If there is a Hell, it's a good thing

[Kenny]

Pay close attention to the following definition or you’ll miss the whole point: I understand ‘Hell’ to refer (if it refers) to a place (or state) in which guilty persons are (or will be) conscious after death and where (or in which) they are being (or will be) justly punished for their crimes for an unending duration.

Now, given the above definition, If there is a Hell, then Hell is a good thing. Why? Because, all else being equal, it is better for people to get what they deserve than not to get what they deserve. It is, all else being equal, a bad thing when justice is not served. It is, all else being equal, a good thing when it is.

Now, I know that some here will protest that if there were a Hell as Christians have traditionally conceived it, the punishment that the wicked received there would not be proportionate to their crimes and thus would not be just. But note that it’s built in to the definition of Hell that I provided that if there is a Hell, it is a place where the punishment of the wicked is just. So if the above protest is correct, then, given the above definition, there either is no Hell, or Hell is not the way that Christians have traditionally conceived it as being (Note: I myself think that much of the way in which Christians popularly think of Hell leaves a lot to be desired). And I am not defending the claim that there is a Hell or that it is the way that Christians have traditionally conceived of it in this thread. I’m only defending the conditional claim: If there is a Hell, Hell is a good thing.

What is the value in arguing for just the above conditional claim rather than mounting a full defense of the Christian doctrine of Hell out right? I think that it follows from the conditional claim that if there is a problem of Hell for Christian theology, it is not an instance of the problem of evil. For if there is a Hell, then it is just (for it is built into Christian concept of Hell that it is a place where the wicked are justly punished), and the serving of justice is a good, not an evil.

[AngelDragon]

I think Hell's a bad thing because in Hell, there is no God. Since God is the source of everything good, Hell can only be bad.

The idea of Hell may be good based on your idea, but Hell itself can't possibly be good. It's separated from what goodness is.

[Kenny]

I think Hell's a bad thing because in Hell, there is no God. Since God is the source of everything good, Hell can only be bad.

I don’t really buy into the whole “Hell is separation from God” idea. On the view of the afterlife I favor (note, btw, that this is an area of theology that I don’t feel that I have well-worked out, confident views concerning), everyone will experience the presence of God. But not everyone will experience that presence in the same way. For some it will be bliss. For others it will be torment.

But waving that aside, I think that you may be conflating two senses of ‘bad’ here. Of course, in one sense, whatever Hell is like, it will be “bad” for those who are there, just like prison is “bad” for those that are there. It is “bad” for those that are then in the sense that it is an undesirable state to be in. But not everything that is “bad” in that sense is morally bad. I take it that it is in fact a morally good thing that genuinely deserving criminals are locked away. Likewise with Hell, if indeed there is such a place.

[sandlewood]

I think I'm missing something. It sounds to me like this:

- Punishment of people in Hell is just.
- That which is just is good.
- Therefore, punishment of people in Hell is good.

The first premise is a given and an unassailable fact for the purpose of the argument. Most people would agree that whatever is just is good. Isn't this begging the question?

[Kenny]

I think I'm missing something. It sounds to me like this:

- Punishment of people in Hell is just.
- That which is just is good.
- Therefore, punishment of people in Hell is good.

The first premise is a given and an unassailable fact for the purpose of the argument. Most people would agree that whatever is just is good. Isn't this begging the question?

Try

P1) If there is punishment of people in Hell, it is just.
P2) Whatever is just is good.
Therefore, if there is punishment of people in Hell, it is good.

No, I don’t think this is begging the question. I take the first premise of the argument to simply follow from the Christian concept of Hell.

What I’m trying show is that Christians who believe that there is Hell don’t face an additional problem of evil on account of their belief in that doctrine. There may be other problematic aspects of the doctrine of Hell, but since it is built into the doctrine of Hell that Hell is just, such Christians are not committed to the claim that in permitting there to be a Hell, God permits an evil state of affairs to obtain. If there is a Hell, there is nothing evil about it.

