RE: "Why is it reasonable to believe in prisons, but not in the hell?"
February 19, 2021 at 12:11 pm
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2021 at 12:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The harm that something does influences the a-priori probability of it being necessary.
That's a bold claim, and very explicitly the moralistic fallacy, again. The negatively valued aspect of some act or some thing determines the nature of things or it's probable relationship to that nature.
Harmful things, Bad Things™ may be necessary. Just as harmful things, Bad Places can exist. It never works in any context. The only argument against the proposition that hell is necessary to justice is an argument about it's function, not it's nature. Just assume that it's a horrible place. On par with any of the worst prisons on earth. The contention is that a place like this is necessary to justice, not that it does not do injustice. If some infinite amount of injustice were required to be applied to one subject, so that whatever justice is possible could be afforded to another, even if that amount of justice is meager and the amount of injustice done is immense, it would still be the case that this specific injustice were a requirement of whatever little justice there is to be had.
There are as many ways of earnestly and completely addressing it as there are arguments against any punitive ideology or regime. We do it in thought and, ostensibly, in practice, when we reform our own institutions. The failure of a god to match human efforts in this would be perplexing - but if that's what hell is and that's how this god works - again..more a comment on the author of creation than the nature or existence of any item in that creation. I presented a simple dismissal of the claim in accepting the propositions and determining that there was, then, no justice. You could express similar thoughts to your own apparent disbelief in the form of accepting that, maybe, some specific injustice is necessary to justice, but in that event, the amount of justice in the world might be vanishingly small on balance. I don't know how you'd do the math, but it's a more tenable claim than a non rule about a probability you never calculated - wouldn't you agree?
That's a bold claim, and very explicitly the moralistic fallacy, again. The negatively valued aspect of some act or some thing determines the nature of things or it's probable relationship to that nature.
Harmful things, Bad Things™ may be necessary. Just as harmful things, Bad Places can exist. It never works in any context. The only argument against the proposition that hell is necessary to justice is an argument about it's function, not it's nature. Just assume that it's a horrible place. On par with any of the worst prisons on earth. The contention is that a place like this is necessary to justice, not that it does not do injustice. If some infinite amount of injustice were required to be applied to one subject, so that whatever justice is possible could be afforded to another, even if that amount of justice is meager and the amount of injustice done is immense, it would still be the case that this specific injustice were a requirement of whatever little justice there is to be had.
There are as many ways of earnestly and completely addressing it as there are arguments against any punitive ideology or regime. We do it in thought and, ostensibly, in practice, when we reform our own institutions. The failure of a god to match human efforts in this would be perplexing - but if that's what hell is and that's how this god works - again..more a comment on the author of creation than the nature or existence of any item in that creation. I presented a simple dismissal of the claim in accepting the propositions and determining that there was, then, no justice. You could express similar thoughts to your own apparent disbelief in the form of accepting that, maybe, some specific injustice is necessary to justice, but in that event, the amount of justice in the world might be vanishingly small on balance. I don't know how you'd do the math, but it's a more tenable claim than a non rule about a probability you never calculated - wouldn't you agree?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
