Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Any purported 'service' that requires eternal suffering as its causal mechanism cannot constitute a genuine moral good for its recipients.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Suffering can be instrumentally necessary for goods (medical pain enables healing); eternal suffering's necessity for salvation requires separate justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A good's moral status depends on net outcome, not mechanism alone; if eternal salvation outweighs temporary/eternal cost, it remains a genuine good.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates 'suffering as mechanism' with 'suffering as outcome'; suffering during redemption differs morally from suffering as final state.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Moral goods require that recipients experience net benefit; eternal suffering precludes any possible net positive outcome.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Causal mechanisms producing goods must be proportionate to ends; infinite suffering is disproportionate to any finite benefit.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Genuine services respect agent autonomy; coerced acceptance under threat of eternal suffering violates autonomy fundamentally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.