ConfessionEssay title: ConfessionAugustine on his own view stole the fruit for the mere enjoyment of the sin and theft that the stealing involved. He says in (II,4)“Behold, now let my heart tell you what itlooked for there, that I should be evilwithout purpose and there should be nocause for my evil, but evil itself. Foulwas the evil, and I loved it.”Augustine knew that what he was doing at the time of the crime but he did not care to think about the outcome of his actions. Augustine only cared that the deed which he participated in was indeed forbidden. Himself and his companions stole the fruit even if they had more desirable fruit to eat at their own homes.
Augustine states this in his Confessions (II,4) that“For I stole a thing of which I had plentyof my own and much better quality. Nor didI wish to enjoy the thing which I desired togain by theft, but rather to enjoy the actualtheft and sin of theft.”The mere thrill of the theft and sin was more desirable than the fruit which they stole. The fruit was sought as an opportunity to be deceitful and to gain self enjoyment from it.
Augustine, however realizes that the theft that he committedfor the enjoyment of the sin of the crime was indeed unlawful. He thinks of why couldn’t he have received enjoyment by committing a more lawful act. In Augustines Confessions (II,6) He states:
“ O rottenness! O monstrous life and deepestdeath! Could a thing give pleasure whichcould not be done lawfully, and which wasdone for no other reason because it wasunlawful?”This shows that Augustine is starting to think about his actions. At the time of the act he was thinking of how much his actions pleased him. In book six of his confessions Augustine starts to think about the actions he had committed and how they were unlawful, not only in society but also in the world that God
created. However as Augustine starts to show remorse for his sins it does not change the fact that he stole the fruit from the tree for the pleasure of sin.
According to Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics, a self indulgent person is led on by his own choice, since he believes that he should always pursue the pleasures of the moment(1147a). According to Aristotle, and viewing the crime in which Augustine committed, Augustine acted in self – indulgence or vice. Augustine knew that the crime that he was going to commit, the crime of stealing fruit, was indeed wrong and was a sin. He went ahead and committed the crime anyway, and he did it for pleasure. He was caught up in the moment of the act. Nothing else mattered at that time except for the act itself and the enjoyment that he was going to gain from it. Aristotle in this case would
categorize him as acting in self-indulgence. Whether Augustine knew it or not his actions were pre-meditated, carried out, and enjoyed whether the action was good or bad. This would make his actions actions of vice. Augustine acted without taking into account the the theft later on in life could affect his
conscious. Augustine at the time of his sin was indeed caught up in the moment.Augustine states in (II,8):“What fruit had I, so wretched of a boy,from those deeds which I now blush torecall, especially from that theft itselfand nothing else? For the theft itself wasnothing, and by that very fact I was moremiserable. Yet alone, by myself I wouldnot have done it such, I remember, my stateof mind at the time. Alone I would have neverdone it.”This shows how if he were alone, Augustine would never acted the way he did at the time of the crime. This brings into account what today’s society calls “peer preasure.” At the time of the incident, Augustine wanted to impress or be close with his peers. He states in (II,8)
:‖Then, I shall go the same way. Why, he said, did I choose to deceive other men with the words,‡and that you should go to him that he made out my word,‡when he was not himself in his place? It seems obvious that he felt that he must do to others what he could as well. At that time he was so accustomed that he never looked at the person he knew. ”On the contrary, his reputation, especially if he ever made out his word to anyone, would probably still beworth. That of John was certainly very well known, and was well liked by some. ”If John had become a friend of ours, his reputation might have suffered. But by the words of John,‡by the example of those with whom he shared his name,‡I know that this reputation would not have perished.”‡(2) ‒ It seems evident, therefore, that one of the motives which, by and by, enabled him to deceive this other, was his own desire to impress others with his own words. There was a sudden sensation of guilt, and, perhaps, a sense of being ashamed of what his peers had already said. The whole circumstance proved that he felt something was wrong, but in these moments of remorse he did not see it. It seemed to the rest of us, that he wanted to deceive by what he had already done, but rather by the words uttered by others, and the acts he had done. His conscience had given him a new reason for his act of impugning us. It seems, that he did not look at anyone with what one told him, and that his life could not have lasted long for the reasons which he had put forth.” This is what I say of “self-confrontation.” For if you want to be careful of something, do so only in a way that prevents what you do from happening. Even so, then, it is enough to say nothing of what you are doing. It does not mean (2-6)that you cannot remember what your deeds have already been—as much as it does (3-9). The only things which you may not forget are the facts of your life, as well as the things which you know about that life. And so he who does evil to others without knowing them is not his master.‡ (3)“Now if it be said, then there is an explanation for this—a common and universal principle which has been practiced with all peoples. If it be accepted, it seems to make the offender