Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In this essay, arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques, Kant states that: [2]. Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition (mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius).
Lying is strongly discouraged and forbidden by most interpretations of Christianity. Arguments for this are based on various biblical passages, especially "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", one of the Ten Commandments. Christian theologians disagree as to the exact definition of "lie" and whether it is ever acceptable.
This doctrine of philosophical sin was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690 in his condemnation of the following proposition: "Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason; theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the Divine law.
Generally, the term "lie" carries a negative connotation, and depending on the context a person who communicates a lie may be subject to social, legal, religious, or criminal sanctions; for instance, perjury, or the act of lying under oath, can result in criminal and civil charges being pressed against the perjurer.
The definition of hypocrisy itself is the fundamental question of the relatively new philosophical discussions on hypocrisy. Early answers tended to focus on the deceptive or inconsistent qualities of hypocrisy.
Some Christian theologians respond that natural evil is the indirect result of original sin just as moral evils are. [2] Other theologians even argue that natural evil is directly perpetrated by demonic agents.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Abelard defines peccatum or sin as that which is worthy of God's damnation and must be repented of. [1] However, he also argues that the content of peccatum proprie (proper sin) is subjective: one is guilty of "scorn for God" if one does not do what one sincerely believes God requires one to do, even if one's beliefs are erroneous.