Heloise and Abelard: Focus on Right and Wrong

According to Abelard morally wrong action are distinguished by four things. First, there is a mental vice that makes us prone to sin, such as lust and desire, followed second by the sin itself which is dependant on the situation. Third is the will for evil and finally the doing of evil. He holds these separate for “to will and to fulfill the will are not the same, so to sin and to perform the sin are not the same”(2-511-L).

Just as there is a difference between someone who intended to push someone off a train platform but tripped before they could perform the act and someone who succeeded in doing so. There is also a difference between the individual who has intention or desire of pushing someone versus the one who actually performs the act. In this way he separates the intention or will of the agent against the act that they perform. This is important because according to Abelard we only sin when we act out of contempt for God and because contempt for God lies in our decision making process we can only sin when we decide to.

Abelard more fully clarifies this decision making process and explains that it consists of three parts: suggestion, pleasure, and consent. He says that we are led through the three so that initially we are persuaded by a sinful thought which is followed by the pleasure we enjoy in either thinking of it or performing it. Finally it is in consenting, as opposed to resisting or controlling ones self, that we are drawn into and perform sin.

On the contrary Abelard also believes that action performed out of respect or good intention can never be sinful “When you perform an action free of contempt you do nothing wrong” (2-512-L). He gives the example of Jesus’ followers who, despite being told directly n...

... middle of paper ...

...love and care about is precisely because we love and care about them. Her devotion to Abelard and following his interests, while beyond the extent that most would pursue, are still grounded in her love for him – a selfish interest. Still I give Heloise the benefit of the two for she grounds her philosophy in the observed world, in this case her own life, rather than relying on the writings and beliefs of others to make a claim towards what is good, as can be seen by her observance “They consider purity of the flesh a virtue, though virtue belongs not to the body but to the soul. I can win praise in the eyes of men but deserve none before God, who searches our hearts and loins and sees in our darkness. I am judged religious at a time when there is little in religion which is not hypocrisy, when whoever does not offend the opinions of men receives the highest praise.”