Inflicting suffering

[Koldo]

It came mostly as a consequence of studying the sciences with a dash of philosophy mixed in. Seeing how interconnected and interdependent everything was, I began to realize that I only existed because of all these other things existing. Without all of it put together - regardless of how I personally felt about any of the universe - I wouldn't be here to be asking that question. There was a deep humility and respect that came out of that. I became far less concerned with projecting judgements of "goodness" and "badness" onto the universe than accepting what is and finding peace in that.

That doesn't mean I don't whine about stuff I don't like as much as the next human does. What it means is I try to keep in mind a non-anthropocentric, non-egocentric perspective.

I find it intriguing that you view yourself as trying to keep a non-egocentric perspective, because...
Let me put it this way: Why does it matter if your existence depends on "all these other things existing"? Why even mention your existence?

At the very least, to recognize judgements I'm making are projections onto reality, and not the territory itself. And I get to control those stories I tell, so why not tell them in ways that are constructive to me? Seeing intrinsic value in all things encourages wide-eyed wonder and exploration and learning of everything. I like that. Others don't like that. They get to set their own values and tell their own stories.

But since you are trying to achieve a non-egocentric perspective, isn't what you find to be constructive to you inconsequential? But either way, I digress.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I guess that's the point, though. Ancient ideas of what are just become replaced with other ideas. Eye for an eye worked in the past, but was replaced by something else later. Eternal torment in hell made sense in the past, but now no longer makes sense within the modern context of where we live. It's a different world now, it seems

Do we just have a deeper understanding and respect of suffering than we used to, or is there something else at play?

There is something else at play..

Firstly, we need to ponder on the concept of eternity.
Do we really cease to be at death, or not?
If we do not, then we have to consider what happens to us after our death.

It is a given that Almighty God is not malevolent..
One can only deduce, that God is warning us about the consequences of wrong doing, and not that "God tortures people in hell" in a literal sense.

This type of thinking comes about by anthropomorhisng God.
G-d is not a person, and neither male or female. Our souls all belong to Him, and we all reap what we sow.
The idea of faith as being our salvation, is due to the change in our lives that it produces.

If faith has no effect on our lives, then our faith must be in error. or through events being completely out of our control.

 

[Koldo]

That's an interesting question. I suppose that differs from person to person. To me, that which is "just" is something done as a consequence for an action. If I break a law, I pay the consequence for breaking the law. Justice is blind, but it seeks to be fair

As for doing what is "right," that's something usually done out of hope for a better outcome and usually involves some kind of cost to self. If my sister is a single mom who is struggling to take care of her kids, I can help out by giving her money for diapers, for example

What is right definitely feel more subjective than what is just, though, and is subject to change upon other factors. If my sister is a drug addict who neglects her kids, giving her money for diapers is no longer the right thing to do

Then again, what is just seems to change with time, too. Hmm

Sure, but I mean...
If one action is just, how can it not be right?

 

[Soandso]

Sure, but I mean...
If one action is just, how can it not be right?

Well, eye for an eye, for instance. Just because it would be just for me to pluck out the eye of a man who plucked out my eye wouldn't mean that it's the right thing to do, even if it's fair. That's how I feel, at least

 

[Koldo]

Well, eye for an eye, for instance. Just because it would be just for me to pluck out the eye of a man who plucked out my eye wouldn't mean that it's the right thing to do, even if it's fair. That's how I feel, at least

I don't mean to offend, but I genuinely feel like you haven't thought this through and is merely going by your cultural background. As in, you have been taught that retribution is wrong, and thus adjusted your perception of what is right according to that. Am I incorrect?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem of evil was one of the more troubling things I wrestled with when I was a Christian

It's interesting how you framed it. It's usually framed in terms of God allowing gratuitous suffering, not causing it.

I would never call a natural disaster evil. Unfortunate, yes. Sad, definitely. For me, evil needs thought behind it

You might if you thought a tri-omni deity could have prevented it by chose to sit idly by instead. But more commonly, a believer won't allow himself to hold such thoughts or even consider them, and would look for reasons why that disaster was actually a good thing.

Is there ever a time where it's acceptable or good for an intelligent being to inflict needless or pointless suffering onto another being?

You wouldn't be asking that question if not for Abrahamic religions that accept that in what is called a loving god anyway. This is a nice example of how faith can deform thought. If one begins by assuming that the god is good, then whatever occurs must somehow be good, too.

