The Seven Deadly Sins are:
In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis opines that no sin can produce a true pleasure. I suspect he is right, or mostly right. But I am willing to be convinced.
Your thoughts?
I think it falls entirely to your definition of ‘true pleasure’, and I suspect Lewis conveniently defines it out of the way. Why would not gluttony, for example, result in pleasure?
It sounds like wishful thinking on the part of CS Lewis, along the lines of “no true Scotsman” arguments.
Sloth? A Lazy Day is one of life’s greatest pleasures!
I’ve had some significant pleasures in my life that involved lust and gluttony (though not at the same time).
Lust is very pleasurable.
I think the answers to this question is going to be highly subjective. After all, we do not all define pleasure in the same way.
If a thundering orgasm resulting from lust isn’t a true pleasure, then nothing is IMHO. I’m guessing some exclude pleasures of the flesh from the list of “true” pleasures, but I’m not one.
I don’t believe in the concept of sin, but as an excercise if I take your 7 examples I would have to say yes, of course, [committing] sin [can] produce a pleasure.
When people say things like “true pleasure” they are making what I think of as weasel arguments. That definition allows them to explain away any counter examples you come up with using the everyday usage of words. They don’t call it the true Scotsman fallacy for nothing.
[wodehouse]**Giles ** rings the bell and is entitled to the cigar or co-conut, according to his choice[/wodehouse]
I suspect that the “catch” is not in the definition of “pleasure”, as in the No True Scotsman explainations given by others, but rather in the definition of what constitues a “sin”.
I have no idea how Lewis is using the term - I assume in a Christian manner - but to me at least defining something as a “sin” means it is somehow pathological or otherwise disfunctional. Not all sex is “lust”, not all enjoyment of food is “gluttony”.
Thus, the statement really means ‘pursuing what may, in other circumstances, be a healthy pleasure in a manner that is pathological or compulsive is not really pleasurable’.
What Screwtape actually says is that the devils can’t produce a true pleasure - the only pleasures they can come up with are distortions of those God has created. Thus Lust, for instance, is a perversion of the natural sexual desire God creates and approves of. Similarly there is nothing wrong with taking pleasure in eating - it’s only when you give it too much significance that you cross the line into Gluttony, and it’s highly debatable whether, say, continuing to eat when you are already full actually confers more pleasure than eating enough to satisify need after you have been exercising hard. Again, Sloth can’t compare with the satisfaction of a well-earned eight hours after a day’s hard slog.
They’re all, more or less, sins of excess - instead of taking pleasure in what is necessary and right, people make this or that pleasure the focus of their whole existence.
I do think there’s a certain amount of truth to that statement. Now, I don’t subscribe to the “seven deadly sins” dogma (because I’m not Catholic), but my understanding of the seven deadly sins is more in reference to an excessiveness and a life-style that is largely based on that concept, not necessarily in and of itself (though some are). For instance, Sloth doesn’t mean it’s a mortal sin to have a lazy Day; hell, we’re commanded to have the sabbath and not to work once a week. For gluttony, similarly, there are feasts associated with many biblical holidays. For Wrath, even both OT God and NT Jesus were angry.
Now, the way I’d interpret what C.S. Lewis said, is essentially that sins are “pleasures of the flesh” and thus temporary, fleeting, and ultimately unfulfilling. Meanwhile, a “true pleasure” is that of spiritual fulfillment, which obviously, if you’re of the religious persuasion, is the antithesis of a life of sin.
Of course, to a certain extent, you’re right because, even in that light, you still suffer from a the “True Scotsman fallacy”. Then again, since when were spiritual matters ever hard cut and logical?
ETA: I see Malacandra probably did a better job explaining the sin concept than I did.
Personally, I think this is something of an after-the-fact rationalization, and that the original concept is rooted in the belief that pleasure is, in and of itself, sinful. Later thinkers, however, recognized (consciously or unconsciously) that a life without pleasure is hardly worth living, and that advancing this philosophy would be a quick way to lose the majority of one’s adherents, and therefore responded with the “excessive pleasure” adaptation.
The Grand Theft Auto series are still some of the best-selling platform games of all time, right? Considering that their entire plots revolve around greed, lust, wrath, envy and pride, I’d say there are a few million joyful gamers who would disagree with ol’ Jack. 
I suppose I could rationalize it by saying that each of the Deadly Sins listed takes a normal and healthy appetite and distorts it into something grossly unhealthy.
