Research Paper on Sin from Evil Will: An Analysis of Sin and its Origins

Introduction

In Sin from an Evil Will, Steven Jensen talks about the sins that originate from the individual's will. The chapter differentiates "Sin from Evil Will" from "Sins of Passion" through the individual's knowledge of the inherent evil that may come by as a result of doing the sin. According to Jensen, "sins of passion involve an emotional desire that clouds reason's perception of particular details, focusing attention upon desirable features and directing it away from the disordered features of the action." On the other hand, the sins of the will originate from the will itself, where the person sinning does so with full knowledge of the evil he or she chooses. Therefore, a person who sins from passion does so with a clouded understanding of particular details. However, the person sinning from evil will have a more profound confusion than the person who sins from the passion because they perceive the action as worth pursuing despite knowing the disordered features of the action.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Most individuals who sin are usually ignorant of the outcome of the malice. People sin purposefully, and, in most cases, they act according to their fixed malice since withdrawing from God is not considered to be a sin even though humans have a natural appetite for what is considered to be good. In the same manner that Thomas communicates about malice as bad deeds, he communicated about virtue to be the most valuable aspect if good.

Whether Anyone Sin on Purpose or from Fixed Malice

Analysis of malice, 'there is a disordered desire of a will to do evil.' where he states that sins arise from fixed malice. According to philosopher Thomas, humans do not sin purposely but from fixed malice. According to the assumptions made by Jensen regarding Thomas' outlining that sin arising from fixed malice as evil sin, which is a sinful behavior fuelled by humans selfish will, making them have falsehood and a high degree of denial. As an example, Jensen uses the act of adultery and says that it is a typical example of purposely sin where individuals are attracted to evil acts to fulfill short-term pleasures. The person who sins purposefully thinks that adultery is worth pursuing. Jensen calls this type of evil acts arising from disordered desires, which is opposed to emotional desires which arise from sins of passion.

On the other hand, Thomas's discussions of sins of passion arise from the natural desire of good, which is corrupted by evil. It follows that a person's strong emotional desire makes them love worldly pleasures or wealth. Therefore, the individual will violate the divine law or the love of God. According to Aquinas, the individual's desire would make them lose spiritual goods in their quests for worldly goods. Additionally, 'a vicious individual is misled by their own desires and the priority that the place on various goods.' However, there seems to be a contradiction in this perspective because malice itself is a sin since it entails wrongful intentions to fulfill one's desire at the expense of others. From a Christian perspective, selfish ambition is what broke the bond between God and humans when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

From Jensen's viewpoint, using the Christian perspective, sin refers to the violation of the will of God. Sin itself is malice, and malice resides in humanity in the form of corruption and other social disorders that violates the principles of humanity. Therefore, sins arise from human's passion and selfish interests, which makes them break the will of God. Consequently, a person who sins from malice or from passion knowingly chooses evil, and in return loses their spiritual good to attain world pleasure and to embrace the "compulsive behavior that is consequent to despair"

Besides, Jensen uses the Thomistic school of thought to analyze sin, which, in this case, sins from evil will. Based on the school of thought, all goods are not the same. The Thomistic school of thought follows the argument that some goods are more significant than others. According to Jensen, "the will is disordered when it loves a greater good less." At the same time, just as there are different variations of good, there are also different variations of evil. It means that people sin as a result of some form of disorder either in their intellect or sentient appetite. When the disorder is to the conscious state, then the person can be described to have imperfect desires. It can, therefore, be seen that the author's main argument is that the sin of the will originates from the disordered strengths of the person's desires or reasoning, which leads to faulty judgment

Thomas also outlined that a "clear-sighted and vicious individual can acknowledge that they do not plot or desire the best of them but more to the good that they are most attached.' But such an outlook raises the question of malice. The problem is, does anyone sin purposefully or from fixed malice. Based on the argument put forward by Augustus and Jensen, it is possible to argue that no one sins from fixed malice. According to Jensen, every sin originates from some sort of disorder. That means that every sinner is ignorant of something. Therefore, it follows that their actions were not from fixed malice. Alternatively, human activity is directed towards achieving some good. According to Jensen, sins of passion desires true social good while transgressions from the will desire some disordered good. Therefore, evil lies outside the intention of sinners, and so it may be argued they don't act from fixed malice.

However, such an argument can be countered using Jensen's argument. The normal orientation of human psychology is that they will sacrifice the lesser good for the sake of the greater good. When a remains loyal to his wife, he perceives his long-term relationship with his wife as the greater good. He, therefore, avoids the short-term pleasure of adultery as the lesser good. However, people with disordered will love the lesser good more at the expense of the greater good even though he knows adultery is the lesser good. Therefore, such a person who chooses to love and pursue lesser good, which in this case is evil, at the expense of greater good, has acted from the point of malice. It doesn't follow to absolve him of responsibility based on his disordered will, because he knows that what he is choosing is bad, it is only that his love for the bad is more significant than his love for the good.

As an example, Jensen uses the case of a terminally ill patient who has requested medics to take his life to make him avoid suffering. The patient knows that it is morally inappropriate to take one's life because God's teaching indicates that human life is sacred. However, the patient desires to have his life taken away to bring to an end his suffering from the illness. In this case analysis, the patient sins by wishing to take his own life for personal reasons, which are morally inappropriate. God's will be violated in this case analysis, and the patient is said to sin from fixed malice because he chose to because he willingly made poor choices between life in suffering or death to bring pain to an end. Jensen suggests that this situation presents an error of reasoning, where humans make a comparative judgment in confusing situations. This case explains how adulterers weigh the option of the evil act, coming to the standpoint of fulfilling their pleasures and losing their divine good.

Sin from an Evil Will is a thought-provoking book by Steven Jensen which differentiates sins from passion and sins from an evil will. According to Jensen, sins of passion are fuelled by the emotional desire, while since from evil will originate from a person's will. Jensen relies on the Thomistic school of thought to analyze sin and illustrates how ignorance and habitual acts result in sin. The author suggests that the failure to maintain balance is the ultimate cause of sins. Jensen further demonstrates that different variations of good and evil exist. Therefore, humans have to make appropriate intellect choices to overcome imperfect desires that lead them to sin.

In his analysis of sins, Jensen raises the question of malice, suggesting that people do not sin from fixed malice but from some disorder that manifests internally or externally. Based on malice outlook, it can be concluded that humans' sin because of their ignorance and their desires to fulfill some of their selfish passions. Therefore, it may be argued that the intention of sinners to conduct evil arises from acts of malice. From the Thomistic school of thought, four questions about sin arise; - (1) Can someone sin from fixed malice or purposefully? (2) Does everyone who sins from a habit sin from fixed malice? (3) Does everyone who sins from fixed malice sin from a habit? (4) Does someone who sins from fixed malice sin more gravely than someone who sins from passion? These questions provide the foundation of Jensen's theses in the chapter in chapter nine that sins from an evil provide a strong contrast to sins of passion.

Whether Everyone Who Sins from a Habit tends to Sin from Fixed Malice

Jensen insists that the human soul is directly pure at birth, but habits develop over time, which makes them a desire for more and chooses evil to seek material benefits. As an example, during difficulties, the author insists that humans choose evil as a solution to the challenge, making someone to become a sinner. The sinner's will and desire to sin causes them to shift from doing the ultimate good. They consistently engage in immoral acts, which becomes habitual and makes humans end up sinning from fixed malice. Jensen's arguments are in line with Thomas' school of thought that sins stem from habits, and therefore a form of malice. Thomas further insists that people who commit sins out of their habits rejoice in evil acts committed. The same argument is documented in Proverbs 2: 14, which states that "Humans are glad when they do evil and rejoice in wicked things done."

However, a slight variation exists from Jensen's perspective of sin from habit or sin from malice. According to the author, humans might unknowingly commit some minor sins from their habits, and this does not warrant generalization since the sin stems from their habits, rather it stems from fixed malice. Therefore, the author insists that not every sin resulting from a habit is a sin of fixed malice. Both Thomas and Jensen insist that those who sin from habit might end up becoming sorrowful for the committed sin. Since habit is a virtue, sinning from a habit equates to sinning from fixed malice, which gets aroused by passion or ignorance. From this, Jensen argues that humans can choose something evil from their habit to acquire good.

The Question of Whether A Person Who Sins from Fixed Malice Makes a Sin from Habit

Both Thomas and Jensen believe that anyone who sins from fixed malice does not sin from a habit. According to Thomas, it can only be said that someone has sinned from fixed malice by knowingly choosing what is bad. In contrast, Jensen says that when an individual sin from fixed malice, there are conscious of their wills, and this inclines them to do bad things. From this point of view, if an individual chooses sinning from fixed malice, they must rely on their will, passion, or habit. Jensen implies that a person who sins from fixed malice does so not because of their habits but due to their wills and passion.

But contrary to this, Jensen suggests that there are some exceptions in people who sin from fixed malice. People have varying levels of habits, and people choose good habits depending on the level of virtues, which is mostly innate but influenced by physical aspects. Jensen insists that individuals with a low level of these good virtues lack control of their vicious habits, and it become...