tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post658324139249148213..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Retributive punishment is good for the evildoerAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36633507470973179992011-04-07T09:53:22.255-05:002011-04-07T09:53:22.255-05:00It might be possible for a tormented soul to someh...It might be possible for a tormented soul to somehow make the best of his situation by finding aspects of his torment which he appreciates. And so, in line with your suggestions, he may find it interesting to have a clearer perception of his rebellion against God, or his deservedness of punishment under God's justice system; or he might value the knowledge of how God responds to his behavior; etc.<br /><br />I have two thoughts on this. First, the sinner could presumably find similar appreciation in a much kinder treatment. If knowledge of his situation and of God's plan is what the sinner values, then he can have these things independent of the existence of Hell. So, instead of tormenting sinners for the rest of forever, God could simply grant sinners with knowledge of his mercy, and leave it at that (i.e. not lump in the torment). And similarly with showing respect, or revealing the results of wicked behaviors, and so forth. I don't see why Hell should be required for any of those things.<br /><br />Secondly, whatever small appreciation he finds in these aspects of his experience, it seems to me fairly plain that, on the whole, his experience is disvalued. In other words, as long as we take the traditional, nightmarish view of Hell, then the negative aspects of the Hell experience will far outweigh the positives. In that case, it seems a horrible thing for God to impose such horror on human souls.<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-57094168181181287002011-04-07T09:09:16.012-05:002011-04-07T09:09:16.012-05:00Ben:
I don't know exactly what kind of value ...Ben:<br /><br />I don't know exactly what kind of value punishment has. But my thinking is this. Take the side of reward. You give me a lovely vase in gratitude for something I did for you. The reward has two components of value. One component comes is simply the value of the vase. If you gave me the vase not as a reward, but for any other reason, it would still have that value. But there is a second component of the value which comes from the fact that the vase is a deserved reward. <br /><br />Now, in the case of punishment, we have two sorts of components of value. First, there is the value of the harsh treatment as such. Second, there is the component that comes from the fact that the harsh treatment is a deserved punishment. In the case of reward, the two components add up. In the case of punishment, they point in opposite directions: the harsh treatment has disvalue but the deserved-punishment component has value.<br /><br />Why think this? Well, here is a thought. It seems reasonable and virtuous that someone who has done something wrong might wish to be punished, to "pay her debt to society", and would find it of value to do so. But one should not find of value that which has no objectively value. (There are some gaps here.)<br /><br /><br />That still doesn't answer the question of what sort of value the punishment has.<br /><br />Here are some of my speculations:<br /><br />It's the good of being justly treated. <br /><br />Option 1: It's a species of<br />being respected. <br /><br />Option 2: It's a species of efficacy. It's the last effect of one's actions. <br /><br />Option 3: It's good to see things as they are. To see oneself as one is, when one wicked, involves pain. The<br />pain imposed by the punishment is like the output of a hearing aid: it<br />is a prosthesis that substitutes for one's insensitive faculty of<br />self-perception. <br /><br />Option 4: True punishment consists in a clear perception of one's true state. The sinner's true state is bad in body (because bodily desires are misdirected) and in soul, and this perception is pain. It is good to have a clear perception of the truth.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-66878998868985425312011-04-07T08:45:24.977-05:002011-04-07T08:45:24.977-05:00Mr. Pruss,
I'm a little confused as to what y...Mr. Pruss,<br /><br />I'm a little confused as to what you're suggesting, here. In particular, I can't imagine what value divine retribution could have to a sinner. It looks like you think that it has some sort of intrinsic goodness---goodness "in and of itself," you call it---and that this is what gives it its value. But I don't know how to make sense of goodness (intrinsic or otherwise) except again in terms of value, and so we run right back to the original question, why value divine retribution?<br /><br />Or we could rephrase the question and ask, in what sense is divine retribution "good" for the sinner, that it should be valuable to him?<br /><br />I just don't see how it's possible to find any value or goodness in divine punishment without imposing limitations on God's resources.<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-89692014351461044902011-04-06T11:54:21.514-05:002011-04-06T11:54:21.514-05:00This might be off topic a bit, but your post remin...This might be off topic a bit, but your post reminded me of this. To what extent do you think consequentialist reasons factor into our justifictory explanation of God's retributive punishment (or perhaps his allowance of people to suffer evil...) [I have in mind traditional theodicies.] Do you think most theodicies are consequentialistic? <br /> <br />If this isn't the right place, feel free to ignore the question.Andrew Jaegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478566939092309059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-56915132400896221332011-04-06T08:21:51.238-05:002011-04-06T08:21:51.238-05:00Or maybe better put it like this: It's better ...Or maybe better put it like this: It's better to be worthy of pity than of resentment. The unpunished wrongdoer is worthy of resentment. Punishment makes her worthy of pity instead.<br /><br />Being worthy of resentment is, as such, a bad thing. Being worthy of pity isn't, as such, a bad thing, though it is always the result of a bad thing.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-5067363442661504942011-04-06T03:39:00.846-05:002011-04-06T03:39:00.846-05:00I suppose that it's better to be pitied than h...I suppose that it's better to be pitied than hated, and that retributive punishment could make the former more likely?Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com