Why Jac has no (logical) problem with Hell

[PoopShoot]

Why don't you want someone stealing stuff everyday? Because he might steal your stuff next.

No.  I don't want someone stealing stuff everyday because when that becomes acceptable, producers have no return on their production and consumers have no reason to produce.  Personal empathy and desires only fuel the proliferation of this aversion through social creatures.  Saying that the personal iteration of it makes it subjective is akin to saying that scientific data is subjective because it's being observed by a person.

[Asmodean]

No, let's talk about the repeated objection that Hell is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that God is good. If we prove a moral God exists, then we go on from there to prove that Hell exists. That, however, is a different debate entirely. To insist on it at this juncture is, as I have already pointed out, to move the goalposts.

A good (from his own point of view since good is subjective) and moral (same parentheses) god creates a place with fire and torture and whatnot... Yeah. Sure. Why not.

However, why would he resort to forms of punishment that require the victims to have a nervous system, (Physical and psychological) since as far as I understand, a "soul" is supposed to have none?

[Sophus]

Why don't you want someone stealing stuff everyday? Because he might steal your stuff next.

No.  I don't want someone stealing stuff everyday because when that becomes acceptable, producers have no return on their production and consumers have no reason to produce.

Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

[PoopShoot]

Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

Because we are social animals that are dependent upon the availability of produced goods.  Without incentive to produce, there are no goods for us to consume.  Even in a very primitive society, there is a need for goods, hence the barter system.

[Sophus]

Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

Because we are social animals that are dependent upon the availability of produced goods.  Without incentive to produce, there are no goods for us to consume.  Even in a very primitive society, there is a need for goods, hence the barter system.

I agree, as virtually everyone probably does. Still, I can't comprehend how that makes morality objective. Anything seen as 'good' or 'bad' is always subjective.

[Asmodean]

I agree, as virtually everyone probably does. Still, I can't comprehend how that makes morality objective. Anything seen as 'good' or 'bad' is always subjective.

Indeed. Several people's misfortune would be a very good thing for me - would be equally bad for them and those immediately around them though- One mans good can well be another man's bad even seeing the issue through the prism of consumerism.

[humblesmurph]

Yes but then the question always boils down to: why is that bad?

Because we are social animals that are dependent upon the availability of produced goods.  Without incentive to produce, there are no goods for us to consume.  Even in a very primitive society, there is a need for goods, hence the barter system.

We all know that a system of right and wrong is essential to society just like we know that a pitch is essential to a soccer match.  However, we can't prove it is better to have a society than not have one, just like we can't prove that soccer doesn't suck and shouldn't be played by anybody ever.  Both of those statements are obviously true, but ultimately they are just my subjective opinions.

Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

[Asmodean]

Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Seeing society as a subject to humanity in general, morality is still subjective.

When people talk about "objective" morality, they tend to think about something that applies to everyone and everything.

[_7654_]

"
 1. Hell is not a place where we are punished for sin.
 2. Hell is not a place people go because they deserve be there.
 3. Regardless of the view of Hell one takes, no argument will or can make us "feel good" about it (it is, after all, Hell).
 4. Hell is not some metaphorical concept (that would certainly be an easy way out). It is real.
"
I am just quoting here, to spare me the jumping back and forth :-) They where never told about hell, heaven, god or any of that stuff, therefore they would harbour no feelings towards these concepts.

#4 i guess, after shredding the first three arguments, i can simply dismiss the false conclusion build upon them. hell is metaphorical and imaginary at best...

[humblesmurph]

Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Seeing society as a subject to humanity in general, morality is still subjective.

When people talk about "objective" morality, they tend to think about something that applies to everyone and everything.

I agree with you. Poop made a reference to morality being "pragmatically objective". I'm trying to flesh out exactly what he means by this.

[PoopShoot]

Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Negative.  It's not my opinion, it's biological fact.  Now had we evolved as solitary creatures, that'd be a different story, but then we probably wouldn't have evolved a number of innovations that have helped us become what we are now.  I will concede that what is objectively moral would depend on the circumstances of the specific species.

[Sophus]

Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Negative.  It's not my opinion, it's biological fact.  Now had we evolved as solitary creatures, that'd be a different story,

There are always exceptions (hermits, for example) but regardless I don't see how that fact has any bearing on morality itself. Nothing is "Wrong" until it is judged or interpreted as being wrong. With anything objective it must be the other way around. The universe is completely indifferent to human moral affairs.

[humblesmurph]

Your presumption that society is a good thing is a subjective opinion.  Morality only exists objectively (even then it's objectivity is debatable) within the framework of a society.

Negative.  It's not my opinion, it's biological fact.  Now had we evolved as solitary creatures, that'd be a different story, but then we probably wouldn't have evolved a number of innovations that have helped us become what we are now.  I will concede that what is objectively moral would depend on the circumstances of the specific species.

Facts have proof.  Prove that man absolutely couldn't survive without morality.

I see lions on the Serengeti acting without morality all the time on the Discovery Channel.  They take what they want, kill what they want and fuck what they want.  They seem to get along fine.  Why can't humans mimic them and survive?

Ultimately, you can't even prove that the continued survival of man is a good thing.

Edit: Sophus, I understand your point.  Poop is wrong twice on this one:

First he is acting under the assumption that the survival of man is necessarily good and that society is the necessarily the best way to do that.  

Second, he is stating that there is some objective way to determine the parameters of society.

I am concerning myself with his first wrong idea.  You are concerning yourself with his second wrong idea.

[PoopShoot]

There are always exceptions (hermits, for example)

Yep.  Hermits also tend to go back to town and restock supplies.  The ones who don't AND survive are pretty rare.  Regardless, the anomalies are a perfect opportunity for evolution to take over.  A solitary version of humanity would be an interesting creature indeed and the morality of such a creature wouldn't be based on how society functions.

but regardless I don't see how that fact has any bearing on morality itself.

social degradation.

Nothing is "Wrong" until it is judged or interpreted as being wrong.

And an individual who subjectively goes against that is removed from society.

With anything objective it must be the other way around.

Not necessarily.  The subject merely needs to look at the situation objectively.

The universe is completely indifferent to human moral affairs.

So what?  The universe is indifferent to the fact that our galaxy and andromeda will collide, killing all life in both.  By that logic, nothing below the level of "universal" is objective.

[PoopShoot]

Facts have proof.  Prove that man absolutely couldn't survive without morality.

I never made that argument.

I see lions on the Serengeti acting without morality all the time on the Discovery Channel.  They take what they want, kill what they want and fuck what they want.  They seem to get along fine.  Why can't humans mimic them and survive?

Lions DO have morality.  It's harsher than ours, but it IS a code of conduct that allows lion society (which is MUCH different than ours) to function.

Ultimately, you can't even prove that the continued survival of man is a good thing.

Well, the lack of that survival is pretty BAD for mankind, which is the level of objectivity I'm talking about.

First he is acting under the assumption that the survival of man is necessarily good and that society is the necessarily the best way to do that.  

Necessarily good on what objective level?

Second, he is stating that there is some objective way to determine the parameters of society.

No, the parameters of society are the level of objectivity from which I'm arguing.

I am concerning myself with his first wrong idea.  You are concerning yourself with his second wrong idea.

Your lack of understanding my point doesn't make me wrong, though it implies I'm an ineffective communicator.