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 Cognitive capability is a primary good of rational nature, so maximal privation in Hell entails its complete, not partial, loss.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Complete cognitive loss would eliminate the capacity for awareness of punishment itself, making Hell's retributive purpose incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rational beings retain cognitive function even in states of extreme deprivation; loss of good does not equal loss of capacity itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Maximal privation of goods need not entail privation of the faculties that perceive their absence—these are distinct categories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rational nature's essential function is cognition; deprivation of essentials means deprivation of what defines that nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Maximal privation logically entails loss of all goods characteristic of a kind, not merely some goods of that kind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Partial cognitive loss would preserve some rational agency, contradicting the state of complete separation from divine goodness.
?
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.