Is "Cruelty" Ever Justified?

[nPeace]

To an extent...

The thing is, the cruelty involved in the revenge is a different kind of cruelty to that involved in the original act (raping the daughter)

Even though both acts are acts of brutal violence

Let's call the rapist's act Cruelty1

And the brutal vengeance from the father Cruelty2

I would then say: an act of Cruelty2 is justified and understandable in response to an act of Cruelty1

I believe that the OP was asking about Cruelty2, not Cruelty1

Not, really, no.
The OP did not focus on Cruelty 1, true, but the OP does not say what Cruelty 2 might involve, except in one case - Capital Punishment. For example... Hanging by the neck, until dead; Firing squad; Electric chair; Guillotine; Lethal injection; Gas Chamber; Throwing off the highest cliff ...
Not necessarily revenge... but that's good, your including that one.

Cruelty1 is brutality that is unjustified

Whereas Cruelty2 is brutality that can be justified

So, in answer to the OP: Cruelty2 can be justified

Okay, so basically, you believe cruelty in some form is justified.

However, I would call Cruelty2 something other than "cruelty" - perhaps a better name for Cruelty2 would be "justified brutality"? Or something like that?

Justified brutality. Hmm.
Interesting. I suppose you mean justice has no bounds on the way it is carried out.
Why that's interesting Eddi, is that there are people saying... Oh. Hanging by the neck is cruel, and inhumane. Oh. electrocution is cruel, and inhumane... etc. etc.
To the point where some has totally removed the death penalty, and what is more, they think that a murderer should be allowed to be set free, after some time of being sentenced to life in prison.

How many times have you heard of a murderer getting bail, and committing a murder during that time?

 

[nPeace]

Understandable, of course.

We certainly understand how one might feel.
Interestingly, some persons might feel differently. I think you do.

These moral questions have to be considered from an ideal perspective though. He has a helpless man at his mercy, and goes ahead to torture and/or kill him. That's wrong, I feel, no matter how understandable it may be. And the practical reason (I'm talking generally here) also exists, in that it could lead to a "tit for tat" succession of revenge. I believe that was what Jesus was getting at when he talked about "turning the other cheek".

Interesting you mentioned the word mercy.
That does motivate persons to see, more than the pain of the daughter, and their own pain.
They might see the predator in a different light. They might not know what led to him doing it, but that may be a factor they consider.

I like that your view is guided by the principle - doing the right thing.
It takes swallowing our pride to do, what may be against our inclination, or impulses.

I'll add that in a lawless society with no police to call on, it might be justified (simple execution, not torture) to protect future victims.

If caught in the act... there is no need for trial.
Justice can be served... swiftly.

 

[osgart]

So this is down to an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek.

I agree that brutality is not cruelty. The most effective punishment is the one I would opt for, and that is to make sure it would never happen again, and that the perpetrator suffered the necessary loss of freedom, reputation and suffered painfully according to what was done. I don't buy into rehabilitation in this case. Although I'm not sure I would kill the perpetrator. Who knows about one day they could change or repent, perhaps, but not in this lifetime. I wouldn't want to exceed the equal measure of punishment. I'm an eye for an eye about it.

 

[nPeace]

Really? God made heaven (so I'm told) long, long before there was anything like a Christian -- because it was long before there was a Christ. (You may not see this as a problem -- lots of people worship beings that don't exist, but you might want to consider the implications.)

Out of curiosity, why would God let himself into "this place called heaven," when he himself killed millions of innocent children (all the babies during the flood, the first-born of Egypt who didn't do anything, the children of the Canaanites)? With a moral compass like that, I don't think he ought to have much to say about the matter.

I'm just looking back through the thread,and realized I missed this post.
I think the OP highlights something that should not be overlooked.
Some really young children were murderers.
Were they innocent, would you say?
When would they have lost that innocence?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm just looking back through the thread,and realized I missed this post.
I think the OP highlights something that should not be overlooked.
Some really young children were murderers.
Were they innocent, would you say?
When would they have lost that innocence?

Most of us accept that very young children are incapable of understanding the whole impact of all of their actions. It's why we protect them as much as we do. I don't accept your argument at all.

 

[Eddi]

Okay, so basically, you believe cruelty in some form is justified.

Very basically, yes, I suppose so....

But I'd use different language to better reflect the complexity of the situation

How many times have you heard of a murderer getting bail, and committing a murder during that time?

I'm sure that happens a lot

@nPeace please, tell us what exactly your church (the JWs) believe regarding this issue and also why you believe what you believe

 

[danieldemol]

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.

That's not the only definition of cruelty, but regardless - I believe the first paragraph you quoted still stands even in light of the OP's definition because it also included "indifference" to pain and suffering, not only pleasure.

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

God has made heaven for Christians. Why would He let the evil wicked, depraved and perverse, who cause cruelty, enter this place called heaven.

