Qaz, I’m not trying to prove that any particular wrong action is harmful. The suggestion that arose is that if you don’t know that your action if harmful, then you are not sinning. I am saying that this belief does not hold water. The fact that you are unaware of any harm that results from your action doesn’t imply that there is no harm caused by your action.
For example, in a recent post, I lashed out at Maintenance Man in anger. I wasn’t aware that this might harm him in any way. But perhaps it did. If so, then I sinned in doing that.
Explain how it’s harmful.
We are assuming you don’t even know that it is harmful.
If you don’t know that it’s harmful, how can you explain how it is harmful
Back to my example. Suppose MM was deeply hurt by the tone of my post, and that it was an attack on his self-esteem. That would have harmed him, not physically, but in his mind. It would have been a putdown.
I didn’t think about that at the time, but I considered that possibility later. If it did hurt his ego, then unwittingly I sinned by doing it. As the saying goes, “Ignorance is no excuse.”
On the other hand there may be cases in which I wasn’t sinning. Suppose in giving a person what I thought was his medicine, I had unwittingly given him poison. That one is questionable, although a court in law, while not charging me with murder, might still give me some kind of consequences such as a number of years in prison.
@paidion once again you have failed to explain how checking “yes, I read the terms and conditions” is harmful when one really has not.
Again, I ask, "Why did they ask you to affirm that you had read the terms and conditions? Is it a mere formality, or does the company benefit in some way? If they don’t benefit, they why do they ask? If they do benefit, then by falsely checking “yes”, are you not negating that benefit?
Don, maybe you could just tell qaz why you think his position is sin.
Even if I (or you) read them, do you UNDERSTAND them? Most are in legalize terminology. And I - for one - am NOT a professional lawyer…
Let me quote a little bit, from the article:
Buried in the terms and conditions of the free network was a “Herod clause”: in exchange for the WiFi, “the recipient agreed to assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity”.
Agustín Reyna of the European consumer-rights organisation BEUC told me why: “It’s a consumer contract. No matter what you call them, it’s a contract.”
To get a sense of just how much legal chaff we’re buried under, I decided to spend a week of my life not checking the box marked “I have read and agreed to the terms and conditions” until I had actually, you know, read them. Worse, I would do it retroactively, sitting down to read the T&Cs of services I’d been using for years.
The end results: I collected 146,000 words of legalese – enough to fill three quarters of Moby Dick, just to explain what I can and can’t do online – from just 33 terms-of-service documents. Each document only took me about 15 minutes to read (or, if I’m honest, to skim-read), but I still spent well over eight hours of the week just sitting reading page after page of dry, impenetrable prose.
P.S. One could “legally,” say they read, the “terms and conditions”…if they read the phrase “terms and conditions”. And be honest and truthful - to boot! Although many companies use phrases like this instead:
I understand, accept, and agree to the following terms and conditions t
There is NO “read” in the wording.
I’m not looking for loopholes.
EULA’s are unjust and everyone knows that. No one fully understands them. I think it is important for Christian’s to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. It is my opinion that criminal law is primarily what morality is all about it. Typically criminal actions are immoral actions (though not always). Although in the case of civil law, this is most definitely not the case at all.
If I speed, I do not sin. But I do set myself up for a ticket. If someone claims I may endanger people, I say: Getting into a car already does that. Being alive already does that! Everything we do in life comes with potential dangers. If you see sin as something as trivial as speeding, then I’d suggest you take the next step: walk everywhere. After all, getting into that car has the “potential” to harm someone and if any action that could harm someone is considered sin (as is the argument for speeding) then all actions that have the potential to harm someone should be ceased at once. I mean, how far do you want to carry this argument?
There is enough sin in this world that we ought to care about real sin, not trivial stuff. I know people who are careful to go the speed limit because “It would be a sin not too” and yet these people have much more obvious and glaring moral deficiencies that they don’t seem to notice (blind spots).
Worry about the big stuff, and stop fretting over trivial stuff. Well, that’s what I say.
And one should ask an RC or EO priest…and a Protestant minister…whether THEY think that saying that one read the Internet “terms and conditions”…when they did not…is a lie or a sin. I think they would agree with you.
I was once stopped by an officier…for making an illegal U-Turn. But I keep arguing with the officer. I said that I planned to go straight…but the sign said: “No, U-Turn here”.
Correct, Gabe. I also agree with much of the rest of your post.
However, I am not aware of anyone “fretting over trivial stuff.” Rather the discussion seems to revolve around whether some peoples’ actions (that some regard as trivial) are or are not sin—that is, whether or not these actions actually harm others.
No, no, no paidion… People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It’s not my job to prove I’m not doing harm. It’s yours to prove I’m doing harm if you continue to claim something I do is harmful.
Similar to lying on terms and conditions forms, what if on a job application I lie that I’ve never been fired, even though the last time I was fired was over 10 years ago and it has zero reflection on my current work ethic? How am I harming the employer by lying?
Human presumption doesn’t matter. Actual guilt or the lack thereof is the reality. Unless lying is over-ridden by a higher moral imperative, then lying is wrong (even though you might not see wherein that lie is harmful.)
Employers need to be aware of the work abilities of their employees. What if 50 incapable persons lied to a prospective employer, saying that they had never been fired. Do you not see that the employer would be harmed if he hired them?
@paidion it’s fine if you think all lying is wrong unless overriden by a higher moral imperative. But if you wish to maintain that such lies are harmful you need to back your claim up. So far you haven’t. So I will ask again, how does lying about reading some website’s terms and conditions harm anyone?
Regarding your question, what if all the prospective employees were fired more than 7 years ago and had maintained stable employment since that time? You love to say we’re not judged based on our past behavior but our present character (or something like that). What if every employer asked people if they’ve ever been fired and discriminated against those who answered yes honestly? Do you think people who have made past mistakes should be consigned to begging for the rest of their lives?
Well you do open the door to the idea that if lying is superseded by a higher moral idea, than it could possibly be okay…
Look at this…
2Chron 18:22 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”
2Thess 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,…
No. But employers try to ensure that those they hire are going to do their job well in order to maximize their pecuniary advantage. If a lot of prospective employees who have been fired for their inadequate work habits are hired by an employer, the employer is going to lose money. All of this implies that employees ought to tell the truth about their past work experience.
qaz said:[quote]You love to say we’re not judged based on our past behavior but our present character (or something like that).
What do you mean?
Not if those employees repented. It’s hilariously ironic how you always talk about the importance of repentance and how all punishment should be remedial, yet here you are arguing for employers discriminating against people based on things that have zero bearing on workers’ current work ethics.