Mike Ashfield
Utah State University
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.
Keywords Sins  Moral Faults  Impurity  Dilemmas  Defeasibility  Pedagogical Evil
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11153-021-09795-x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Doxastic Wronging.Rima Basu & Mark Schroeder - 2019 - In Brian Kim & Matthew McGrath (eds.), Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology. Routledge. pp. 181-205.
Involuntary Sins.Robert Merrihew Adams - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (1):3-31.
Can Beliefs Wrong?Rima Basu - 2018 - Philosophical Topics 46 (1):1-17.

View all 53 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

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.
Is Liberalism Strong Enough for a Moral Consensus?John Wilson - 1990 - Journal of Moral Education 19 (1):24-32.
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 index

Total views
121 ( #91,248 of 2,461,809 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
49 ( #17,774 of 2,461,809 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes