


































Microsoft Word - 8SinsofSocietyEdited.docx


 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2010, VOL. 2 (ISSUE 1: 77-81) 

The Sins of Society 

Linda Rasmussen 

Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 

 

Moral judgments are examined though social moral 

standards and judgments based on social structures 

according to religion. This study addresses the social 

structures and religious base of “The Seven Deadly Sins” in 

the attempt to understand how society accepts and rejects 

the seven deadly sins in terms of social structures and 

behaviors. 

 

 
1
Sociology does not determine moral 

judgments, society pronounces moral 

judgments. These moral judgments are 

based on social structures such as 

religion and families base moralities, 

while sociology is neither a religion nor 

a family.  In this manner, sociologists 

claim to eliminate the pressures to 

determine morality; they are neutral in 

the manner of sin.  Sin and evil are 

exempt from sociological text, which is 

intriguing to read a book that defines the 

“seven deadly sins.”  The Seven Deadly 

Sins:  Society and Evil by Stanford M. 

Lyman revolves around the seven deadly 

sins in the context of sociological 

researchers. 

Historically, the seven deadly 

sins were first listed in early Christian 

teachings.  The lists of sins are sloth, 

lust, anger, pride, envy, gluttony and 

greed. These sins were devised as 

paramount to abstain from these actions. 

                                                 
1
 Linda Rasmussen is a graduate student at the 

Department of Sociology. This paper was 

originally submitted SOC 514, taught by 

Professor Terry Kendal. 

Christian philosophers would write and 

preach of the importance of abstaining 

from these sins.  “In this manner, rules 

were created in which to abstain from 

these seven sins (Lyman).”    

The Seven Deadly Sins is a 

creative manner in order to describe 

sociological concepts.  The description 

of sin is provided with many descriptive 

manners of the seven deadly sins and 

created on a religious base. While 

religious values tend to deviate from 

sociological research, religious values 

were included in this book in seemingly 

non-religious writing.  Auguste Comte, 

one of the early nineteenth century 

sociologists, claimed that societies were 

evolving to a society of finding faith in 

science rather than religion (Lyman 1).  

Science of sociology would solve 

society’s tribulations. 

 According to Lyman, Comte was 

incorrect in his analysis that religion 

would have been eliminated in 

importance.  Religion is intertwined in 

society, thus society has not eliminated 

religion. While one may not be religious, 



THE SINS OF SOCIETY by Linda Rasmussen                                                                78 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2010, VOL. 2 (Issue 1: 77-81) 

this does not preclude that these 

religious beliefs will be eliminated.  The 

“Protestant Ethic" is an example where 

one could not be religious, but practice 

Protestant beliefs.  The one who saves 

the penny in order to gain capital is an 

example of practicing religious beliefs in 

a secular manner.  According to Max 

Weber, these beliefs are rooted in 

Protestant religious ideology. 

  This type of Protestant belief 

could be interwoven in the evil of greed, 

since one is acquiring capital for 

himself.  Evil is described in the terms of 

anomie.  It is in this manner in which 

people have escaped the ties from 

society.  These ties constrain people to 

behave in a manner that is considered 

socially acceptable.  When someone has 

anomie, there must be punishment 

affixed in order for the act to be 

considered evil (Lyman 4). It is 

fascinating that the word “Acedia” is 

utilized frequently in the book in 

reference to the sin of sloth.  Acedia is a 

Greek word that means “withdrawal of 

one’s self (Lyman 8).” 

In this manner one is taught 

religious and colloquial manners in 

which to follow society’s rules.  

Religions preach to obey religious teach-

ings, while sociological researchers 

persuade people to obey their own 

teachings. The sociological and religious 

teachings can be similar in that people 

are taught similar behavioral methods.  

People are taught not to personify 

“sloth” as one of the deadly sins, while 

sociological teachings utilize different 

terminology.  Marx describes how in a 

communist society, members of the 

society would be industrious and not 

idle.  Marx does not utilize the word 

“sloth,” (Lyman 15) but he does indicate 

that industrious behavior is the goal in a 

communist society.     

This perspective perpetuates the 

idea that there is a sense of morality in 

society.  While researchers may never 

indicate that there is a definite right and 

wrong, there is the subtle right and 

wrong in research methods.  Researchers 

such as Marx have their own perspective 

of morality, which can seep into 

research.  Researchers are in society that 

binds them to follow societal rules.  The 

sense of having a neutral perspective on 

morality can be difficult to accomplish.   

Therefore, free will versus 

societal influences is not always de-

lineated. He describes these influences in 

the relationship to the sin: “sloth.”  

“Sloth” is akin to boredom in routines 

and in creating nothing different in life.  

The description is provided in the way 

“the individual has become in a mere 

cog in an enormous organization of 

things and power which tear from his 

hands all progress (Lyman 19).”  It may 

be difficult to escape these ties that 

closely bind the self.  These ties are in 

the colloquial and religious realms of 

society providing stability in society 

where the goal is for societal members to 

not acquire anomie.   

These influences created future 

themes about the societal influences on 

people. Lyman writes how most 

“mankind the tides flow toward the 

farther shore of unfreedom (Lyman 

120).”  In “unfreedom,” it is infinitely 

reasonable to assume that humans are 

not responsible for the self, rather the 

society is responsible for the self 

(Lyman 119).  People full of anger are 

created by societal forces, rather than 

individual attributes.  Some people are 



THE SINS OF SOCIETY by Linda Rasmussen                                                                79 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2010, VOL. 2 (Issue 1: 77-81) 

“fated” to belong to these angry masses 

(Lyman 120). 

While these societal influences 

are strong, it may appear difficult to 

understand the reasons for evil.  It could 

be that society changes views of evil.  

Lyman writes that Aristotle had the 

perspective that “ambitious” was when 

“men desire both more and less than 

they deserve (Lyman 139).”  While the 

sin of pride was viewed of the great evil 

of being ambitious, society has had a 

slightly different view of pride.  In 

today’s society, it is necessary to have a 

certain amount of pride in order to attain 

a profession.  A perspective employer 

needs to be guaranteed that the per-

spective employee has above average 

skills in order to succeed in the 

profession.  In the quandary of the 

prospective employee, the employee 

must be humble as to not create an 

arrogant persona.  Therefore, the sin of 

pride is viewed as a confusing attribute 

in the example of the perspective 

employee. 

In another example, society has 

created a different perspective of 

“Sloth”. It has decreased the enormity of 

the sin to a mere emotion (Lyman 24).  

The emotion of boredom, which is not 

considered one of the sins that are 

constantly taught in religious sermons in 

modern society.  Lyman writes how 

students in classrooms are bored, but 

that is acceptable.  The sin of the slothful 

person begins with the evil of being a 

sloth.  The definition of the word is now 

akin to lazy.  It is not a paramount evil to 

be lazy, it is thought of as an irksome 

trait.  It is the example of the student 

who always attends class late, but the 

student is not thought of as an evil 

person rather thought of as acquiring an 

irksome trait.  The student will not be 

severely punished or ostracized by 

society.  

The Seven Deadly Sins: Society 

and Evil provides definition of mores. 

Would one’s own mores be different, if 

one lived in a different society?  The 

book explains the different historical 

meanings of the seven deadly sins.  Lust 

is described historically how lust is evil.   

A virgin is considered on a higher 

hierarchy than the married woman, 

presumably having sexual intercourse 

with her husband (Lyman 85). The 

allowances for sexual intercourse are 

given in only the opportunity to produce 

children, thus allowing for lust.  The 

history of lustful acts begins with the 

virgin and as time goes on; there are 

more allowances for sexual intercourse.  

If one lived in the life of the esteemed 

virgins, then would one desire to always 

remain celibate?  Would there be fewer 

men and women desiring to acquire 

romantic relationships? 

 While celibacy was esteemed, 

the lust is allowable in order to 

procreate. These allowances are pro-

viding the parameters of categorizing 

people who can produce children.  “Sons 

and daughters are encouraged in 

countless ways to seek romantic love 

and erotic satisfactions among the 

strangers whom they encounter in school 

(Lyman 79).”  Therefore, brothers and 

sisters do not have romantic encounters 

among each other.  In this respect, this 

sin is lust.  Lust is only allowable among 

strangers in specific parameters and is 

necessary in order to produce children, 

making this sin contradictory. 

 African-Americans and their 

relation to discrimination is an example 

of this, which creates difficulties for 



THE SINS OF SOCIETY by Linda Rasmussen                                                                80 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2010, VOL. 2 (Issue 1: 77-81) 

African-Americans to acquiring social 

mobility (Lyman 122).  Lyman provides 

the example of the research conducted 

by Dollard.  In Dollard’s research, anger 

is a response due to the condition of 

frustration (Lyman 122).  Frustration 

could arise in such experiences as 

discrimination. Some African-

Americans have become angry due to 

discrimination.  Therefore, the evil of 

anger is not necessarily an individual 

choice; rather, it is an outcome due to 

societal influences.   

Lyman writes that these deviant 

terms are not considered sins; rather, 

they are given a different wording in the 

social sciences.  Lyman writes, “greed 

reforms itself as ‘the spirit of 

capitalism’: gluttony fades into 

addiction” (Lyman 119).   The social 

sciences do not refer to deadly sins such 

as gluttony in research; rather, it is 

termed as addiction.  This evil is only 

considered evil when there are sanctions 

in society.  Therefore, the sociologist is 

neutral to sin because they do not 

determine sin; rather society determines 

sin in sanctions. 

The author presumes that the 

deep voices, strong chin, and a beard 

tend to express anger.  The author is 

describing the male gender, which 

receives more authority than females.  It 

is not necessarily how the males look; 

rather, it is the fact that they are males 

that causes the greater threat of 

aggression (Lyman 132).  This only 

describes the Power Elite, who can 

exercise more power thus allowing for 

expression of anger.  Anger is a social 

creation that allows for anger among 

males, since men are only a product of 

the society that creates them.  It appears 

in this context that females are 

considered the greater evil when they 

experience anger since they do not have 

the same allowances for anger as men.   

Another form of anger is the sin 

of envy.  One of the examples of envy is 

ethnic groups not assimilating and not 

becoming part of the “melting pot 

(Lyman 201).”  An example is provided 

where Rose Hum Lee noticed that 

Chinese people were not assimilating 

while the Japanese people “achieved 

much greater integration into white 

society (Lyman 201).”  In a capitalist 

society such as America, it is helpful to 

the bourgeoisie to have a working class.  

Therefore, it is helpful to have ethnic 

groups blaming other ethnic groups for 

not assimilating, rather than blaming the 

bourgeoisie who make it difficult to 

succeed in this country.  The sin of envy 

is advantageous for the bourgeoisie to 

encourage this sin.  

It is difficult in the book to 

discern opinion versus researched 

analysis of concepts.  Lyman references 

from the book Native Son where the 

opinion according to Lyman is that of an 

African-American man who “uninten-

tionally” kills a Caucasian woman 

(Lyman 117).  In the book, another 

perspective reveals the African- 

American man using a pillow to cover 

the woman’s face until she stopped 

moving.  Doing so would logically kill 

the victim.  The author of Native Son 

writes, “frantically, he caught a corner of 

the pillow and brought it to her lips 

(Wright 97),” thus allowing for her to 

suffocate and die.  The woman did not 

indicate that she wanted to have her head 

covered; rather, the character was 

attempting to make the woman quiet.  In 

the book, the author Richard Wright 

writes from the perspective that it is 



THE SINS OF SOCIETY by Linda Rasmussen                                                                81 

 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2010, VOL. 2 (Issue 1: 77-81) 

from the unintentional killer.  It is an 

interesting perspective that Lyman does 

not mention that the character also 

“unintentionally” killed another woman, 

an African-American woman.  Although 

at the finality of the book, it does appear 

that the man did commit a sin.  The man 

received the death penalty for the killing 

of the Caucasian woman.  Perhaps this is 

an example of Lyman’s own sense of 

morality seeping into his book.  As he 

has provided examples of sociologists 

with their own viewpoints of morality 

seeping into research, he has created 

similar research in his book.   

Parsons would assert that it is 

functional to have a high degree of 

control over the society’s members 

(Lyman 289).   Functionalism is what 

Parsons referred to as parts of society 

working together in a cohesive manner.  

This is the similar manner in which body 

parts work in a cohesive manner in order 

for the body to function. Deviant 

behavior in functionalism maintains that 

for social order, there must be positive 

and negative rewards, which would then 

discern what is required in society 

(Lyman 78).  Lyman writes how this 

control is woven in the sin of lust 

according to Parsons.  “Parsons points to 

the necessity for a mother ‘to control her 

own regressive needs (Lyman 79).”  

While Parsons asserted that society must 

work in parts to maintain the function of 

societies, there is the difficulty of 

determining how to behave in these 

parts.  In American society, there has 

never been a shared religion making it 

difficult to have a conclusiveness of 

morals in religious context (Lyman 292).  

The conclusiveness of morals is to the 

extent of when legal matters can be 

imposed on society members.  For 

example, lust is illegal in rape.  It is legal 

for people to engage in extramarital 

affairs, but it may not be acceptable for 

some people.  Extramarital affairs cannot 

be enforced in legalities, which can 

become complicated if one spouse finds 

this form of lust acceptable while the 

other spouse does not.  This may be an 

enforcement of exclusion from the 

marriage to the degree of divorce. 

In conclusion, the seven deadly 

sins are widely used in society.  While 

the seven deadly sins are not given the 

same importance in the nineteenth 

century, these deadly sins are still 

utilized. Lustful acts are still repri-

manded in the extent of penitentiary 

punishment and other lustful acts can 

receive punishment in the extent of 

group exclusion.  Morality is woven into 

research in the example of Karl Marx.  

We have our morality, which is 

impossible to escape these societal 

pressures to follow the definition of right 

and wrong.  It is not only an individual 

decision to decide what is right and 

wrong; rather it is formed on 

socialization of the self.  It makes the 

self wonder how society might change 

morality in the future. 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Lyman, Stanford M.  The Seven Deadly 

Sins: Society and Evil.  New  

York:  General Hall Inc., 1989. 

Wright, Richard.  Native Son.  

New York:  Harper Colins, 1993. 

 

 


