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 Jonathan Edwards' claim that the saved rejoice in damnation reveals that such 'benefit' presupposes morally vicious dispositions in the blessed.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Edwards meant rejoicing in divine justice itself, not in suffering qua suffering—a morally neutral epistemic stance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Appreciating that God's justice is being fulfilled need not involve the psychological vice of enjoying others' pain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates celebrating a just outcome with the vicious pleasure of schadenfreude; these are distinct phenomena.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rejoicing in others' suffering requires schadenfreude or indifference to their pain, which are morally vicious dispositions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A morally perfect being would not derive benefit from or take pleasure in the damnation of its own creatures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If the saved's happiness depends on witnessing eternal punishment, their beatitude is built on vicarious cruelty, not virtue.
?
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.