Because God could cure them of their wickedness, depravity and perversity so that they wouldn't cause cruelty. And that I believe is more consistent with an *All*-Merciful God.

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

A "better choice" might be viewed as a terrible choice, to some.

Sure, some people are illogical after all.

Who would get to decide what the better choice is?

It is really incumbent upon *all* of us to use the allegedly "God given" brains we have to come to the best conclusion. Since I'm part of the all I'm one of those who gets to decide what the better choice is.

I remember taking a vaccine, when I was a child. It tasted sweet.
They put this sugary block in your mouth, and said. "Hey. You're good to go." ,,,and we were.
What changed? Why was that not the case with Covid?

Well according to my understanding about seven days ago news was published that researchers have recently discovered an oral covid-19 vaccine that once approved will be available for use by the general public
Source: Researchers develop a universal oral COVID-19 vaccine that prevents severe illness in hamsters.

The problem is in case you didn't notice we have had Covid-19 for a lot longer than seven days, something had to be done in the meantime.

Sounds reasonable.

Thanks for agreeing.

God made the better choice.
If you disagree, maybe you can explain why, and share the better choice, and explain why it is.
I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

I believe I already did, you said it "sounds reasonable" then proceeded to walk back your words and hand waive my explanation away.

I believe that hand-waving does not constitute refutation.

In my opinion

 

[Apostle John]

Because God could cure them of their wickedness, depravity and perversity so that they wouldn't cause cruelty. And that I believe is more consistent with an *All*-Merciful God.

In my opinion

Why on earth would God do that, Christians wouldn’t get to watch this σκύβαλον in hell otherwise. It will be good watching them move around then curl up in the doldrums somewhere whimpering.

 

[nPeace]

Most of us accept that very young children are incapable of understanding the whole impact of all of their actions. It's why we protect them as much as we do. I don't accept your argument at all.

I understand how most people feel.
However, we know that what most humans think or accept, is based on a very limited knowledge, and understanding, so that's not the important in the argument you raised, is it?

Your argument is that God killed innocent children, and therefore is immoral.
Hence, you need to back up that argument.
Just saying children are incapable of understanding the whole impact of all of their actions, does not erase the impact of their actions.
That's why the state held them responsible for their actions.

If they are innocent, then why charge them as guilty?
The fact is, being "innocent" is a subjective opinion of humans.
If humans really knew who was innocent, there would not be a lot of murders, school shootings, overcrowded prisons, etc.

What if humans knew... would you fault them for stopping a school shooting, or a 3 year old stabbing and slicing a baby, before it happened?
Or would you consider them cruel, and immoral?

 

[danieldemol]

Why on earth would God do that, Christians wouldn’t get to watch this σκύβαλον in hell otherwise. It will be good watching them move around then curl up in the doldrums somewhere whimpering.

Why should the cruelty and/or schadenfreude of the Christians referred to have any effect on the mercy of the allegedly *All*-Merciful whatsoever?

 

[nPeace]

Very basically, yes, I suppose so....

But I'd use different language to better reflect the complexity of the situation

That's a good though. I'm glad you said that, because we don't want to give the word cruel, another meaning, in order to make our point. It would be best, to find another word to describe what we are trying to express.

Key to being cruel, is the underlined part.
Cruelty - callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

Remember, that in @Alien826 example, there was a need to cause pain, in order to survive an attack.
In some cases, suffering may ensue, but you don't find pleasure in doing what you did. It was just necessary.
In some cases, the necessity for one situation, may differ from another, so that one is more extreme, or more brutal than the other.

The thing is, you are not being cruel. Using violence yes... but not loving it.

I'm sure that happens a lot

@nPeace please, tell us what exactly your church (the JWs) believe regarding this issue and also why you believe what you believe

Thanks for asking.
As you know, Jehovah's Witnesses, based their beliefs on the Bible, and their try to live their life in full accord to what the Bible says, so that popular opinions of this world... or from ourselves, do not override scripture, because we believe this is God's word.

We take seriously Jesus' admonition to be no part of the world, so we stay neutral to the world's political affairs. In other words, we do not get involved in stating what the Governments should or should not do.
We might mention what folly we see. Not as a public call, but you know, just commenting. nothing wrong with stating our opinion, so long as we are careful of our boundaries.

For example, I saw a News item, that just gave me a good chuckle, and commented, on how backward our society is, and it is becoming more backward, every day, imo.
Have a look at a new law by the state of Oregon. No shackled, and handcuffed prisoners allowed in Court.

All because why? They are not animals?
So, that is an example where, we express our views, or opinion, as individuals, while staying neutral. Some laws are foolish, imo.
I mean, what if the guy was a sicko, and grabbed an officer's gun, and started shooting...

That said, to kill or not to kill, is up to the law of the land.
JWs do not get involved in what the Governments should do, but we acknowledge that they have certain obligations, as stated at Romans 13:3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad.

