What would you do?

[cyrano]

IFIAYAQD!
Most denominations of the Christian faith consider the worst sin to be a denial of the Lord God after receiving sure knowledge of His existence.
The State considers treason and the offering of comfort to its enemies to be the worst sin.
My mom considers chewing ice with your mouth open to be the worst sin.

What about you?

Comments

[ophymirage.livejournal.com]

Gossiping or lying about others in such a way as to (attempt to) destroy their lives or some portion thereof (marriage, relationships, self-esteem, etc.)

I've been guilty of it, and seen the effects of it, and I hate it.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Well, a "sin" is formally defined as something that separates you from God, and since I'm somewhere between agnostic and outright atheist on the belief scale, I'm not sure I'm best qualified to judge. So we'll go with the less formal definition of "thing that separates you from Rose, usually because she no longer wishes to spend time in your presence and has quickly removed herself from such". In which case, the most consistent and fast method is to lack a sense of humor about things. People for whom Everything is Serious Business turn me off more than...well, just about anything, really.

[likable-lemur.livejournal.com]

Driving it like you stole it.

(Cars, boats, broomsticks, Segways, corporations, countries...)

[mnarra.livejournal.com]

For this discussion, I am defining "sin" to be an offense against religious or moral law.

Somewhat to my surprise, I don't seem to believe there are sins. I suspect that that's because I am a cultural relativist at heart and religion and morality are culturally based, but it could just be that I'm wishy-washy.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Moral relativism is hardly wishy-washy. It's simply the recognition that morals are situational, and what may be considered moral/immoral behavior is rarely so black-and-white once the entire picture is known.

One of my favorite moral questions is the following: A man loves his wife dearly. She is dying of a curable illness. He cannot afford the medicine that would cure her. He has pleaded with the pharmacist to lower the price; the pharmacist refuses. Is he morally justified in stealing the medicine? There's no one good answer, because there are so many factors to be considered - the harm to the pharmacist vs. the harm to the wife, the legal harm to the man, the motivation for the pharmacist's cruelty, etc. There are only different choices.

The only moral absolute that I've found comes down to the Golden Rule - treat others the way you wish to be treated, because if your actions are consistently anti-social then you can't live in society with others (and no one is able to survive alone). And even that doesn't always work, as not everyone follows said rule (see the above situation).

I honestly think Jack Sparrow said it best: "The only thing that matters is what a man can do and what a man can't do." There are no good or bad things in life, simply different choices and the consequences of those choices. What matters more than artificially limiting our choices as "moral" or "immoral" is accepting responsibility for the choices we do make and the (sometimes unforeseen) consequences that stem from them.

(No, this isn't something that I've thought about at great length at all...;)

[mnarra.livejournal.com]

The only moral absolute that I've found comes down to the Golden Rule - treat others the way you wish to be treated, because if your actions are consistently anti-social then you can't live in society with others (and no one is able to survive alone).

Even that one doesn't work; aristocracy (by whatever name) recognizes that the peons (by whatever name) are people, but feels that treating them as less than themselves is entirely acceptable -- even virtuous. I don't know that there is a moral absolute.

I wish there were...I'm glad there isn't...wish I couldn't see the value of the arguments. The world is far too messy for my taste, and yet not anywhere unstructured enough to suit me.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Willful harm to a trusting innocent.

I know that's highly up for interpretation, but that's what gets my guts more than anything else. Abuse your kid? Beat your spouse? Torture a domestic animal? All fall under that category and are as close to 'evil' as my moral compass allows.

I guess it's the breach of implicit trust that bothers me the most, and that (for the child and the domestic animal) there's no capacity to understand why it's happening or that it is a crime, or to fight back. Learned helplessness in the case of spousal abuse brings about a lot of the same factors, and so do societal pressures (on women, for instance, who in most cultures can't fight back if their husband abuses them).

The most horrifying thing I've heard of in recent times was a recent bombing in Iraq. I'm not sure if later developments changed this, but at the original reporting it looked like a mentally handicapped woman had been used to carry the bombs into a songbird marketplace full of people (including schoolchildren on holliday). The bomb was detonated by remote. Just thinking about the cowardice and misuse of trust that went into that drives me absolutely sick with fury.

[rdansky.livejournal.com]

Not liking good scotch.

REALLY BAD.

[earthpig.livejournal.com]

I dislike hearing people chew ice.
I dislike watching or hearing people chew with their mouths open.
I dislike hearing people chew while talking, particularly over the phone.

So, clearly, the worst offense one could undertake is to lie to a trusting innocent in a way that destroys their life while driving way too fast and chewing the ice from your scotch (which is quite good, but you're not appreciating it) with your mouth open and chatting on the phone.

That would be BAD, mmmmkay?

-Rick

Re: REALLY BAD.

[yukonsally]

totally agree with the chewing thing. I hate the sound so much.