My views on objective morality

[bennyboy]

Because you referred to it as your point of origin...you attempted to explain those sins and -why- they were sins, as such.  If you're actually explaining something else, use some other word, some other framework.  You're basically telling a spanish speaker that rojo doesn't mean red, it means some other thing that you, an english speaker, will define forthwith.  If sin is the framework, our wills are fallen, and subverting them is the goal, not a problem to be avoided by prohibitions against sin.

I know that you're trying to imagine what they were trying to "get at", with the concept....but don't you think they might have been trying to get at precisely what they said, rather than your revision which ignores what they said?  I think, in this case...you're just going to have to let them be wrong, rather than try to force their square peg into your round hole.  Sin doesn't subvert our will, our will is to sin.  Now, I'm sure you'll have something much more intelligent to say than anyone who ever commented on that ever had to say, but you really aren't talking about the same thing at all.

I clearly never set the 7 Deadly sins as my "point of origin." Read again. Let's forget about the catholicism, and look exclusively at the list divorced of the religious context, okay?

-lust
-gluttony
-greed
-wrath
-sloth
-envy
-pride

I'd say these represent a pretty good list of those instincts which tend to subvert the will, and lead to dysfunction.

Where that dysfunction poses a burden to the species or to genetic fitness, there's a problem.  Now, we may have individual ideas about what constitute "burden" or "dysfunction," but that may be more a limitation of our ability to see consequence for behaviors in a complex social environment than a lack of a hypothetical best-case behavioral system.