It's left to them, what they do... either good, or bad.
JWs do not view capital punishment as a sin against God. They "bear the sword". They are free to use it... against the bad.
Obviously, when they use it against the good, that violates what God says, so that's clear, I'm sure.

Is it cruel to execute a murderer?
What JWs say, on this, is again, based on scripture. Not personal, opinion, or feelings.
Without fail the murderer should be put to death. Numbers 35:16
One who strikes a man so that he actually dies is to be put to death without fail. Exodus 21:12
And in case a man strikes any soul of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. Leviticus 24:17https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=Rbi8&srctype=wol&bible=3024017&srcid=share
This was a question raised by a reader of our publications... Questions From Readers: Do the courts of the land have the right to inflict capital punishment on those guilty of murder? - M. W., Washington.
You can read the answer given, there.

In all of this, we can ask the question, Is God Cruel?
Based on what we have gone through so far, the answer is a definite No.
From the scriptures, this is clear. In the book of Ezekiel, for example, we read... “‘For I do not take any delight in the death of someone dying,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. ‘So cause a turning back and keep living, O YOU people.’” Ezekiel 18:32

God does what he has to do. It is called justice. 2 Thess. 1:6-9
Sometimes justice can be brutal. it gets the job done.

One last thing, to cement the fact that God is not cruel, and he hates cruelty.
God said... When your enemy falls, do not rejoice, And when he stumbles, do not let your heart be joyful; Otherwise, Jehovah will see and be displeased, And He will turn away his anger from him. Proverbs 24:17, 18
Hence why God says, his very being hates those who love violence. Psalms 11:5

Hope that was not too long. It was thorough.

 

[Eddi]

That's a good though. I'm glad you said that, because we don't want to give the word cruel, another meaning, in order to make our point. It would be best, to find another word to describe what we are trying to express.

Key to being cruel, is the underlined part.
Cruelty - callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

Remember, that in @Alien826 example, there was a need to cause pain, in order to survive an attack.
In some cases, suffering may ensue, but you don't find pleasure in doing what you did. It was just necessary.
In some cases, the necessity for one situation, may differ from another, so that one is more extreme, or more brutal than the other.

The thing is, you are not being cruel. Using violence yes... but not loving it.


Thanks for asking.
As you know, Jehovah's Witnesses, based their beliefs on the Bible, and their try to live their life in full accord to what the Bible says, so that popular opinions of this world... or from ourselves, do not override scripture, because we believe this is God's word.

We take seriously Jesus' admonition to be no part of the world, so we stay neutral to the world's political affairs. In other words, we do not get involved in stating what the Governments should or should not do.
We might mention what folly we see. Not as a public call, but you know, just commenting. nothing wrong with stating our opinion, so long as we are careful of our boundaries.

For example, I saw a News item, that just gave me a good chuckle, and commented, on how backward our society is, and it is becoming more backward, every day, imo.
Have a look at a new law by the state of Oregon. No shackled, and handcuffed prisoners allowed in Court.

All because why? They are not animals?
So, that is an example where, we express our views, or opinion, as individuals, while staying neutral. Some laws are foolish, imo.
I mean, what if the guy was a sicko, and grabbed an officer's gun, and started shooting...

That said, to kill or not to kill, is up to the law of the land.
JWs do not get involved in what the Governments should do, but we acknowledge that they have certain obligations, as stated at Romans 13:3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad.

It's left to them, what they do... either good, or bad.
JWs do not view capital punishment as a sin against God. They "bear the sword". They are free to use it... against the bad.
Obviously, when they use it against the good, that violates what God says, so that's clear, I'm sure.

Is it cruel to execute a murderer?
What JWs say, on this, is again, based on scripture. Not personal, opinion, or feelings.
Without fail the murderer should be put to death. Numbers 35:16
One who strikes a man so that he actually dies is to be put to death without fail. Exodus 21:12
And in case a man strikes any soul of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. Leviticus 24:17https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=Rbi8&srctype=wol&bible=3024017&srcid=share
This was a question raised by a reader of our publications... Questions From Readers: Do the courts of the land have the right to inflict capital punishment on those guilty of murder? - M. W., Washington.
You can read the answer given, there.

In all of this, we can ask the question, Is God Cruel?
Based on what we have gone through so far, the answer is a definite No.
From the scriptures, this is clear. In the book of Ezekiel, for example, we read... “‘For I do not take any delight in the death of someone dying,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. ‘So cause a turning back and keep living, O YOU people.’” Ezekiel 18:32

God does what he has to do. It is called justice. 2 Thess. 1:6-9
Sometimes justice can be brutal. it gets the job done.

