From the point of view of objective neutrality there is no sin or virtue in any deed . Agree or disagree ?

Question

All deeds / events are neutral by themselves but how one perceives them depends on one's conditioning.
Let's consider the following examples
Diet : Hindus think eating beef is sin but others don't see the cow as holy. Muslims and Jews abhor pork . Others don't. Vegetarians think eating non veg food is wrong but non vegs might counter that fruits, vegetables and cereals are also life - of plants.
Sex : A priest who has vowed celebacy may consider sex as sinful but a prostitute who earns her daily bread through it may disagree.
Voilence : I consider all forms of violence bad for humanity. So I can't really consider myself objectively neutral. A robber who kills and robs for money is condemned and if caught and convicted will be imprisoned or given the death penalty . He may be doing it as he has no other way to feed himself and may feel his actions are justified. A soldier who kills hunderds in a war is given a gallantry award.

The list can go on and on.

I agree with the view that you get back from the universe what you give to it. As you sow, so you reap. If I help others I can expect to get helped in return and if I hurt others I can expect to get hurt as a consequence of that action.

Objective neutrality is an ideal one can strive for by trying to decondition oneself totally. It is not easy for an ordinary mortal to gain enlightenment like the Buddha.

By objective neutrality I mean exhibiting actual facts impartially uncoloured by exhibitor's feelings or opinions. Hope you won't consider that to be an oxymoron.

Answer 1

Think about this. If you step on an ant, what have you done?

This might be nothing for most humans on this planet except maybe for Buddhist monks. This is very sad to them.

But to a biologist, this might be good or might be bad depending on how you view things.

One can say you created food for another life form to eat the dead ant you just step on. This helps the other life to have food.

One can then also say we have destroyed a potential pollenator. This ant could have helped nature to regenerate more trees, plants, flowers or whatever the ant could have done for nature.

So, sin is basically an opinion one holds to certain action. Example, God floods the world including babies, disabled, blinded, deaf people who could not have heard what Noah said to them. God still floods them with his supposedly good deeds.

To any believer of God, this is a good act and mercy action by their loving God but to someone with an open mind such action is unspeakable and intolerable. One of the worst crimes one can commit. Yet, this God is all loving and all forgiving to these followers.

You see, they cannot see what is good and what is evil. All they see is Goodness even if violence were used. Another example of contradictions of a forgiving loving God is he creates a hell for supposedly bad humans for eternity. Torture them for eternity. If one used the word eternity then there is no forgiving. To forgive is to forgive at certain time frame. Eternity means there is no futute forgiving. Why such contradictions?

This is because religions are human inventions. Another one is Heaven is a perfect sinless place. How can that be when 2/3 angels rebel and must have discussed this rebellion for a long time before they decide to rebel. This means evil actions took place many many times before the rebellion. It would obviously debated long time before committing a rebellion. So, heaven is not a perfect sinless place. Evil acts or acts against a God could happen anytime because free will exists in heaven. UNless free will does not exists in heaven then evil cannot take place as all are robots.

Robots do not do bad things unless told to do so.

Answer 2

If we are talking about discussions, there is only point of view, yes. Agree on that. Somebody already brought this up one. In Mathematics, there is always "truth", and a solution. 2+2=4; 3x3=9 The numbers will never change. Just like in World History. What happened has happened, there will always be point of views on the subjects, but what has happened would be considered "truth". It would not change. Personally, I'm leaning towards "agree" though. For instance, the discussion I'm in now: There is no truth. Only point of view. Agree.

Answer 3

My dear Sirius, I don't believe in Good and Evil, and I believe that evil and sin are ultimately the result of ignorance.

Taking an apple tree for my example, I would look at the top half and say it is virtuous, because it gives apples to anyone who wishes to eat without judgement. However, the bottom half is dedicated to suck goodness from the earth, so it is obviously sinful - everyone knows it's better to give than recieve, right?

This is not a question of objective neutrality, it is a question of whether or not you see the simple Truth of things.

I agree!

Answer 4

I disagree. I think there is probably both sin and virtue in any deed. Even the most virtuous of deeds will contain a taint of self-interest or of limited perspective. Even the most vile deed may bring about positive ends. That being the case, and seeing as how we cannot peer into others' hearts and motivations, I guess it's just best not to judge.

Peace to you.

Answer 5

Sadly this is true. There is no hope, no love, no justice, or any of these other lies. Grind the entire universe to dust and find me one atom of love. Or any of the others. But with faith, and love and belief in things that cannot be measured, is what truly brings use above common animals. So I will believe in God and Jesus, I will believe in magic and elves. I will believe in all of this. And will live by those rules. So yes I agree from neutrality that there is neither sin nor virtue in any deed. No sin but man.

Answer 6

If you're completely neutral then you would not judge something as sinful or virtuous because you would be neutral.

But things are only sinful or virtuous because we define them that way, we define things one way or the other depending on how much they hinder or help us to live together in a society and continue the human race.

Answer 7

An animal does not have any idea of sin or moral, but man has. The standard of morals may differ from person to person, group to group, religion to religion etc. As you said, your ideas are conditioned by your position with reference to the group and the time to which you belong. But, there are certain basic ethics, which humanity in general needs to adopt. They are:-

Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not steal
Thou shall covet

etc ..

The object of taboo may differ but taboo does exist which is necessary to enlist you into the human society. If you are not bound by the social mores and not influenced by any of the moral conditions, you are unfit to be a member of the humanity.

Answer 8

I absolutely agree.

But there ARE actions that do not benefit the survival of the species and that do not benefit self-preservation.

If you choose to commit these acts, then you are transgressing nature and will benefit less from the continuum of natural law.

The final law of nature is to treat others as if they are other selves, because it redounds to the general good and ultimately redounds to self preservation.

If you are smart, you will be able to understand that kindness, therefore, is a natural benefit and that kindness and desire are the spearhead of evolution.

Answer 9

sin or virtue is basically the overall consequence of your action/s on others. So if overall your action has helped others its a virtue else a sin.
Most religions claim that you get back what you send out so logically it makes sense that you dont commit "sin".

Now if you have a question about if this law of karma works or not thats different altogether.

Answer 10

The only problem is objective neutrality does not exist in practice. It sounds good in theory but it does not work.