For instance, Lust would ordinarily be Attraction, that lovely zing you get on seeing the person you like. Taken to extremes, Lust becomes a sexual obsession and addiction, and the pleasure it creates is destructive, therefore not “true pleasure”.
Gluttony distorts ordinary Appetite until the person is compelled to eat to the exclusion of everything else, and that compulsion destroys the true pleasure taken in good food eaten for good reasons to support good health.
I can’t pin a term down to describe Greed in its harmless phase, but it exists. The things we acquire that satisfy a desire for material wealth mean that we have a viable economy, meaningful work, and a life of relative comfort. Again, when it’s distorted, all these things are thrown out of balance, and the things acquired become the end, not the means.
Sloth is a distortion of the rest necessary to balance out life. While the Torah and the Bible mandate the Sabbath, a day of true rest, those who take that rest out of proportion fail to do the work necessary to keep body and mind whole as well as take part in their community. Whatever pleasure is gained by rest is negated by the loss of those qualities won by healthy effort.
Wrath is the outgrowth of anger, and anger is a healthy, appropriate emotion to many circumstances and spurs us to change those things we find unjust and unfair. Wrath, however, consumes a person and destroys their ability to mete justice with deliberation, objectivity, and fairness. Whatever pleasure might be gained by, oh, cutting a rapist to pieces, penis first, is poisoned by the fact that the wrathful person is now also a monster.
Envy, or the baby version of it - again, I can’t think of an appropriate word - spurs us to improve ourselves. Envy is admiration taken too far and turned destructive. Instead of matching the person we envy, we try to destroy them, and most of us, I believe, find less pleasure in things we steal that in those we earn.
Pride/vanity is a shell covering insecurity, and those who indulge in pride may feel like they present a seamless, perfect facade to the world, their self-knowledge makes it impossible for them to relax and enjoy their talents and attributes. Instead, they must always be on guard, defensive, and querelous to make sure no one gives them less than their due, because then others might question what they really are due.
So, I think C. S. Lewis is on to something. But that’s just me.
First off, the “Seven Deadly Sins” is a piece of populist tripe, which is only loosely grounded in Catholic theology, and is not a part of any bit of our dogma.
The “Seven Deadly Sins” is a catchier name for the more accurate “Seven Cardinal Vices”. The vices aren’t really evil in and of themselves. However, they inevitably lead towards real evil if left unchecked, because they lead to morally disordered actions. To desire resources isn’t evil; to cheat others to get them is. To feel sexual desire isn’t evil; to fantazise about and flirt with your best friend’s spouse is.
Likewise, Lewis would argue that evil tends to swallow up and destroy anything but the most fleeting momentary pleasures. A good man can enjoying sex with a good woman, enjoy simple foods as well as complex recipes, have fun with wealth. A bad one will chase after greater and greater thrills will they all seem less fun. A good woman isn’t enough - he needs more women and sultrier ones. He wants more and more grandiose culinary adventures, till nothing seems to taste great anymore. He desperately chases after money until he really doesn’t DO anything with it anymore, he just piles it up like a hoarding dragon, without even the possibility of enjoying it.
If we’re just looking at The Screwtape Letters, we can’t assume that we’re getting Lewis’s own true opinion, you know.
I regret using the “true,” thus opening myself up to the No True Scotsman thing. I had that in the back of my mind as I did it. Besides (and more importantly) I may have put the “true” in CS’ mouth. I do not have the Screwtape Letters in front of me.
While a lazy day is nice, are you not really enjoying a job completed? While orgasm is evolution’s pleasure pill, it does not come from lust, but from the attainment of love. (Or something like love.) A good meal is a pleasure, a gluttonous feed is regrettable.
Do we not usually regret sin the next morning after the sensation of the moment passes while we value the moments of virtue who’s pleasure last?
It makes much more sense to say that most ordinary pleasures can be associated with negative consequences under certain conditions.
It just doesn’t sound quite as deep.
I remain unconvinced that the godly among us experience truer/deeper pleasure, although I am willing to concede that within their paradigm some of them may feel less philosophic angst about the pain in the world. On the other hand, many (and Mother Theresa is a wonderful current example) who have an outward appearance of deep godly living have the same terrible internalized weltzschmerz as the rest of us, placid exterior notwithstanding. It ain’t all true pleasure just because your paradigm decides to use the term.