Aristotle's Sin

901 Words2 Pages

Though he lived millenniums ago, Aristotle is held in high regard as a lover and teacher of wisdom, continuing even to this day. His book on ethics has the sole purpose of teaching people how to seek a life of happiness, and thus, what it means to be a good person. However, in order to completely understand how to find happiness, we first have to recognize one of the obstacles: sin. Learning to avoid sin, or rather, learning how to deal with situations of sin, brings us closer to the ultimate end goal of happiness through self-actualization. However, when sin is defined only by what Aristotle interprets it as being, it becomes clear that one cannot fully reach a sinless life; sin is unavoidable, as it is found through both actions and intentions. …show more content…

Complete moral virtue is achieved by knowing what is good, and doing the good in the way it should be done. In the same way, sin is found in known what is good but not reflecting it through actions. “A man becomes just by performing just actions and self-controlled by performing acts of self-control, […] without performing them, nobody could even be on the way to becoming good.” Even so, not knowing what the best thing to do does not excuse you from having to make a choice. It is in this that sin is also found by doing what’s bad without knowing what the good is, because how could one find the good without knowing what to look for? “Now every wicked man is in a state of ignorance as to what he ought to do and what he should refrain from doing, and it is due to this kind of error that men become unjust and, in general, immoral. […] Ignorance in moral choice does not make an act involuntary—it makes it wicked.” As a result, one may conclude that sin is determined through actions, regardless of intention or moral knowledge. This would lead to the assumption that, in order to achieve happiness and avoid sin, one simply has to be aware of their actions and do good …show more content…

Pleasure, in and of itself isn’t a good or sinful thing, but it can instead amplify good or sinful situations. A person who finds pleasure in virtue becomes a good person. A person who does not find pleasure in virtue, and instead in other things, becomes a sinful person. “The sensation of pleasure belongs to the soul, and each man derives pleasure from what he is said to love.” It must then follow that, “the man who does not enjoy performing noble actions is not a good man at all.” The idea that goodness, and thus sin, is linked to intention is also see in the case of having to choose between two evils. “In relation to a greater evil the lesser evil counts as a good, since the lesser evil is more desirable than the greater, and since what is desirable is good and what is more desirable is a greater good.” Here, the fact that any “evil” has been done or taken place is not the concern—the concern is one’s desire to avoid what is wrong. Therefore, it could be said that sin is instead determined through intentions, no matter the actions. However, it is not this

Open Document