Oddbean

It seems to me that if you believe in free will and that we can be held accountable for our actions, then you have to believe in sin, at least by a broad definition. An excellent piece of advice that I try (and often fail) to live by is to always assume virtue of other people if at all possible. Usually that's way harder than assuming vice, but if you assume the best of people by default, it's way easier to treat them generously.

I believe in relative attached morality to circumstance rather than the absolute moral authority that sin defines broadly to every circumstance. Assume the best of people and rely upon the mercy of your all powerful deity to meter out justice in your favor? I’d rather treat people as suspect and be pleasantly surprised when proven wrong.

I'm not depending on God or anyone else to mete out justice in my favor, I'm simply concerned with how I ought to act so as to be just and charitable to those I meet. Assuming the best of people, when possible, is a very good way to achieve that end. Regarding sin, there really aren't that many acts that would be wrong by their nature. Look at the Ten Commandments, that's about all of them. Pretty much everything else we can conceive of doing is generally good, but may be made bad in certain circumstances. Easy example: there is no case where theft is morally acceptable. Now work and earning goods, on the other hand? Generally good, though circumstances or intent may perhaps render it bad at times.

Disagree. When the proletariat is forced into abject poverty by the bourgeoisie, do the starving families not have justification in taking what they need from those “sinning” by participating in resource gluttony? Should we just starve to death and reap our rewards as martyrs in heaven?