Man is not responsible for his sins

[blazeofglory]

The classical debate is whether man is responsible for all that happens or it is the environment or the society one is in that accounts for what he is.

A recent event here motivated me to write this. A man kidnapped a girl. The man was supposed to be a good man, a good teacher. Later on he fell for girls and in due course he fell for some bad girls and indulged in gambling. The very activities demanded of him lots of money. He had to fund all, the need of the girls and the gambling.

He was hemmed in a situation he could not rescue himself. He kidnapped her and for some reasons he murdered and shopped her into small pieces and de-frozed her and after a few days he scattered all the severed parts in different places.
'
I feel a good man falling into a circumstance is likely to be doomed.

[Judas130]

If we look at the idea of 'sin'. A sin is a violation of a moral obligation or rule under the umbrella of religion. Religion has many ideas of sin, and nearly all of them attach the evil and wrongdoing in the world to either Lucifer and fallen angels, as Augustine might suggest in his theodicy, or to mankind itself - or both. In this context religion has little to do with it, and we must look at the 'crime' against the laws of the land, state, and expectations of society.
There is no doubt that if you or I kill a man/woman/child we have committed a crime, a violation against the rules of the state. Even though some may claim that it was upbringing, or family life, or little education that influenced the act - at the end of the day it was not these that committed the crime, it was the criminal. The appropriate punishment must be sought for the welfare of the civilisation.
If a man was morally 'good' one day, and later began to chop a kidnapped woman into small pieces and freeze these pieces, do you seriously suggest he should not be deemed responsible for his actions on the basis that, once, he was a good man? Indeed, once he may have been a good man, but clearly he is not now and committed a crime that must be punished. Determinism in morality fails to bring about justice, its concepts can be suggested and taken into account yet they cannot remove the facts and reality of the situation - in this case: "he was a good man" vs "he chopped up a woman".
peace

[weltanschauung]

a "good man" would not have been susceptible to the influence of external facts, would he?

sure, its easy to say, "yes, he was a good man, until this unfortunate thing happened", but that is an oxymoron at its purest.
a strong character could be defined by all the features and atributes that distinguish and make up an individual, and when these atributes and features are such that this individual is able to always react in a manner that preserves the well-being of not only himself but also whoever comes to his contact, then this man maybe could be defined as a "good man".
if this man is considered "good" simply by leading a non-eventful life, than this definition is certainly flawed, because if you submit this man to dificult situations, in which he is faced with dificult decisions, and he fails to react in a manner that will preserve not only his integrity but also the integrity of his acquaintances, than it is proved that he is not only not-good, but also he is weak and easily influencible, and susceptible to show his actual lack of character.
most times people are taken as "good" simply because they were never faced with dificult decisions, and if this said person is pushed to his/her limits, he fails to perform in a satisfying manner, then its pretty much obvious that the initial goodness this person used to be linked to was simply an actual ignorant and naive image of the real character that lied beneath the surface.

a "good" person wouldnt have been so volatile, now would he/she?

[Judas130]

The classical debate is whether man is responsible for all that happens or it is the environment or the society one is in that accounts for what he is.



Most human beings are gifted with rational thought processes from which they may conclude the best decisions to their situations. When a puzzling situation does occur, one may be subconsciously influenced by moral coding developed in infancy and throughout childhood/early adulthood. If one does not have this moral coding or it is corrupted in the sense that it adheres to negative morals, then of course - the environment whereby one grows within may be a catalyst for morally negative actions that violate state law. In the same way, if one grew up within a Buddhist moral teaching from an early age, subconsciously one might refrain from violence towards sentient life forms.
However, I say 'might' when talking of subconscious morality, because beneath this shield of cognition, lives our instinct - the connection to our past selves, our animal selves. Naturally, mankind is selfish, angry, emotional on varying degrees and, without subconscious morality, unable or sees little need to refrain from emotional outburst. So, hitting somebody who might make a personal and cruel remark about oneself and then proceeding to carry on the attack without 'thinking' is instinctual to our animalistic behaviour.
If we look at the attack in your example, we find a calculated assault of kidnap, dissect, etc. Thus, this was not subconscious or instinctual - the man knew of what he was doing. Up until this point, the man now becomes very responsible for his crime.
What the law does is allow mankind to attach 'do' and 'don't' to one's mind-frame, to subdue one's instincts. If one is taught as a child that stealing is wrong, or hitting someone when angered is wrong, and we are caught and told to apologize or disciplined we subconsciously develop a morality coding. If one might rebel against these codes then one is very conscious of one's actions - if this is breaking a state law then one is responsible and must experience the punishment given by that local or national government.
In terms of practicality, if a person commits a crime with "their own two hands", then, regardless of the situations they arise from, they are responsible for their crimes, thus all these metaphysical catalysts of the crime must be either ignored or taken into some consideration to build up a picture of the criminal's viewpoints - and the situation must be dealt with accordingly from then on.

[hoope]

We go through many things .. either from the society or te environment..
but that is never an excuse for all our evil works .. we cna't blame others for what we did . We make choices , some are right and some are not.
If we keep a good person in a bad group , there are chances that they may change him to bad person , and we also have chances that he may change the bad friends to good ones like him. So , you can see it all depends on us ... We have a mind to think , and we have a separate identity that can't be taken .
The point is .. that we are facing certain things to know how we react to them and whether we can make the right choices .

[Scheherazade]

"Man" can never be held responsible for anything... Diminished capacity and all...

:D

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

I don't think this guy was a good person that fell under bad circumstances, obviously we all have our limits, but to say a good guy would comit such a crime is just absurd.