Today's Moral Debate: Postdated sins?

[roseembolism]

So, if one considers sins to be breaking of rules or strictures that are closely linked to feelings of guilt...does it matter if after one commits a sin, one finds out that a rule wasn't broken after all?  Are they crimes of intent or action?

For example, if one snitches a donut from the conference room, and then later finds out that they were available to all employees, does that expiate the sin?  After all, at the time the person snitched the donut, they considered themselves to be stealing, and went ahead and did it anyway.  Should the guilt remain?  After all, no rule was actually broken.

It's something to consider over a cup of coffee and a donut.

Comments

[racerxmachina.livejournal.com]

Whether or not the guilt remains is up to the person who took the donut in the first place. In what spirit did they take it? "I'm hungry"? "Boy, will it screw them over if I took one"?

[silverstreak.livejournal.com]

So hunger morally excuses stealing food? Sure, we feel sorry for someone that has to steal food to eat but could they also not ask someone for food and find a kind soul willing to feed them just as easily? Isn't stealing still stealing regardless of the reason?

[racerxmachina.livejournal.com]

I think you're still looking at it from the external viewpoint of "law" and not the internal self-regulation of "guilt".

[silverstreak.livejournal.com]

True, true.

So many people break the law and feel no guilt at all. It is a big problem as it is guilt that helps people determine between right and wrong. It is not the ONLY thing but it is one thing.

In this particular case, if I felt guilty about taking it in the first place, knowing that it was ok after all would erase that guilt. The reverse is also true if I thought it was OK to begin with.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

That really comes down to the question of whether a sin is an internal or an external imposition. I suppose the standards would be external, but the decision as to how to react would be completely internal.

[fallen-scholar.livejournal.com]

Well, looking at it from a legal perspective, the donut-snitcher would no longer be guilty of theft, yet they still could be found guilty of attempted theft. Of course, when it slides into the realm of guilt and sin, things tend to get more fuzzy. Guilt tends to linger, regardless.

[deirdremoon.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. Just as I don't feel too bad if I did something wrong that I thought was allowed but later turned out not to be. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but not *guilty*. In your example, the question is the disconnect between the donut-eater's actions and moral code, whatever the absolute answer was.

(Hope the donut was tasty, though.)

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

I was going to bring up the flip side of the situation, which I tend to be much more lenient toward. After all, if one doesn't know that what one is doing is a sin, then there isn't that element of deliberate transgression.

I'm actually this point thinking that it really depends on one's frame of mind, really how accommodating to oneself one is. I think I may fall into the camp "Well, that still means it was a sin of intent, AND makes me foolish as well." ;')

I mean, what's the POINT of committing a sin if it turns out that feeling of temptation and moral transgression is wasted?

[etoilenoir959.livejournal.com]

Gah, there's not supposed to be that much thinking and philosophy involved with coffee and donuts!