Now, one may well argue against the doctrine of Hell by arguing that if there were punishment of people in Hell, it would not be just (that doesn’t contradict P1, btw, since P1 is a conditional claim, and the law of the conditional excluded middle is invalid). Fine, in that case, what you have is an argument that there is no Hell, not an argument that Christians who believe in Hell are committed to thinking that Hell is an evil state of affairs.

Like I said, if there is a problem of Hell, it is not an instance of the problem of evil.

[ENeGMA]

Pay close attention to the following definition or you’ll miss the whole point: I understand ‘Hell’ to refer (if it refers) to a place (or state) in which guilty persons are (or will be) conscious after death and where (or in which) they are being (or will be) justly punished for their crimes for an unending duration.

Punishment that occurs for an unending duration would be infinite punishment after an infinite time span.

So every guilty person would be punished infinitely for their sins, which is absurd.

Furthermore, I don't think ineffectual punishment is morally allowable. In this scenario, the punishment would be totally ineffectual because of its infinite duration: even if the punished successfully repents, you'll still punish him, and if he doesn't, you're punishing him for absolutely no reason and to no effect.

Now, given the above definition, If there is a Hell, then Hell is a good thing. Why? Because, all else being equal, it is better for people to get what they deserve than not to get what they deserve. It is, all else being equal, a bad thing when justice is not served. It is, all else being equal, a good thing when it is.

I think, for example, that it's a good thing that thieves "get what they deserve", eg. a moderate prison sentence.

But I don't think we should be ripping their finger nails off with pliers or anything.

Similarly, I deserve (by definition) to be punished for whatever sins I commit. But unless I've committed an infinite amount of sins or my sins are somehow, on their own, worthy of infinite punishment (which I take to be ridiculous on its face), then an infinite amount of punishment for my sin is egregious just likes it's egregious to put someone to death for speeding.

Now, I know that some here will protest that if there were a Hell as Christians have traditionally conceived it, the punishment that the wicked received there would not be proportionate to their crimes and thus would not be just

Yes.

But note that it’s built in to the definition of Hell that I provided that if there is a Hell, it is a place where the punishment of the wicked is just.

Punishment of the wicked to the degree that their sin warrants it.

Infinite punishment for finite crime is as wicked as could be. If sins come in degrees, as you implied, then punishing someone beyond the degree to which they deserve to get punished for their sin is as bad as punishing an innocent person.

So if the above protest is correct, then, given the above definition, there either is no Hell, or Hell is not the way that Christians have traditionally conceived it as being (Note: I myself think that much of the way in which Christians popularly think of Hell leaves a lot to be desired). And I am not defending the claim that there is a Hell or that it is the way that Christians have traditionally conceived of it in this thread. I’m only defending the conditional claim: If there is a Hell, Hell is a good thing.

What is the value in arguing for just the above conditional claim rather than mounting a full defense of the Christian doctrine of Hell out right? I think that it follows from the conditional claim that if there is a problem of Hell for Christian theology, it is not an instance of the problem of evil. For if there is a Hell, then it is just (for it is built into Christian concept of Hell that it is a place where the wicked are justly punished), and the serving of justice is a good, not an evil.

Alright, punish them and then let them out when they've served their punishment.

I'd have no qualm with such a system, morally. To the degree that people do things they should be punished for, they should be punished. But none has done something worthy of infinite punishment.

Furthermore, the idea that sinners deserve to be punished needs to be clarified. I think punishment is only justified in certain circumstances, eg. the person really was morally culpable for their crimes, the punishment is effectual (why punish someone if your punishment, by definition, will not have the desired effect of reforming that individual?), etc.

So I think there still is a serious issue for the Christian proposing this type of hell.

[John Goddard]

I think Hell's a bad thing because in Hell, there is no God. Since God is the source of everything good, Hell can only be bad.

The idea of Hell may be good based on your idea, but Hell itself can't possibly be good. It's separated from what goodness is.

A bad Hell would seem to interfere with the idea of an omnibenevolent God who does what's best for everyone in the end.

That's why I lean to Hell = unconscious death, since I think it is better to be dead than suffer for eternity.

[sandlewood]

Try

P1) If there is punishment of people in Hell, it is just.
P2) Whatever is just is good.
Therefore, if there is punishment of people in Hell, it is good.

No, I don’t think this is begging the question. I take the first premise of the argument to simply follow from the Christian concept of Hell.

What I’m trying show is that Christians who believe that there is Hell don’t face an additional problem of evil on account of their belief in that doctrine. There may be other problematic aspects of the doctrine of Hell, but since it is built into the doctrine of Hell that Hell is just, such Christians are not committed to the claim that in permitting there to be a Hell, God permits an evil state of affairs to obtain. If there is a Hell, there is nothing evil about it.

Now, one may well argue against the doctrine of Hell by arguing that if there were punishment of people in Hell, it would not be just (that doesn’t contradict P1, btw, since P1 is a conditional claim, and the law of the conditional excluded middle is invalid). Fine, in that case, what you have is an argument that there is no Hell, not an argument that Christians who believe in Hell are committed to thinking that Hell is an evil state of affairs.

Like I said, if there is a problem of Hell, it is not an instance of the problem of evil.

Even though premise 1 is conditionally stated using the word “if”, isn't that implicitly true of any premise in any argument? You assume from the outset that punishment in Hell is just. And since “just” and “good” are essentially synonymous, it just seems like a tautology to me. Anyway, I don't deny your argument that it's not a problem of evil...as long as you assume it's not in the first premise.

I think there are a couple of additional hidden premises there, too:

1. God is truly what people believe he is---totally benevolent, omniscient, and the creator of everything. He is not some trickster who deceives people.
2. God's concept of justice is very different from our commonly held idea of justice. We don't know what that is but we presume his is the true and correct one.

[mattbballman]

Kenny,

Do you think just punishment is 'better' than no punishment? Or is that question too much in a vacuum? The suffering in Hell is unspeakably horrible. Everyone admits this. The question is: even if it is just, what about the state of affairs in which there is no suffering, since nothing is created?

Suppose that a wizard appeared to you and asked: "Kenny. I have the magical powers to create world peace and erase world hunger. I can also take away natural disasters. Tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes - gone. I know you think these disasters are necessary because of the way the world works. But I can magically keep the earth without the disasters."

Kenny: "Okay. What's the catch?"

Wizard: "You have to boil a baby alive."

Right, boiling the baby wouldn't be just. But which state of affairs would be better? The baby lives, and the suffering in the world continues. Or, the baby dies, and all that suffering is gone?

Back to Hell. Even if Hell is just, which state of affairs is better? 1. The horrific eternal torment of those in Hell, and an elect enjoying the divine beauty? OR, 2. neither suffering nor beatitude, if nothing was created?

Suppose we have a scale. -10 is awful. 10 is bliss. I guess the #'s will be decided based on an optimal average of sorts. Where would you put the scale on both states of affairs. For me, 1 would be 10, since the persons of the Trinity enjoy each other's beatitude. 2 would be - on average - somewhere below 0, since narrow is the way that leads to eternal life, few find it.

And I agree that the way I've made the probability calculus could be totally off.

Thanks Kenny!!

[Kenny]

Punishment that occurs for an unending duration would be infinite punishment after an infinite time span.

If, per impossible, you ever got to the end of the time span.

So every guilty person would be punished infinitely for their sins, which is absurd.

Not really, since there is no time in the future at which people will have spent an eternity in Hell.

It would be the case that people will be being punished unendingly for their sins. But that may be because their sins are ongoing (people in Hell might continually sin by continually despising God).

Furthermore, I don't think ineffectual punishment is morally allowable. In this scenario, the punishment would be totally ineffectual because of its infinite duration:

Punishment needn’t be restorative to be effectual. One way for punishment to be effectual is for it to prevent the evil person from ignoring the gravity of his or her evil or for it to prevent that person from sliding into even further evil.

Even if the punished successfully repents, you'll still punish him, and if he doesn't, you're punishing him for absolutely no reason and to no effect.

It may be that those in Hell never repent. As for the second possibility, see what I already said above.

