Is Augustine right that sin means that humans can never be morally good? Flashcards
(10 cards)
Introduction
- Define human nature
- Introduce the debate
- Introduce Augustines position
- Explain Augustines motivation
- Outline what the essay will explore
• Define human nature as innate dispositions existing independently of culture or socialisation.
• Introduce the debate: Does an inherent human nature exist, and is it corrupted by sin?
• Introduce Augustine’s position: There is a human nature corrupted by original sin, making moral goodness impossible without divine grace.
• Explain Augustine’s motivation: Observations of human sinfulness led him to conclude that sin is innate due to the Fall (Genesis).
• Outline that this essay will explore Augustine’s claims about original sin and its impact on morality, and will contrast with Pelagius’s opposing view that humans retain moral ability without inherent corruption.
Paragraph 1
Augustine’s View of Original Sin and Moral Corruption
Paragraph 1: Augustine’s View of Original Sin and Moral Corruption
A01
• The Fall: Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Eden corrupted human nature, resulting in inherited original sin (massa damnata).
• Augustine’s biological theory: All humans were “seminally present in the loins of Adam” — sin transmitted biologically to all descendants.
• Cupiditas vs Caritas: Human will is driven by two loves — selfish earthly love (Cupiditas) vs selfless, divine love (Caritas).
• Concupiscence: Bodily desires overpower reason, especially sexual desire, as evidence of original sin corrupting moral will.
• Augustine’s exclusivism: Without God’s grace, humans cannot persevere in faith or achieve salvation.
• Grace and predestination: Salvation is granted only to the elect, predestined by God due to humanity’s corrupted nature.
• Biblical support: Pauline texts (e.g. Romans 8, Ephesians 2:8, Philippians 2:13) stress grace as a gift enabling good will and actions.
Paragraph 1: Augustine’s View of Original Sin and Moral Corruption
Evaluation
- Scientific objections
- Counter arguments from observations
- Theodicy critique
- Augustine defends
- Counterpoint
• Scientific objections: Genetic evidence contradicts a literal Fall from two humans; Augustine’s homunculus-based biology is outdated.
• The mystery of procreation undermines Augustine’s biological transmission of sin—he admits ignorance but continues his claim.
• Counter-arguments from observation: Chesterton and Niebuhr argue empirical evidence of original sin exists in human behaviour and societal patterns.
• Theodicy critique: Predestination and inherited sin seem to compromise divine justice and omnibenevolence, especially when punishment affects those not personally culpable (e.g. children with suffering).
• Augustine defends this by appealing to the inscrutable “secret yet just judgement of God,” asking for faith in divine justice beyond human understanding.
• Counterpoint: Augustine’s view can seem fatalistic and undermines human moral responsibility without grace, potentially discouraging moral effort.
Paragraph 2
Pelagius’ Critique and Alternative View on Human Moral Ability
Paragraph 2: Pelagius’ Critique and Alternative View on Human Moral Ability
A01
• Pelagius’ position: Observed sinfulness reflects social upbringing (“educated in evil”), not an innate corrupted nature.
• Humans possess free will and moral ability given by God, as implied by biblical commands to do good and avoid evil.
• Moral progress seen in history (e.g., Martin Luther King’s optimism, Steven Pinker’s evidence of decreasing violence) counters the idea of irresistible sinfulness.
• Pelagius argues predestination and original sin undermine justice: unfair to punish for Adam’s sin, and unjust if humans cannot avoid sinning.
• Humans are praised for freely choosing good works; divine grace assists but does not override free will.
• Biblical response: Augustine argues that grace is necessary for willing and doing good (Philippians 2:13), and love (Caritas) is a divine gift (Romans 5:5), so true moral goodness depends on God’s intervention, not autonomous free will.
• Pelagius’ “divine help” may mean free will; Augustine insists it must mean direct divine intervention in the will to enable goodness.
Paragraph 2: Pelagius’ Critique and Alternative View on Human Moral Ability
Strengths
• Pelagius’ view aligns better with notions of justice and human responsibility, avoiding fatalism.
• It better fits observable moral progress and the role of human effort in ethics.
Paragraph 2: Pelagius’ Critique and Alternative View on Human Moral Ability
Weaknesses + Final line
• However, critics argue Pelagius underestimates the depth of human sinfulness and overestimates unaided free will’s power.
• Augustine’s critique that good acts arise only through God’s love questions the sufficiency of Pelagius’ free will.
• Pelagius’ ambiguity about “divine help” weakens his position; Augustine’s emphasis on grace has strong biblical backing.
• Pelagius’ view better accounts for biblical commands as genuine demands, while Augustine’s raises the question of why commands would be given if humans are incapable without grace.
Conclusion
• Augustine is partly right: human nature shows evidence of moral corruption and a tendency to sin (original sin). This aligns with much biblical and experiential evidence of human failings.
• However, Augustine’s strict interpretation that humans can never be morally good without God’s grace is challenged both scientifically and morally. The Fall story and biological transmission of sin lack empirical support, and the idea of irresistible sin undermines moral responsibility and observable moral progress.
• Pelagius’ view that humans retain free will and the capacity for moral goodness without innate corruption offers a more just and optimistic view consistent with moral experience and biblical commands.
LOA
• Augustine’s doctrine of grace addresses the spiritual dimension of moral goodness as a gift beyond human power but can lead to theological fatalism and challenges to God’s justice.
• The most balanced position is a synthesis: human nature is flawed and prone to sin (Augustinian insight), but humans are also morally responsible agents capable of good by cooperating with divine grace, not utterly incapacitated by sin (a moderated Pelagian view).
• Thus, Augustine is right about human moral weakness but not entirely correct that humans can never be morally good — moral goodness requires divine grace but also human free will and effort.
