Is purposeless torture moral?
Offline Is purposeless torture moral?
Most governments seem to believe that torture is an immoral and evil thing and most do not have what we would call a torture chambers. Let’s ignore Guantanamo Bay and other exceptions please.
Religions do not seem to agree with this because religions promise a place of torture for evil souls and some believers will even drop a church that preaches that there is no hell. It seems that some believers want badly that there be this place of purposeless torture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baGwwma5VZo&feature=relmfu
Hell is a place of purposeless torture and pain. It is used purely for revenge retribution and cruelty.
Some say we choose hell and some think that God, as our judge, sentences us to it. Some think it is eternal while some think that it and its occupants are eventually dumped into a lake of fire and destroyed. A long period of torture to some and a short term of torture to others.
From a moral standpoint, to even create such a place would not be moral.
Is it moral for God to use or let others choose to use his torture chamber called hell or the lake of fire?
Regards
DL
- Login to post comments
Whether moral or immoral, it sure is fun
I often use to think that without finding the ridiculous fallacy of hell, I may have never have woke up and denounced god and christianity. But the reality is I never would have bought in to the story in the first place if it wasn't for the fear of hell. Without it religion would not disappear, but would surely not have it's stronghold. For those already injected with the poison of christ but with doubt and on the verge of apostizing, the message of life and god without hell would be a safe haven for them. They could still save face and justify the state of denial they are in.
Hell is no more real than the god of abraham himself. Each are just one side of a mental club to beat their hapless victims with.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
(Theism-oriented) morality discussions like these are why I grab newly hatched birds out of nests and give them the "safe heat" treatment; I put them in front of space heaters and warm them up enough to cause flinching but not death, all in the name of "(a)moral" protest.
The point being, I could give a shit what another person thinks is "moral", atheist or theist, friend or foe. There's an existential essay waiting amongst this rather basic premise, but I'll be damned if I can be bothered to write it.
Yet the golden/silver rule of ethics holds appeal, because it is largely ineffectual on me as an individual who is largely indifferent towards how society and the human race in general treats him.
Not necessarily bitter, mind you... I just decided to stop caring at some point with something of a death sentence hanging over my head; two endocrine conditions that are particularly complicated to medicate. edit; as opposed to infection or allergies, or "splitting" migraines. Organ/tissue transplant is more complicated to medicate "properly", thanks to the necessary immunosuppressors. I'm guessing that (most of the time), it would be easier for me to die rather than 'consume' a transplant that could be used on a more productive member of society.
If nothing else, these two diseases have rendered me a prisoner of my overprotective/obsessive family.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Besides, torturing people FOREVER for a finite lifetime could hardly be called fair or moral.
Tony
No argument.
Regards
DL
No argument on this.
Regards
DL
Bars do not a prison make my friend.
Regards
DL
Oh, right. Disease are mere obstacles to overcome. This would make sense if I were already omnipotent.
Like the entirety of the human race, I can only pretend to be...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
If something cannot be overcome, then it must be ignored as much as possible.
I know. Easy for some to say but not too long ago, you would likely be dead.
I know I would be if I could not access today's medicine.
Some cannot. About 9.5 million below the age of 5 who starve or die from preventable causes yearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXoPhgTkuY&feature=player_embedded
Regards
DL