Rational Self Interest Explained

[LouisIX]

Right is that which exists properly, according to its nature.  Wrong is that which rebels and causes chaos and disorder.

[Probius]

Right is that which exists properly, according to its nature.  Wrong is that which rebels and causes chaos and disorder.

Maybe you can shed light on something I don't quite understand.  If something is against human nature, I can see how that might lead away from happiness.  But, why is there a need to call it a sin and add punishment in the afterlife?  It seems that if something leads away from happiness, then that is the punishment in itself and there is no need to add to it.

[LouisIX]

Right is that which exists properly, according to its nature.  Wrong is that which rebels and causes chaos and disorder.

Maybe you can shed light on something I don't quite understand.  If something is against human nature, I can see how that might lead away from happiness.  But, why is there a need to call it a sin and add punishment in the afterlife?  It seems that if something leads away from happiness, then that is the punishment in itself and there is no need to add to it.

It's not added to it.  Man's nature is both corporeal and spiritual, thus the effects of hurting our nature are both spiritual and material.

[Probius]

Right is that which exists properly, according to its nature.  Wrong is that which rebels and causes chaos and disorder.

Maybe you can shed light on something I don't quite understand.  If something is against human nature, I can see how that might lead away from happiness.  But, why is there a need to call it a sin and add punishment in the afterlife?  It seems that if something leads away from happiness, then that is the punishment in itself and there is no need to add to it.

It's not added to it.  Man's nature is both corporeal and spiritual, thus the effects of hurting our nature are both spiritual and material.

So, the spiritual punishment is not something external, but rather inherent in the act?

[LouisIX]

Right is that which exists properly, according to its nature.  Wrong is that which rebels and causes chaos and disorder.

Maybe you can shed light on something I don't quite understand.  If something is against human nature, I can see how that might lead away from happiness.  But, why is there a need to call it a sin and add punishment in the afterlife?  It seems that if something leads away from happiness, then that is the punishment in itself and there is no need to add to it.

It's not added to it.  Man's nature is both corporeal and spiritual, thus the effects of hurting our nature are both spiritual and material.

So, the spiritual punishment is not something external, but rather inherent in the act?

At the risk of over-simplifying, yes.

[Probius]

Okay, I understand what you're saying then.  But, this still can't be proven.  We can't prove that a soul exists, and we can't prove that an action deemed sinful by The Church does in fact hurt the soul.  This is all speculation.