The traditional idea of “love the sinner, hate the sin” assumes that a sinner is someone who freely chooses to do wrong and deserves punishment before God.
Why not just say the person did harm and leave it there? What is sin with its idea of violating divine law and divine authority doing there?
In practice, the traditional idea encourages subtle self-righteousness and hidden hostility. It even imagines that a person who reflects it does so as a result of light and grace from God. "How good am I that God inspires me to see that loving the sinner and hating the sin is necessary and that he empowers me to do it." That is fake humility. You are boasting that you let God give you this gift. The bigger the "sin" the more insulting your pride is. You are using the other person's sin to shine in the eyes of your "God" and by proxy, yourself.
Hate, in any form, involves judging another person as morally bad—even if it does not always involve intense emotional dislike. Controlled, deliberate hatred, in fact, is often more dangerous than overt anger because it is secretive and manipulative. Accusing others of “sin” or of wrongdoing using free will incites hatred and resentment.
Indifference can be even worse than overt hatred. Choosing not to care about someone’s well-being while implicitly wishing harm upon them is a silent, calculated form of hatred. True love is opposed to indifference, not merely to overt hate. Free will doctrines and their religious offspring promote this mindset by framing wrongdoing as a conscious, blameworthy act, rather than a product of circumstances and influences beyond the person’s control. Societies should treat incitement to indifference as seriously as incitement to hatred.
To “hate the sin” is to hate a person’s will, which is inseparable from the person themselves. The resulting hidden or simmering hate is unhealthy. Moreover, in reality, there is no sin in the sense of free-willed moral wrongdoing. People act under influences beyond their control. The notion of moral culpability encourages unnecessary hatred and blame. By seeing a person’s harmful actions as the result of external forces rather than intrinsic moral failure, we can approach them with understanding, compassion, and the potential to help them improve.
Belief in free will encourages assigning blame to individuals: saying “John was the origin of a hateful act” implies that John himself is inherently hateful. This fosters resentment and conflict. Conventional religion often claims to “love the sinner, hate the sin,” but in practice, this separation is rarely genuine.
By rejecting free will, we can recognize harmful behavior as the result of external and internal forces acting through a person, rather than as evidence of an evil self. When I commit a wrongful act, it is not truly “me” doing wrong but a distorted part of my mind or external influences acting through me. Understanding this allows self-respect, self-improvement, and empathy for others. A person’s harmful tendencies can be addressed, corrected, or mitigated without resorting to hatred or condemnation.
Every individual is intrinsically valuable. Harmful acts are distortions of good that require correction, not moral blame. Hatred directed at others ultimately harms ourselves. By recognizing that the “evil” in ourselves or others is separate from the person’s intrinsic value, we can cultivate understanding, empathy, and self-esteem.
This perspective is not merely philosophical—it has practical implications for society. Laws should reflect this understanding by discouraging incitement to hatred and indifference while promoting rehabilitation rather than punishment. Free will doctrines undermine this approach because they justify blame, condemnation, and unequal treatment. Denying free will allows us to treat every human being as equally precious, to focus on reforming harmful behavior, and to build a society rooted in understanding, compassion, and reason.
Human evil is best seen as distorted good in need of correction, not as moral failure deserving hatred. By separating the person from their harmful actions, and by recognizing the forces that drive behavior, we promote both individual flourishing and societal well-being.