After Leibnitz we do not find any original sys tems of thcodicy. and the problem of sin tends to he considered in connection with psychological ethics and sociology. its subjective character and its reflex action on social life are the chief matters of interest to the more modern mind. We notice a disinclination to regard sin as a cosmical o• metaphysical reality, and a decided effort to understand its psychological nature. Thus physical conditions are now admittedly agreed to be important predisposing factors of sin. The part played by choice, by feelings of fear, and by the primitive passions in perverting hu man nature is also fully acknowledged. especially in determining the intention of the act of sin and its relation to the universal disapproval that accompanies wrongdoing (guilt). The tendency to trace all sins to one common root in human nature is illustrated in Julius idea that the root of all sin is selfishness, i.e. the willful choice of the ego as the supreme object of love.
The complex character of sin is. however, from the psychological point of view, nearer the truth than this theory of a single motive. Besides all this, the vast social signifieance of the fact of sin has been fully recognized, as appears in all modern systems of penology, in which remedial measures are applied to the correction of the habitual criminal. It is also seen in the impor tame now attached to the moral education of the young as a means of combating the liability to wrong-doing in the human race.
Consult (besides the ethical works referred to under Ernles, and the older discussions of Plato, Aristotle. Epictetus, Cicero, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz) : D1ii11er, Die ehristliche Lchre der Siinde (2d cd.. Bremen, 1888) ; Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory (London. lSS5) ; Manning, in and Its Consequences (ib., 1892) ; Adler, Mora/ Education of Children (New York, 1S98) ; Ten nant. Origin and Propagation of Sin (London, 1902). See also EVIL; DEVIL.