One last thing, to cement the fact that God is not cruel, and he hates cruelty.
God said... When your enemy falls, do not rejoice, And when he stumbles, do not let your heart be joyful; Otherwise, Jehovah will see and be displeased, And He will turn away his anger from him. Proverbs 24:17, 18
Hence why God says, his very being hates those who love violence. Psalms 11:5

Hope that was not too long. It was thorough.

That was interesting

I'd have rated that "informative"

Thanks for sharing

Can I ask, do you vote in public elections?

 

[Alien826]

What if humans knew... would you fault them for stopping a school shooting, or a 3 year old stabbing and slicing a baby, before it happened?
Or would you consider them cruel, and immoral?

That was the plot of the movie Minority Report. Three people had the ability to predict murders. They would inform a special police unit who would try to prevent the crime before it happened. Murders were reduced to close to zero, as the murderers were stopped before the crime was committed. They were then imprisoned, which was the moral dilemma raised. Was it right to punish someone for something he hadn't actually done?

That's just something raised by the movie, and you reminded me of it.

The answer to your question is obvious. Yes, we should stop crime before it happens if we can. In fact we already do. And we have the crime of "conspiracy" to charge them with, if appropriate. But if the way we stop them is wholesale killing of all potential criminals it opens a whole other can of worms. I think the reference is to the flood. I don't see how your response holds up with babies, who are incapable of most actions, let alone understanding morality in any form.

 

[nPeace]

Because God could cure them of their wickedness, depravity and perversity so that they wouldn't cause cruelty.

Of course he could... Wipe them out... but then, you and I would not have been born.
How is that even a better choice?

And that I believe is more consistent with an *All*-Merciful God.

In my opinion

Really? Not having humans? How is that merciful?

 

[nPeace]

Sure, some people are illogical after all.

You took your time in coming to that realization.

It is really incumbent upon *all* of us to use the allegedly "God given" brains we have to come to the best conclusion. Since I'm part of the all I'm one of those who gets to decide what the better choice is.

Which is what? Repeating mistakes over and over again, and never coming to the realization, that man just cannot get it right on his own? How is that brilliant, or using intelligence wisely?
It certainly is important to use our brains to reason, but when it results in foolishness, that's not wise, is it.

Well according to my understanding about seven days ago news was published that researchers have recently discovered an oral covid-19 vaccine that once approved will be available for use by the general public
Source: Researchers develop a universal oral COVID-19 vaccine that prevents severe illness in hamsters.

Cool. In the meantime...? Die, or get jabbed?

The problem is in case you didn't notice we have had Covid-19 for a lot longer than seven days, something had to be done in the meantime.

Okay, so you are saying that they get to a point where they can do something different, but God does not have to get to a point where he does something better... is what i am getting.
Yes, but God is not dealing with Covid19.
So, perhaps you need to show how Covid19, is similar to what you are getting at, since I can't read your mind.

Thanks for agreeing.

I believe I already did, you said it "sounds reasonable" then proceeded to walk back your words and hand waive my explanation away.

I believe that hand-waving does not constitute refutation.

In my opinion

I believe you said this, thinking that you have a valid basis for saying it.
However, may I point out where you made a mistake.
Your mistake is assuming that I am agreeing with what's in your mind.

You said... 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.

It's reasonable.
I never agreed there is a better choice.
You assume there is, and you know what that is, so unless we on RF are mind readers, no one has hand waved anything.
Care to spill the beans? What's the better choice that God had?

 

[Jose Fly]

I've a feeling "cruelty" is a rather subjective determination for most folks, including the author of this thread.

For example......hear me out.....someone might find it "cruel" to ignore and/or shun a young family member merely for not believing in a certain religion. But then I'm betting the people doing the shunning don't see it as cruel at all, while the person being shunned would see it quite differently.

 

[Apostle John]

Why should the cruelty and/or schadenfreude of the Christians referred to have any effect on the mercy of the allegedly *All*-Merciful whatsoever?

Curing the wicked, depraved and perverse doesn’t show up anywhere in the Ministry of Christ. Also the Beatitudes do not say we Christians are cruel longing for justice.

 

[nPeace]

That was interesting

I'd have rated that "informative"

Yeah. I miss the "Informative" frubal, too.

Thanks for sharing

Any time.

Can I ask, do you vote in public elections?

None of JWs vote.
We pay taxes though.
Romans 13:
6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax;

If JWs voted, imagine how divided they would be, against each other, and against God and Christ.
For one thing, several brothers would be "Republican"; several would be "Democratic"; several would be against both. Can you see the problem?

I mean, fists might not fly, but there would be some serious divisions going on.
The other thing is, they would be against God and Christ, because they have 1) become part of the world, 2) put their trust in man's governmental system, 3) not taken sides with the only government that will solve the world's problems - God's kingdom.

A more thorough explanation is given in the answer to this question, as well as what if the government makes voting mandatory. Questions From Readers: How do Jehovah’s Witnesses view voting?