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 Since finite agents possess only finite culpability regardless of whom they offend, eternal punishment cannot be grounded in the nature of the crime committed.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Culpability depends on the status of the victim, not just the finite agent's capacities. Offending an infinite being may warrant infinite response.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Duration of punishment and magnitude of culpability are distinct concepts. Finite wrongs could warrant finite culpability but infinite duration.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This argument assumes retributive justice is the only framework. Deterrence or reformation theories don't require proportional punishment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Culpability is proportional to an agent's causal power and knowledge. Finite beings have limited both, so their culpability must be finite.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Punishment justified by retribution requires proportionality between harm caused and penalty imposed. Infinite punishment violates this principle.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An infinite sentence for a finite act appears unjust by any coherent moral standard that rational agents could endorse as fair.
?
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.