• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is "Cruelty" Ever Justified?

Is Cruelty Ever Justified?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • No

    Votes: 22 66.7%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Total voters
    33

nPeace

Veteran Member
Cruelty -
callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

History has been marred with many cruel acts.
Scientists believe that there were battles fought by Neanderthals, which lasted 100,000 years, where heads were bashed in with clubs, and where javelins pierced body parts, and many arms were broken.
1ad151ffc938ae97aca05ba6af0439ec.jpg
Young ones were also subjected to cruelty, some experts suggest.
Early human ate young Neanderthal
Sometime between 28,000 and 30,000 years ago, an anatomically modern human in what is now France may have eaten a Neanderthal child, according to a new study.
It is the first study to suggest Europe's first humans had a violent relationship with their muscular, big-headed hominid ancestors.

The secret Lives of Neanderthal Children
The Devil's Tower boy, found in 1926 in Gibraltar, died at only around five years old, possibly from skull fractures. But he had already suffered another serious incident earlier in life: as a toddler, his jaw was fractured. It's impossible to say how these injuries happened, but clearly, Neanderthal childhood could be dangerous.
Of course these hypotheses cannot be verified.

Some archaeologists also believe there is evidence of much cruel acts against children, as young as babies.
Ancient Authorities Reported Child Sacrifice In Carthage
Writing in the 4th century B.C.E, the Greek historian Cleitarchus said of the Carthaginian practice, “There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.” (trans. Paul G. Mosca) “Kronos” was a regional name for Baal Hammon, the chief of Carthage’s gods.

Another Greek historian named Diodorus Siculus writing less than a hundred years after the fall Carthage affirms his countryman’s account. “There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.

Most scholars agree that the ritual performed at the tophet was child sacrifice
Archaeologists have applied the term "tophet" to large cemeteries of children found at Carthaginian sites that have traditionally been believed to house the victims of child sacrifice, as described by Hellenistic and biblical sources.

However, children are not always the victims of cruelty.
The daughter of Herodias danced for the occasion and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, at her mother’s prompting, said: “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” Grieved though he was, the king, out of regard for his oaths and for those dining with him, commanded it to be given. So he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. Matthew 14:6-11
Salome, (flourished 1st century ce), according to the Jewish historian Josephus, the daughter of Herodias and stepdaughter of Herod Antipas, tetrarch (ruler appointed by Rome) of Galilee, a region in Palestine. In Biblical literature she is remembered as the immediate agent in the execution of John the Baptist.

List of youngest killers
Ziapasa Daughter, 3-Year-Old Murderess – West Virginia, 1906
The youngest murderess in the history of this state is the 3-year-old daughter of Michael Ziapasa, of Benwood, who so badly wounded a 2-months-old baby of a neighbor, Edward Schepech, that it died.
In the absence of the baby’s mother, the Ziapasa child attacked it with a butcher knife, cutting off its nose, stabbing it in the breast in many places and almost severing its arm.


Of particular interest, are the youngest of the murderesses.
Age 3 – 1906 – Ziapasa daughter
Age 4 – 1885 – Lizzie Lewis
Age 4 – 1897 – Retta McCabe
Age 6 – 1892 – Bottoms Girl
Age 6 – 1899 – Lizzie Cook
Age 7 – 1887 – Virginia (or, Georgiana) Hudson
Age 7 – 1925 – Alsa Thompson
Age 8 – 1867 – Martin Girl
Age 8 – 2001 – Jummai Hassan
Age 8 – 1900 – Valentine Dilly
Age 9 – 1885 – Mary Cooper
Age 9 – 1884 – Annie Bebles
Age 9 – 1902 – Anna Peters
Age 9 – 1896 – Hattie Record
Age 9 – 2005 – “East New York girl”
Age 10 – 1834 – Honorine Pellois
Age 10 – 1873 – Sarah Reeves
Age 10 – 1897 – Geneva Arnold
Age 10 – 1886 – Jane Walker
Age 10 – 2010 – “Sandy Springs girl”
Age 10 – 2012 – Kelli Murphy
Youthful Borgias: Girls Who Murder – The Forgotten “Lizzie Bordens”
janoschek-clip-jul4-1928.PNG


For discussion...
Are acts against cruelty, in itself, an act of cruelty?
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Cruelty may be justified under certain circumstances by humans who do not always have alternative means, however it is never justified for an Omnipotent All Merciful God to be cruel in my beliefs.

And sure, an act against cruelty can be cruel itself, for example it could be the lesser cruelty - such as pricking somone with a syringe containing a vaccination against Covid, measles or any other number of cruel diseases.

In my opinion.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't see any justifications for cruelty, but I do understand why it happens and the reasons an individual may reciprocate cruelty with cruelty.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
If cruelty is the indifference to causing pain or suffering, then it is a necessary facet of life for all of us to some degree. Everything we eat profits off of the suffering and death of organisms, yet if we refused to eat and starved ourselves to death we would also cause pain and suffering to those who cared about us or find our body.