To answer your question, my answer is no. I have a collection of comments from people willing to believe that this suffering is good, and that they are even encouraged to enjoy watching it. Look at these unbelievable comments. Apparently, heaven will have a viewing room to enjoy watching people in hell suffer, even viperous, vengeful infants:

Spoiler: Jeers in Heaven

[1] "In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned ... So that they may be urged the more to praise God ... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens ... to the damned" - Thomas Aquinas

[2] "The door of mercy will be shut and all bowels of compassion denied, by God, who will laugh at their destruction; by angels and saints, who will rejoice when they see the vengeance' by their fellow-suffer the devil and the damned rejoicing over their misery." - Bishop Newcomb

[3] "This display of the divine character will be most entertaining to all who love God, will give them the highest and most ineffable pleasure. Should the fire of this eternal punishment cease, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed." - Samuel Hopkins

[4] "Non-Christians often ask the Christian, "But how can the God of love allow any of his creatures to suffer unending misery?" The question is, how can he not? The fact that God is love makes hell necessary." - Christian Theology in Plain Language

[5] "The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardor of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven ... The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever ... Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell ... I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss." - Jonathan Edwards

[6] "At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause." - Tertullian

[7] "Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell, in the tongs of his wrath, till they turn and spit venom in his face!" - Jonathan Edwards

[8] "What will it be like for a mother in heaven who sees her son burning in hell? She will glorify the justice of God." - Catholic Truth Society

One might ask just how all of these people in heaven laughing at the suffering of strangers, former friends, and even former loved ones that didn't make it would make them any different from Satan and the demons below, who presumably will be laughing along with them. Good question.

It is a given that Almighty God is not malevolent.. One can only deduce, that God is warning us about the consequences of wrong doing, and not that "God tortures people in hell" in a literal sense.

Here's a nice example of what I was just referring to. Given your belief stated in your first sentence, it's simply not possible to come to any other conclusion. Somehow, these things must be good. That's what faith does to thinking. Instead of coming to beliefs AFTER reviewing the evidence (seeing is believing), one begins with a belief and sees the evidence as supporting that belief (believing is seeing).

 

[Soandso]

It is a given that Almighty God is not malevolent..

Ok, let's speak of a literal hell and a god who would create such a thing

Why is it a given? Did they not create hell? Why make a torture chamber if they never intended to use it? Why would someone create the means for someone to be tortured if they never intended for them to be tortured?

One can only deduce, that God is warning us about the consequences of wrong doing, and not that "God tortures people in hell" in a literal sense.

This type of thinking comes about by anthropomorhisng God.
G-d is not a person, and neither male or female. Our souls all belong to Him, and we all reap what we sow.
The idea of faith as being our salvation, is due to the change in our lives that it produces.

If faith has no effect on our lives, then our faith must be in error. or through events being completely out of our control.

This feels like more than just "anthropomorphising" god. If this god existed, and they created hell and the rules that made hell a consequence, they would be a being of intelligence and creativity. They could have made the consequences anything. Why hell?

You could say that we cannot judge god's motivations since we are mere humans and don't know any better, but we can only form opinions within the context of the world we live in given our life experiences. We experience and understand suffering, and we know that unduly inflicting suffering is wrong. Coming from that experience, it simply seems like an unfair consequence for a being of unlimited power to create that when they could have made anything be the consequence.

I dunno... I don't see how anyone can make sense of that without employing serious mental gymnastics. Why create hell?

 

[Soandso]

I don't mean to offend, but I genuinely feel like you haven't thought this through and is merely going by your cultural background. As in, you have been taught that retribution is wrong, and thus adjusted your perception of what is right according to that. Am I incorrect?

Maybe you could unpack your thoughts for me more. Retribution isn't quite the same thing as revenge, no?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Here's a nice example of what I was just referring to. Given your belief stated in your first sentence, it's simply not possible to come to any other conclusion. Somehow, these things must be good..

Yes .. they must be good.
If the life hereafter is not based on Divine justice, then it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks or says .. there would be no such thing as right and wrong .. but we know that is false.

That is what it's all about .. warding off evil.

 

[Quintessence]

I find it intriguing that you view yourself as trying to keep a non-egocentric perspective, because...
Let me put it this way: Why does it matter if your existence depends on "all these other things existing"? Why even mention your existence?

