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

[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.