If each moral choice a person makes is free (as in free will) it seems to follow that the sum or totality of all those choices is also free. In other words, if each individual sin can be avoided, then sinning in its entirety can be avoided. I thought maybe there was an abstract way to represent necessity in the sum of all choices implying necessity in at least one of the particular choices.
Can you eat lava?
- Yes: But it'll incinerate my mouth and kill me
- No: It'll incinerate my mouth and kill me The Philosophical concept is, Can you eat lava. There's two answers The Logical sum is: Lava will incinerate your mouth upon ingestion...it's your choice to put it in your mouth.
Sin cannot be avoided without rejection of all inhibitions or willful actions. Rather than worry about approaching sin, worry about addressing the circumstances that encourage sinful behavior. The Seven Sins are a rock paper scissors, inhibit one, you encourage another.
Immanuel Kant did draw this exact conclusion, that if a given ought can be fulfilled, then the set of all such given oughts can be fulfilled. Now he also says that sin is radically tethered to human nature, and unavoidable inside of time.
But now he says that real choices are not made inside of time, that the appearance of multiple choices being made is just the application of a general choice to particular issues, but this application is not chosen as such. Having made our eternal imperfect decision, we perforce exemplify this decision in daily life.
Unfortunately, he also thinks that we sort of can make a second eternal choice, but he concludes that if our original choice is inexplicable, so too this one---but here we don't even have the analogy of general principles and particular inferences to help describe this second maxim in the first place.