Five problems for the moral consensus about sins

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 90 (3):157-189 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX


A number of Christian theologians and philosophers have been critical of overly moralizing approaches to the doctrine of sin, but nearly all Christian thinkers maintain that moral fault is necessary or sufficient for sin to obtain. Call this the “Moral Consensus.” I begin by clarifying the relevance of impurities to the biblical cataloguing of sins. I then present four extensional problems for the Moral Consensus on sin, based on the biblical catalogue of sins: (1) moral over-demandingness, (2) agential unfairness, (3) moral repugnance, and (4) moral atrocity. Next, I survey several partial solutions to these problems, suggested by the recent philosophical literature. Then I evaluate two largely unexplored solutions: (a) genuine sin dilemmas and (b) defeasible sinfulness. I argue that (a) creates more problems than it solves and that, while (b) is well-motivated and solves or eases each of the above problems, (b) leaves many biblical ordinances about sin morally misleading, creating (5) a pedagogical problem of evil. I conclude by arguing that (5) places hefty explanatory burdens on those who would appeal to (b) to resolve the four extensional problems discussed in this paper. So Christian thinkers may need to consider a more radical separation of sin and moral fault.

Similar books and articles

Ethics by committee: The moral authority of consensus.Jonathan D. Moreno - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (4):411-432.
Taking Sin Seriously.Darlene Fozard Weaver - 2003 - Journal of Religious Ethics 31 (1):45 - 74.
Possibilities of consensus: Toward democratic moral discourse.Bruce Jennings - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):447-463.
Abelard on Degrees of Sinfulness.Jeffrey Hause - 2007 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 81 (2):251-270.
Decolonizing the demarcation of the ethical.Joseph Len Miller - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (2):337-352.
Sin in the Psalms.John Barton - 2015 - Studies in Christian Ethics 28 (1):49-58.


Added to PP

1,494 (#6,842)

6 months
471 (#3,216)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Mike Ashfield
Utah State University

Citations of this work

The Ancestral Sin is not Pelagian.Parker Haratine - 2023 - Journal of Analytic Theology 11:1-13.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Doxastic Wronging.Rima Basu & Mark Schroeder - 2019 - In Brian Kim & Matthew McGrath (eds.), Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology. Routledge. pp. 181-205.
Can Beliefs Wrong?Rima Basu - 2018 - Philosophical Topics 46 (1):1-17.
Well-being: its meaning, measurement, and moral importance.James Griffin - 1986 - Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon Press.
Horrendous evils and the goodness of God.Marilyn McCord Adams - 1989 - Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Edited by Eleonore Stump & Michael J. Murray.
Involuntary sins.Robert Merrihew Adams - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (1):3-31.

View all 53 references / Add more references