If you care about suffering, then ironically you should support cruelty and condemn pity. Cruelty on its own does not harm anyone; it is an internal state. Pity, however, does harm the person who experiences it.

Particular acts of cruelty may cause unnecessary suffering or even counter-productive suffering, but that depends on what you're trying to achieve. I think some amount of cruelty is necessary for one's own health and happiness; look at how much its absence drains and destroys those who self-identify as empaths.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Cruelty may be justified under certain circumstances by humans who do not always have alternative means, however it is never justified for an Omnipotent All Merciful God to be cruel in my beliefs.

And sure, an act against cruelty can be cruel itself, for example it could be the lesser cruelty - such as pricking somone with a syringe containing a vaccination against Covid, measles or any other number of cruel diseases.

In my opinion.
So, to get you clearly...
You say cruelty "is never justified for an Omnipotent All Merciful God", but yet you say "cruelty can be cruel itself, for example it could be the lesser cruelty - such as pricking someone with a syringe containing a vaccination against Covid, measles or any other number of cruel diseases".

Are you saying that an omnipotent merciful God, is not allowed to use a "lesser cruelty" like "pricking someone with a syringe containing a vaccine" to fight against a cruel disease?

Also, are you sure you are applying the word cruelty correctly, here?
Cruelty -
callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
If cruelty is the indifference to causing pain or suffering, then it is a necessary facet of life for all of us to some degree. Everything we eat profits off of the suffering and death of organisms, yet if we refused to eat and starved ourselves to death we would also cause pain and suffering to those who cared about us or find our body.
I can understand what you are saying.
Some persons do think it is cruel to nip of a chicken's head, or cut a lamb's throat, in order to have dinner on the table.
After all, we can only imagine the suffering of that animal.

If you care about suffering, then ironically you should support cruelty and condemn pity. Cruelty on its own does not harm anyone; it is an internal state. Pity, however, does harm the person who experiences it.
Not sure I am following you here.

Particular acts of cruelty may cause unnecessary suffering or even counter-productive suffering, but that depends on what you're trying to achieve. I think some amount of cruelty is necessary for one's own health and happiness; look at how much its absence drains and destroys those who self-identify as empaths.
Would you consider, a firing squad vested with authority from the law, to execute murderers, to be a cruel 'instrument'?
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Also, are you sure you are applying the word cruelty correctly, here?
Cruelty -
callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

Yes, I agree that some responses are assuming that "cruelty" has the same meaning as "causing pain".

Cruelty, using this definition, is never justified. Sometimes causing pain is justified if it is the only option, for example in self defense or the defense of the innocent, or even beneficial, for example in surgery.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Cruelty is never an Intelligent choice. For those who think it might, would not they surely change their minds if the cruelty was aimed at them?

Attempting to alter the actions of others through cruelty or by inflicting pain solves nothing. Hate only generates more hate. Further what are you teaching others through those choices and actions? What are you really teaching the children? It certainly is not goodness!!

We define ourselves through our choices and actions. Is it really Intelligent to define oneself as cruel? I really should not need to answer that one.

Solve the problems. When one understands all sides, Intelligence will make the best choices. What view are cruel people missing? Working on solutions rather than Hate, Anger, and Revenge will prove to bring much better results. What will that teach others? You will also define yourself at a Higher Level. You will be Creating Goodness!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yes, I agree that some responses are assuming that "cruelty" has the same meaning as "causing pain".

Cruelty, using this definition, is never justified. Sometimes causing pain is justified if it is the only option, for example in self defense or the defense of the innocent, or even beneficial, for example in surgery.
Yes. Cruelty revolves around intent and pleasure to willfully inflict pain and suffering.

A doctor performing surgery is not inflicting cruelty as the intent is to heal and repair rather than destroy.

I see it as a mental disposition as opposed to a physical act.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So, to get you clearly...
You say cruelty "is never justified for an Omnipotent All Merciful God", but yet you say "cruelty can be cruel itself, for example it could be the lesser cruelty - such as pricking someone with a syringe containing a vaccination against Covid, measles or any other number of cruel diseases".

Are you saying that an omnipotent merciful God, is not allowed to use a "lesser cruelty" like "pricking someone with a syringe containing a vaccine" to fight against a cruel disease?
No, I'm not saying God is not allowed to do it, I'm saying because of God's allegedly All-Merciful nature God would choose to make a better choice which God would have at God's disposal as All-Powerful.

If I as a human could deliver a vaccine to a baby's immune system without stabbing it in the arm with a syringe I wouldn't needlessly do it, but as a human who is not omnipotent I dont currently have that choice whereas an Omnipotent God does in my belief.
Also, are you sure you are applying the word cruelty correctly, here?
Cruelty -
callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.
If that God knows about the pain it causes and does it anyway when it has better choices then in my opinion it has demonstrated callous indifference to the creatures it causes pain and suffering to.