Um... because it can't not matter? Because you can't not self-reference? That's part of being human and alive?

Let me put it this way: when you figure out how to fully transcend yourself and your ego to avoid absolutely all limitations of perspective (and the paradoxes that come with it), let us know.

 

[Koldo]

Maybe you could unpack your thoughts for me more. Retribution isn't quite the same thing as revenge, no?

I certainly didn't mean the term in the sense of revenge. When I mentioned retribution I was referring to the 'eye for an eye', as in proportional punishment.

 

[Koldo]

Um... because it can't not matter? Because you can't not self-reference? That's part of being human and alive?

Let me put it this way: when you figure out how to fully transcend yourself and your ego to avoid absolutely all limitations of perspective (and the paradoxes that come with it), let us know.

I most certainly didn't mean that all limitations of perspective could be overcame.

I am going to elaborate where I am coming from: If whatever caused me to come into existence is responsible for torment, then damned be what caused my existence. My own existence doesn't suddenly excuse the acts of that cause just because I happened to benefit from it. Because this is not about me, it never was. Likewise, if my perspective is intentfully clouded by what is self-serving, by what I find constructive, rather than what is true, damned be me for I am making it all about me and this is not about me, it never was.

 

[Soandso]

I certainly didn't mean the term in the sense of revenge. When I mentioned retribution I was referring to the 'eye for an eye', as in proportional punishment.

Ah, I see. Personally I feel that retribution can be fair, but it's not great at producing positive outcomes.

You're right though that I haven't given the concept of retribution much thought as far as a proportional reaction, but I wouldn't paint it as "wrong." I just find it ineffective for the goal I want to see realized.

Sure, taking a toy away from my kid when they took away another child's toy may teach them that stealing is wrong. It also teaches the child to resent and mistrust me as a parent if done improperly, though. It's a slippery slope, and severe negative reinforcement doesn't work as well as consequence tempered by positive reinforcement, in my personal experience

When I create rules, I want them to be fair, but I also want to promote growth and positive outcomes. I don't see where retribution plays a part in that. Am I missing something?

 

[Koldo]

Ah, I see. Personally I feel that retribution can be fair, but it's not great at producing positive outcomes.

You're right though that I haven't given the concept of retribution much thought as far as a proportional reaction, but I wouldn't paint it as "wrong." I just find it ineffective for the goal I want to see realized.

Sure, taking a toy away from my kid when they took away another child's toy may teach them that stealing is wrong. It also teaches the child to resent and mistrust me as a parent if done improperly, though. It's a slippery slope, and severe negative reinforcement doesn't work as well as consequence tempered by positive reinforcement, in my personal experience

When I create rules, I want them to be fair, but I also want to promote growth and positive outcomes. I don't see where retribution plays a part in that. Am I missing something?

Is an unjust goal a goal worth achieving though?
Let's presume that certain unjust actions can be done to achieve a goal you want to. Are you justified in doing unjust actions to achieve that goal?

 

[Soandso]

Is an unjust goal a goal worth achieving though?
Let's presume that certain unjust actions can be done to achieve a goal you want to. Are you justified in doing unjust actions to achieve that goal?

To answer your first question, I would personally be uninterested in utilizing unjust actions to achieve the goals I want. Can that hurt me in the long run? Definitely. It's just the way my brain is wired, though. So no, I find no personal worth in it

Can I be just in achieving just results from unjust actions? I say no. Mangela catapulted medical knowledge far ahead of it's time due to his experiments. His experiments were still unjustified, though, even if in the long run it's helped many people. He will forever be remembered as a monster, and for good reason

That's my take, at least

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why is it a given? Did they not create hell? Why make a torture chamber if they never intended to use it? Why would someone create the means for someone to be tortured if they never intended for them to be tortured?

Nobody has created a torture chamber.

Almighty God has created us with independent mind.
We can follow a righteous path, or we can purposely ignore God's guidance.

Clearly, we can see that there are consequences for our actions in this life .. we can be imprisoned and so on .. the life hereafter can be considered as an extension of that.

This feels like more than just "anthropomorphising" god. If this god existed, and they created hell and the rules that made hell a consequence, they would be a being of intelligence and creativity. They could have made the consequences anything. Why hell?

No .. they could NOT make the consequences anything..
That is like saying that a penal system does not have to take the victims [or anybody else, for that matter] into consideration .. just take no action, for example.

You could say that we cannot judge god's motivations since we are mere humans and don't know any better, but we can only form opinions within the context of the world we live in given our life experiences. We experience and understand suffering, and we know that unduly inflicting suffering is wrong..

We most certainly do.
..and we are also capable of bringing suffering on ourselves, without any agent inflicting it upon us.

Coming from that experience, it simply seems like an unfair consequence for a being of unlimited power to create that when they could have made anything be the consequence.

I see that as a rather pointless argument.
We need to think within the reality that we are in, and not dream-up alternate scenarios which do not represent reality.
Almighty God decided to give us responsibility, but that does not mean that G-d has no responsibility .. of course He does.
Other animals cannot go to hell .. they are not accountable for their actions.

I dunno... I don't see how anyone can make sense of that without employing serious mental gymnastics. Why create hell?

Yes, that is the question .. why did Almighty God create mankind, who can independently choose evil if they so desire?

Can you not think of any reason at all, why giving His creatures intelligence and great responsibillity, has some ultimate purpose?

The downside, is that not all will succeed, and will suffer.
..but Almighty God is more Merciful that a mother to her child.
We do not suffer in the long run, without very good reason.

 

[Koldo]

To answer your first question, I would personally be uninterested in utilizing unjust actions to achieve the goals I want. Can that hurt me in the long run? Definitely. It's just the way my brain is wired, though. So no, I find no personal worth in it

Can I be just in achieving just results from unjust actions? I say no. Mangela catapulted medical knowledge far ahead of it's time due to his experiments. His experiments were still unjustified, though, even if in the long run it's helped many people. He will forever be remembered as a monster, and for good reason

That's my take, at least

Isn't it unjust to refrain from punishing someone who has done (moral) wrong? Not only refrain, but also prohibiting punishment?

 

[Soandso]

Nobody has created a torture chamber.

Almighty God has created us with independent mind.
We can follow a righteous path, or we can purposely ignore God's guidance.

Clearly, we can see that there are consequences for our actions in this life .. we can be imprisoned and so on .. the life hereafter can be considered as an extension of that.


No .. they could NOT make the consequences anything..
That is like saying that a penal system does not have to take the victims [or anybody else, for that matter] into consideration .. just take no action, for example.


We most certainly do.
..and we are also capable of bringing suffering on ourselves, without any agent inflicting it upon us.


I see that as a rather pointless argument.
We need to think within the reality that we are in, and not dream-up alternate scenarios which do not represent reality.
Almighty God decided to give us responsibility, but that does not mean that G-d has no responsibility .. of course He does.
Other animals cannot go to hell .. they are not accountable for their actions.


Yes, that is the question .. why did Almighty God create mankind, who can independently choose evil if they so desire?

Can you not think of any reason at all, why giving His creatures intelligence and great responsibillity, has some ultimate purpose?

The downside, is that not all will succeed, and will suffer.
..but Almighty God is more Merciful that a mother to her child.
We do not suffer in the long run, without very good reason.

Wait, three questions for you, then.

Firstly, does hell exist?

Secondly, did god create hell?

Thirdly, does god have free will?

 

[PureX]

The "problem of evil" is just immature bogus nonsense. It presumes that God could force us all to be good to each other, but chooses not to, so it's God's fault that we are evil to each other, to ourselves, to the world, and that we suffer as a result.

This is an insanely childish perspective. As for one thing it completely ignores our own complicity in our suffering by presuming that we would be better off without individual free will. In which case we wouldn't even be human, anymore. Or even sentient beings. And for another thing it presumes that we should never die. So that not only would we live our lives as will-less robots, but we would be doing so eternally. And that somehow THAT wouldn't be an even more hellish nightmare than the fact that we currently suffer and die at least partly by our own stupid and selfish choices.

 

[Soandso]

Isn't it unjust to refrain from punishing someone who has done (moral) wrong? Not only refrain, but also prohibiting punishment?

Depends on the context of the event

Would you say it's just to report a woman stealing baby formula in a walmart? Some might say that it's just for theft to be met with punishment. I'd refrain from reporting and say it's only fair given the context surrounding poor people in this country (that is, the USA) and the way opportunistic and faceless organizations like walmart help to promote human injustice the world over

Then again, if I did actually witness such a thing I would stop her, let her know that I'll pay for the things she needs, then she can go on a shopping spree on my dime - within reason, heh