I think, for example, that it's a good thing that thieves "get what they deserve", eg. a moderate prison sentence.

Yep, and if the Christian doctrine of Hell is true, people in Hell get what they deserve. Now, you may think that such would not be the case. Like I said before, fine (although I said a few things in response to your points above, the issue of whether eternal conscious punishment would in fact be just is not the issue of this thread). It’s still the case that believers in the doctrine of Hell are not committed to believing that God permits an evil state of affairs by permitting there to be a Hell. At worst, they have some false beliefs about what would be just.

If eternal conscious punishment of the wicked would not be just, then what follows is not that Hell would be evil, but that there is no Hell. It’s built into the doctrine of Hell that if there is a Hell, it is just.

[Kenny]

Even though premise 1 is conditionally stated using the word “if”, isn't that implicitly true of any premise in any argument?

I don’t understand what you are asking here.

You assume from the outset that punishment in Hell is just.

I take it to be a conceptual truth that if there is a Hell, then it is just. I take that to be built into the Christian concept of Hell

I think there are a couple of additional hidden premises there, too:

1. God is truly what people believe he is---totally benevolent, omniscient, and the creator of everything. He is not some trickster who deceives people.

How is this premise “hidden” in the argument?

2. God's concept of justice is very different from our commonly held idea of justice. We don't know what that is but we presume his is the true and correct one.

I don’t believe that. I think that our concept of justice is distorted, but still shares a great deal in common with the genuine concept of justice. But in any case, I don’t see how this premise is “hidden” in the argument either.

[Matt the Bat]

I can sort of understand some people's issues with this specific doctrine of hell. That seems silly that God would have to bring torture on people to make them continually hate him just to have a reason why they should be there in eternity. Also, I find the idea of eternal punishment irrational because punishment is supposed to encourage people to try and not commit criminal acts again.

[Kenny]

Do you think just punishment is 'better' than no punishment?

Yes, all else being equal.

The suffering in Hell is unspeakably horrible. Everyone admits this.

I don’t. Hell is an undesirable state to be in, one in which one experiences torment of some sort. And the loss compared to the alternative is infinitely great. But that is about all I’m willing to commit myself to about how bad it is. I don’t think Scripture gives us much information here (in fact, Scripture is vague enough about Hell that even annihilationist can make a pretty decent case for their view).

The question is: even if it is just, what about the state of affairs in which there is no suffering, since nothing is created?

As the phenomenon of just punishment shows, not all suffering is morally bad.

Right, boiling the baby wouldn't be just. But which state of affairs would be better? The baby lives, and the suffering in the world continues. Or, the baby dies, and all that suffering is gone?

It would seem that it would be better for the suffering of the world to end (of course, that doesn’t obviously entail that it would be right to boil the baby, not without some heavy consequentialist premises)

Back to Hell. Even if Hell is just, which state of affairs is better? 1. The horrific eternal torment of those in Hell, and an elect enjoying the divine beauty? OR, 2. neither suffering nor beatitude, if nothing was created?

If Hell is just, then the eternal torment of those in Hell is a moral good. So it seems like the right answer is 1.

[Doug Shaver]

Pay close attention to the following definition or you’ll miss the whole point: I understand ‘Hell’ to refer (if it refers) to a place (or state) in which guilty persons are (or will be) conscious after death and where (or in which) they are being (or will be) justly punished for their crimes for an unending duration.

So, you're saying that anybody who goes to hell will get whatever they deserve, and no more than whatever they deserve?

[seanD]

Christian eschatology basically teaches the final hell -- at least the fiery hell -- won't happen until after the new age millennium when Christ returns.

It's highly probable -- more than a few scriptures indicating this -- that there will be degrees of judgment, both good and bad. And even the bad may be given another chance -- perhaps during the "first resurrection"? -- before the ultimate punishment at the end of the millennium which is the lake of fire.

The "first resurrection" part is almost purely speculation though, and all this depends on one's views about the whole eschatological scenario.

In other words, if that's true, then only the really really bad and stupid ones will get sentenced to the lake of fire.