In my opinion.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I think some amount of cruelty is necessary for one's own health and happiness; look at how much its absence drains and destroys those who self-identify as empaths.

I'm not sure what you mean by "empaths": I know a lot of people who could comfortably be described as such, and they're neither drained nor destroyed. They sometimes do experience some unpleasant feelings when, say, reading the news or witnessing the suffering of another person or animal, but this doesn't render them dysfunctional. One could argue that everyone has a degree of "cruelty," but I think that would be a semantic difference unless said cruelty had a considerable, tangible impact on actions or words.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I see it as a mental disposition as opposed to a physical act.

Essentially I agree.

The word "cruel" is an adjective. It can describe a person ("a cruel tyrant"), or an action ("a cruel punishment"). So yes, a person can be "cruel" in disposition, or actions can be "cruel", and actions that are not inherently cruel can be made so by cruel people (a surgeon deliberately gives a patient insufficient anesthetic).

The word is used metaphorically by applying it to non sentient things (a cruel twist of fate) but I don't think anyone means that "fate" does anything deliberately.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Cruelty is never an Intelligent choice. For those who think it might, would not they surely change their minds if the cruelty was aimed at them?
I'm not sure I agree. There are people that inflict suffering quite deliberately, and enjoy seeing the pain they of others. They also understand that it could be applied to themselves. They either think that the risk is worth the reward, or maybe that they are in some kind of privileged position where they are allowed cruelty but others are not.
Attempting to alter the actions of others through cruelty or by inflicting pain solves nothing. Hate only generates more hate. Further what are you teaching others through those choices and actions? What are you really teaching the children? It certainly is not goodness!!
I agree.
We define ourselves through our choices and actions. Is it really Intelligent to define oneself as cruel? I really should not need to answer that one.

Solve the problems. When one understands all sides, Intelligence will make the best choices. What view are cruel people missing? Working on solutions rather than Hate, Anger, and Revenge will prove to bring much better results. What will that teach others? You will also define yourself at a Higher Level. You will be Creating Goodness!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!!
Yes, but that applies to those that care about the feelings of others. Some people enjoy the suffering of others and the feeling of power they get from inflicting it, and think that's perfectly alright.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I voted 'no' but that was on my own definition of what 'cruel' is. Sadly, the term 'cruel' has lighter meaning for some than for others.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Cruelty is causing pain, suffering, and damage to another human being for pleasure, and/or gain undeserved. This subject falls again under the natures of motivation. It's never just to be cruel.

One has to establish that innocence, and guilt are real natural conditions of human individuals. To damage with harm an innocent person is cruel.

This is another argument that will get muddled, and confused by choice of definition. Cruelty is a specific nature of intention. It's not about temporary pain and suffering for the good of the one put through that.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Cruelty may be justified under certain circumstances by humans who do not always have alternative means, however it is never justified for an Omnipotent All Merciful God to be cruel in my beliefs.

And sure, an act against cruelty can be cruel itself, for example it could be the lesser cruelty - such as pricking somone with a syringe containing a vaccination against Covid, measles or any other number of cruel diseases.

In my opinion.

According to the definition in the OP, "cruelty" is not the causing of pain and suffering, but the pleasure felt by causing it.

Hurting others may be justifiable under the circumstances, but enjoying it is a sign of moral deficiency.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I agree. There are people that inflict suffering quite deliberately, and enjoy seeing the pain they of others. They also understand that it could be applied to themselves. They either think that the risk is worth the reward, or maybe that they are in some kind of privileged position where they are allowed cruelty but others are not.

I agree.

Yes, but that applies to those that care about the feelings of others. Some people enjoy the suffering of others and the feeling of power they get from inflicting it, and think that's perfectly alright.
People can choose some hard lessons for themselves. These choices will, in time, generate the lessons that will bring them to the understanding of all sides. Each will discover what the best answers really are.

At a single moment, one could choose to see a sense of power in the hurting of others, however one is blind to the entire view. This invites the other side returning in order that one acquires true wisdom. Our choices and actions show God and the world what we know and what we need to learn. God hides nothing. Ignorance will always be a temporary thing.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
People can choose some hard lessons for themselves. These choices will, in time, generate the lessons that will bring them to the understanding of all sides. Each will discover what the best answers really are.

At a single moment, one could choose to see a sense of power in the hurting of others, however one is blind to the entire view. This invites the other side returning in order that one acquires true wisdom. Our choices and actions show God and the world what we know and what we need to learn. God hides nothing. Ignorance will always be a temporary thing.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
May you be right. :)
 

Apostle John

“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
I'm saying because of God's allegedly All-Merciful nature God would choose to make a better choice which God would have at God's disposal as All-Powerful.
God has made heaven for Christians. Why would He let the evil wicked, depraved and perverse, who cause cruelty, enter this place called heaven.
 
Top