wrath or anger. I am all in favor of it. We need much more of it in my view. Anger, I love it. Why? Because anger is the chief force opposing evil—the more anger there is, the less evil there will be. Someone who is never angry at injustice and cruelty is morally defective in my book. So, why is it included in the list of sins? It’s because anger can become extreme, excessive, overdone, out of control. The dictionary is well aware of this, defining “wrath” as “extreme anger”. Again, it is not clear why extreme anger should be counted a sin—can’t you be legitimately extremely angry about vile despicable actions? Should you be only mildly angry at history’s worst tyrants, or your traitorous friends? Absurd: anger can have degrees and a high degree of it is no sign of sinfulness. What is meant, presumably, is the normative judgment that the anger in question is excessive compared to the facts—unreasonable, hysterical, dangerous. This is certainly a moral failing, a “sin”. An irascible individual is not a virtuous individual, especially if he or she expresses anger unrestrainedly. This is certainly deplorable. But that isn’t always the case; there is plenty of justified moral outrage in the world—not enough, in my opinion. Anger is the backbone of morality. Bad anger is bad, for sure, but anger as such is not always bad.
The pattern here is obvious. None of the actions and attitudes named on the list of seven deadly sins is really sinful; what is sinful are certain immoral examples of these actions and attitudes. When the dictionary definition uses words like “extreme” and “excessive” it is slyly introducing a normative evaluative element. All the work of defining sin is done by this element; the names of the alleged sins tell us nothing morally relevant, though they clearly purport to. There is nothing sinful, even slightly, about feeling envy, dining heartily, wanting nice things, sexually desiring strongly, being proud of one’s accomplishments, avoiding work when tired, or being angry at evil actions. Things only go wrong when these attitudes slide into immoral territory—into malice, selfishness, acquisitiveness, sexual misbehavior, self-aggrandizement, culpable laziness, and unwarranted anger. When this is the traditional list does not tell us; so, it is next to useless as a guide to right conduct. Indeed, it is positively misleading, because it brands perfectly okay attitudes and actions as sinful, or leaves the moral agent unsure when he or she has crossed the line. It makes people nervous, especially when the penalties are so high (hell etc.). It should really be abolished. It has done real harm in the sexual sphere and has encouraged false modesty in the pride department. It has also given anger and hatred an unfairly bad name. It is actually a recipe for pointless guilt, perhaps intentionally so; politically, it is pretty suspect. It’s a good way to keep people down and under authoritarian control. Virtually everyone is “guilty” of the underlying acts, though not of the excessive immoral versions of them.[2]
[1] Simon Blackburn has a nicely tolerant attitude to lust in Lust (2004).
[2] Instead of the seven deadly sins we should call them the seven harmless pastimes. Some are even quite enjoyable, such as buying stuff, eating, and copulating.
