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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Those who die in infancy or never develop into minimally rational agents also deserve condemnation along with the rest of the human race.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral desert requires the capacity for morally significant choice; beings incapable of rational agency cannot be proper objects of punitive condemnation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inherited guilt without personal agency violates the principle of individual moral responsibility foundational to retributive justice since Ezekiel 18:20 and Kant's ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A just God, by classical theistic definition, cannot impose condemnation where the necessary conditions for culpability are absent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Augustine's own doctrine of original sin as inherited corruption, not merely imputed guilt, implies condemnation tracks a transmitted moral disease rather than deserved punishment for a personal act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If condemnation derives from inherited corruption rather than personal offense, the doctrine collapses into a form of strict liability incompatible with the retributive framework the supporting argument invokes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pelagius and later Arminius argued that divine justice requires that no soul be condemned for a sin it had no volitional participation in, a position with robust support in the Reformed tradition's own internal debates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The whole human race was condemned in its apostate head (Adam) by a divine judgment so just that even if not a single member of the race were ever saved from it, no one could rail against God's justice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This condemnation applies even to those who never personally commit any offense against God.
      ?

      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.