Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Self-ruin constitutes a sufficient punishment for wicked ... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Human wickedness does not always require divine punishment.

    Self-ruin constitutes a sufficient punishment for wicked action.

    Justice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Connections

    2 topics

    Against a future action of God1 linkedMoral Responsibility

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    1 linked

    Related

    Human wickedness does not always require divine punishment.Wickedness of itself ruins the life of those who act wickedly.

    Similar

    Consequentialism implies that punishment of the innocent is justified ...77%Wrongdoing is merely a necessary condition for punishment, not a suffi...76%Retributive punishment requires that the subject be responsible for wr...76%Retributivism captures the widely shared sense that it is always or ne...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: plutarch
    View source passageHide passage
    In this work Plutarch examines an issue with which philosophers of his age are seriously concerned, namely that of theodicy. Even if God is not responsible for occurrences of evil (see above, sect. 4.2), there is a question of why these are not always punished promptly by God. In his treatise On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance Plutarch addresses the question of whether the delays of divine punishment speak against the existence of divine providence (550C) and he replies that this is not the c

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective