Prison is not a punishment... it is a choice!?

[Calgar]

Wow. The oxymoron of the century: “an unconscious choice”. Don’t try to kill me with laughter.

You said it, not me.

It’s good that you ignore the questions you can’t answer.

 

[Serious]

You said it, not me.

It’s good that you ignore the questions you can’t answer.

I cannot answer nonsensical questions, that is for sure. I cannot answer if you ask me what is to the north from the North Pole. If you don’t understand it, it is your problem. I would much rather get into a conversation with sensible people, so if you ignore me, I will be most grateful.

 

[Calgar]

I cannot answer nonsensical questions, that is for sure. I cannot answer if you ask me what is to the north from the North Pole. If you don’t understand it, it is your problem. I would much rather get into a conversation with sensible people, so if you ignore me, I will be most grateful.

Ah, so calling my question “nonsensical” is your way of avoiding it? Or perhaps you simply cannot think that way?

I’ll ask it again:

Why do you believe that a person must be aware that their actions will result in prison for them to actually be sent to prison?

I mean, ignorance of the law is no defense.

I accept your apology for mis-quoting me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why do you believe that a person must be aware that their actions will result in prison for them to actually be sent to prison?

I think it is better described as a possible factitious consequence.

 

[englishredrose]

Without reading what anyone else has had to say,

Initially I thought - what are you talking about.

But knowing my own self, for some people, yes you are right to an extent. Time and time again even on British TV we hear it being said that people who are used to being ‘inside’ feel safer there than on the outside and will do something to land them inside again.

But not everyone in prision is there through a choice. Though arguably through wrong set of choices but not their choice. For some people they innocently find their way there and it really is a punishment that they learn from and never go back again.

 

[inocente]

Except on Christianity, God makes known his moral commands to everyone on the basis of general revelation, hence no one is without excuse and all do make a choice.

We need to be able to have some understanding of what the word “God” means so that we know what we are talking about and can have a reasonable conversation. The alternative is to use the word without knowing what it means, which would make the word “God” useless.

Second, your example is so far too vague to be persuassive. It is not clear that having different definitions would cut one person or another from God. Maybe Seri believes that the word God means “greatest conceivable being” and Dan thinks the word “God” refers to a person possessing the qualities of omnipotence, omniscence, moral perfection, metaphysical necessity, in-corporeality etc. This would hardly cause one of the other to be cut off from God.

Third, suppose, they did have very different definitions of God. Seri is an educated Christian who thinks that God is a GCB and and Dan is uneducated who just thinks God is really big and strong, but both believe in Jesus and want to follow his commands as revealed in the Bible and come into a loving relationship with him. Again, I see no problem.

Fourth, suppose, Seri is a Christian and Dan has never heard of God at all. Well, Dan will be judged on the basis of his response to general revelation, so thinking of God differently (or maybe not at all, may not hinder his chance at salvation.

OK, thanks. I’m still confused about the moral commands and general revelation, perhaps you would help me with an example. Suppose a Catholic R and Baptist S believe condoms are a sin, while Catholic T and Baptist U believe condoms are not a sin. All act accordingly within their respective marriages, all are well educated, and all are unrepentant in their beliefs. Which, if any, have cut themselves off from God, or otherwise displeased God?

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

You or God or anyone else are most welcome to explain why I am wrong. Stop the generalities get down to the details and be SPECIFIC. Show me what greater good was achieved by the Holocuast, and how would that greater good be thwarted if just one Jew would have been spared of the torture and the gas chamber. Show me what greater good came out from a thug who kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered a small girl. Show me how a random heart attack (induced by God) would have made the world much worse, if that kidnapping, rape, torture and murder never happened.

I am tired of “just because you cannot comprehend” type of nonsense. If you are so well-informed, share it. If you are not, then call God to explain. I already said, that I would accept God’s proof, in the matter. You play the same dance over and over again. You ask some questions, I answer them and then you ask the same question again. Boring!

I think you hate the “just because you cannot comprehend” response because it challenges your lack of faith. For some reason you think mysteries are contrary to reason, when they are really beyond reason. As for the scenarios you mentioned, I would be happy to explain the greater good from them if God was to reveal it to me; however, there is a story that I would like to share with you.

There is a story about Maria Goretti, a little girl that was murdered by Alessandro Serenelli. He was going to rape her, but she resisted him to protect her virginity. Alessandro, then stabbed her 11 times. While this was happening she told him not to do it because he would lose his soul. Even during the time she was being killed she was thinking of his soul. Anyway, while in prison, Alessandro completely repents and changes his life, because of her love for him. Here is letter from him so you can hear about it in his own words.

"I’m nearly 80 years old. I’m about to depart.
"Looking back at my past, I can see that in my early youth, I chose a bad path which led me to ruin myself.

"My behavior was influenced by print, mass-media and bad examples which are followed by the majority of young people without even thinking. And I did the same. I was not worried.

"There were a lot of generous and devoted people who surrounded me, but I paid no attention to them because a violent force blinded me and pushed me toward a wrong way of life.

"When I was 20 years-old, I committed a crime of passion. Now, that memory represents something horrible for me. Maria Goretti, now a Saint, was my good Angel, sent to me through Providence to guide and save me. I still have impressed upon my heart her words of rebuke and of pardon. She prayed for me, she interceded for her murderer. Thirty years of prison followed.

"If I had been of age, I would have spent all my life in prison. I accepted to be condemned because it was my own fault.

"Little Maria was really my light, my protectress; with her help, I behaved well during the 27 years of prison and tried to live honestly when I was again accepted among the members of society. The Brothers of St. Francis, Capuchins from Marche, welcomed me with angelic charity into their monastery as a brother, not as a servant. I’ve been living with their community for 24 years, and now I am serenely waiting to witness the vision of God, to hug my loved ones again, and to be next to my Guardian Angel and her dear mother, Assunta.

“I hope this letter that I wrote can teach others the happy lesson of avoiding evil and of always following the right path, like little children. I feel that religion with its precepts is not something we can live without, but rather it is the real comfort, the real strength in life and the only safe way in every circumstance, even the most painful ones of life.”

Signature, Alessandro Serenelli

This is in my opinion a perfect example of how a tragic event, which appears meaningless, can lead to a greater good. Maria Goretti was canonized a Saint by the Catholic Church, and I believe both Maria and Alessandro are together in Heaven.

This is one of many types of stories we read in the Biible and can see in the very example of Jesus Christ who died for the salvation of mankind. His betrayal, Passion, and death were all tragic events which produced the greatest good.

 

[Serious]

I think you hate the “just because you cannot comprehend” response because it challenges your lack of faith.

I am more than happy to admit my lack of faith. And I do not “hate” this reply, I simply find it insufficient.

As for the scenarios you mentioned, I would be happy to explain the greater good from them if God was to reveal it to me; however, there is a story that I would like to share with you.

Not enough. Each and every instance of “seemingly” unnecessary suffering must be explained if God’s “solution” is to be accepted as optimal. Every instance when a cruel person tortures some poor animal must be accounted for. Every instance when a drunken father beats up his child must be explained. To give a (maybe) plausible explatanation for one selected event is “nice”, but woefully insufficient.

Obviously you cannot do that, and I do not expect you to be able to do that. Only God could do that - and he is notoriously silent. But the proposition is that EVERY instance of suffering MUST lead - logically! - to some greater good, which greater good would not be possible if the suffering would not take place, or even if that suffering would be lessened even just a little bit.

There is a story about Maria Goretti, a little girl that was murdered by Alessandro Serenelli. He was going to rape her, but she resisted him to protect her virginity. Alessandro, then stabbed her 11 times. While this was happening she told him not to do it because he would lose his soul. Even during the time she was being killed she was thinking of his soul. Anyway, while in prison, Alessandro completely repents and changes his life, because of her love for him. Here is letter from him so you can hear about it in his own words.

Very well, let us look at this example. Let us say that the story shows that the evil of stabbing and raping this poor girl actually led to both of them be accepted in heaven and consequently the possibly greatest good was the result. (Of course this is contradicted by the official teaching of the church that no evil can be justified by the end, no matter how great it is. So you are already on very shaky ground, because it is the church which teaches that the end cannot justify the means. Most people forget about this teaching.)

But the problem is deeper than that. You must substantiate that those 11 stabbings were all logically necessary to achieve the greater good result. If he stabbed her only 10 times, the result would not have materialized. Can you “prove” that? I doubt it. And if only 10 stabbings would have been enough, then allowing the 11th stabbing was unnecessary or gratuituos suffering - and thus God was not good (not benevolent) - for allowing it to happen.

This example shows perfectly just how unreasonable is the idea of the “greater good” defense. If God would come to us and explain each and every one of those “seemingly” meaningless sufferings, and would also prove that every bit of those sufferings was logically necessay, and even if just one miniscule suffering would have been lessened, then the grater good would have become impossible - then and ONLY THEN - would the “greater good defense” work.

Of course most people understand that this line of defense is hopeless, and so they “switch over” to the “free will defense” (Plantinga does it, for example). In that case they will admit that God allows truly (and not just seemingly) evil events to occur, which cannot be defended by stipulating some “nebulous” greater good. They are willing to admit that there are gratuitous evils in the world, but they say that “it is fine”, because God is unable to weed out these evils without violating the “free will” of some people. Now even if they were right (and they are not, because there are possible worlds with total “free will” and absolutely no evil them), who says the the “free will” of some rapist should be allowed to overcome the “free will” of the rapee, who simply does not want to raped? Why is the “free will” of the rapist is “valued” over the “free will” of the rapee? There is no rational answer to this problem either.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

Very well, let us look at this example. Let us say that the story shows that the evil of stabbing and raping this poor girl actually led to both of them be accepted in heaven and consequently the possibly greatest good was the result. (Of course this is contradicted by the official teaching of the church that no evil can be justified by the end, no matter how great it is. So you are already on very shaky ground, because it is the church which teaches that the end cannot justify the means. Most people forget about this teaching.)

No one is saying the “evil” in the event led to the greater good, but that the event itself led to a greater good, which is why God permitted it. This is not contrary to Catholic teaching.

But the problem is deeper than that. You must substantiate that those 11 stabbings were all logically necessary to achieve the greater good result.

I don’t need to substantiate this because the outcome substantiated it for me. Plus the number of stabbings isn’t the only thing which contributed to the outcome so to focus on only one thing as if it was the only deciding factor would be ridiculous.

This example shows perfectly just how unreasonable is the idea of the “greater good” defense. If God would come to us and explain each and every one of those “seemingly” meaningless sufferings, and would also prove that every bit of those sufferings was logically necessay, and even if just one miniscule suffering would have been lessened, then the grater good would have become impossible - then and ONLY THEN - would the “greater good defense” work.

The only thing that is unreasonable about the story is the way in which you “dissected” it. I provided you with a story in where a tradgic event produced a greater good, one that wouldn’t have happened - even according to the killer- and you’re doging this over the amount of stabs, simply because you think 10 stabs would have been better than 11 stabs?

Heck prove to me that 10 stabs would have been better than 11! Prove to me that the 11th stab wasn’t the one that helped Maria die a quicker death? What if the killer only stabbed her 10 times, prolonging her death because she bled out longer. What if her prolonged death would have given the killer more time to change his mind and rape her while she was still alive? Your “ah ha” argument over the number of stabs is weak.

 

[LilyM]

If someone risks injury in an accident by choosing to get into a car - he does not choose that injury and does not choose that accident. I can’t believe that you all are unable to comprehend this.

People who drive normally and as they should usually don’t get injured.

If a driver chooses to speed, ignore a stop sign or red light, or drive drunk or drugged then yes, it is quite likely they will get injured or injure someone else. And often they will pay for their choice to do that - pay compensation to other people, or forfeit all or part of the insurance they would otherwise get, or get sent to jail.

I repeat my question - what is wring with that?

If an innocent person is injured whilst driving - how often does it happen for no reason? Usually it is due to fault - maybe a preventable mechanical failing in the car, or roads that were not maintained as they ought to be, or a fellow road user who
Is doing something they shouldn’t. Again, the parties responsible for the injury will be liable to rectify the damage done.

Injuries done to innocents are usually the result of human misdeeds, and so add to the guilt an punishment of the guilty.

And before you bring up natural disasters - a lot of the tragedies there fault from human error too - people choosing (or being forced) to live in areas that are prone to flood or
earthquake, or close to a nuclear reactor in the case of Chernobyl or Fukushima, or poor responses when things go wrong.

But the question isn’t about suffering in this life, but in the eternal life. Given that mortal sin (the kind that condemns people to Hell) is defined in Catholic theology as conscious and willful transgression of God’s law, why would a traffic injury to an innocent who is neither knowingly or consciously involved be an appropriate analogy?

For that matter, what makes you say that there is anything particularly unfair about a driver having an accident and being injured anyway? Unfortunate, heartbreaking, disastrous,
awful, yes. and much more besides. I really wouldn’t call it unfair if it happened to me though. Fairness wouldn’t even be something my mind connected with it if there was no-one else at fault.

 

[LilyM]

People who drive normally and as they should usually don’t get injured.

If a driver chooses to speed, ignore a stop sign or red light, or drive drunk or drugged then yes, it is quite likely they will get injured or injure someone else. And often they will pay for their choice to do that - pay compensation to other people, or forfeit all or part of the insurance they would otherwise get, or get sent to jail.

I repeat my question - what is wring with that?

If an innocent person is injured whilst driving - how often does it happen for no reason? Usually it is due to fault - maybe a preventable mechanical failing in the car, or roads that were not maintained as they ought to be, or a fellow road user who
Is doing something they shouldn’t. Again, the parties responsible for the injury will be liable to rectify the damage done.

Injuries done to innocents are usually the result of human misdeeds, and so add to the guilt an punishment of the guilty.

And before you bring up natural disasters - a lot of the tragedies there fault from human error too - people choosing (or being forced) to live in areas that are prone to flood or
earthquake, or close to a nuclear reactor in the case of Chernobyl or Fukushima, or poor responses when things go wrong.

But the question isn’t about suffering in this life, but in the eternal life. Given that mortal sin (the kind that condemns people to Hell) is defined in Catholic theology as conscious and willful transgression of God’s law, why would a traffic injury to an innocent who is neither knowingly or consciously transgressing any law be an appropriate analogy?

For that matter, what makes you say that there is anything particularly unfair about a driver having an accident and being injured anyway? Unfortunate, heartbreaking, disastrous,
awful, yes. and much more besides. I really wouldn’t call it unfair if it happened to me though. Fairness wouldn’t even be something my mind connected with it if there was no-one else at fault.

 

[mwok]

If someone risks injury in an accident by choosing to get into a car - he does not choose that injury and does not choose that accident. I can’t believe that you all are unable to comprehend this.

Just like the criminal does not choose the sentence or which facility he will be sent to.

 

[Serious]

Just like the criminal does not choose the sentence or which facility he will be sent to.

At last a good observation. The criminal does not choose to get caught, does not choose to get prosecuted, does not choose to be sentenced and does not choose to be imprisoned. All those could be the logical and maybe even just consequences of his actions, that is not what I was disputing. He simply did not choose those consequences, he merely risked them. And since none of those consequences follow in an inescapble, logical manner, no one can logically say that he chose those consequences, just like the driver of the car did not choose to have an accident - he merely risked it.

 

[Serious]

People who drive normally and as they should usually don’t get injured.

Irrelevant. Read the post directly above.

 

[Serious]

No one is saying the “evil” in the event led to the greater good, but that the event itself led to a greater good, which is why God permitted it. This is not contrary to Catholic teaching.

If the “evil” part is inseparable from the event, then this is mere semantics. If the “evil” part could have been left out, then it was unnecessary evil. You are in a lose-lose situation.

I don’t need to substantiate this because the outcome substantiated it for me. Plus the number of stabbings isn’t the only thing which contributed to the outcome so to focus on only one thing as if it was the only deciding factor would be ridiculous.

You are getting obtuse. I will explain it one more time, and if you cannot understand it, then so be it.

Let’s see another analogy. A person is bitten by a poisonous snake, and a doctor’s intervention is needed to save his life. The doctor has two options: either give an antidote, or perform an amputation. Both procedures would save the person’s life, so in either case the “greater good” would be achieved. But only one of the procedures can be justified, the giving of the antidote. It is not enough that the “greater good” should be achieved, it is also necessary that the procedure must be minimally intrusive, that the minimum amount of pain should be inflicted.

That is why to state that the “greater good” has been achieved is insufficient. You (or God) must prove that the good was achieved as painlessly as possible. If you cannot do that, you substantiated nothing. Get it now?

 

[LilyM]

At last a good observation. The criminal does not choose to get caught, does not choose to get prosecuted, does not choose to be sentenced and does not choose to be imprisoned. All those could be the logical and maybe even just consequences of his actions, that is not what I was disputing. He simply did not choose those consequences, he merely risked them. And since none of those consequences follow in an inescapble, logical manner, no one can logically say that he chose those consequences, just like the driver of the car did not choose to have an accident - he merely risked it.

Ok, so instead of saying they chose the specific consequence we will say they chose the risk. So we say people choose the risk of going to Hell. Still very much a choice on their part, of course, so it is a distinction without all that much meaning.

And it remains the fact that someone who risks going to hell is as much to blame for their predicament if they end up there as someone who chooses to commit a crime is when they end up wherever - jail, the electric chair or whatnot. Or for that matter as someone who turns themselves into police and demands the particular punishment that is meted out to them, AFAICS

Happy now? I’m amazed that someone of your infinitely superior intelligence couldn’t have said the above in the initial post

 

[Serious]

Ok, so instead of saying they chose the specific consequence we will say they chose the risk. So we say people choose the risk of going to Hell. Still very much a choice on their part, of course, so it is a distinction without all that much meaning.

The difference is huge. If you cannot see that, I cannot help you. Of course the situation is not that simple. When people get into a car, they take a known risk. They are aware of the dangers, and they are aware of the probabilities. Based upon those values they can choose to take the risk or decline it. That is not true in relation to hell. There is no proof that hell exists, or even if it does, what are the conditions there. To say that people “risk” hell is just about as sensible as to say that the children take a risk by going into bed, because they believe that some monsters exist under the bed.

 

[Serious]

And it remains the fact that someone who risks going to hell is as much to blame for their predicament if they end up there as someone who chooses to commit a crime is when they end up wherever - jail, the electric chair or whatnot. Or for that matter as someone who turns themselves into police and demands the particular punishment that is meted out to them, AFAICS

That is not disputed.

What is disputed is the idiotic assertion that people “choose to go to hell”. You could just say that there are actions, which deserve eternal torture as punishment, and at judgment day God withholds his mercy, and uses his justice, and condemns those people to hell for eternal torture. There could be some questions raised about this utterance, but at least it would be internally consistent.

But I guess, the desire to whitewash God is so strong that no matter how ridiculous a defense might be, some people will try it. And the idea that people choose to go to hell is truly a non-plus-ultra in stupidity.

 

[mwok]

The difference is huge. If you cannot see that, I cannot help you. Of course the situation is not that simple. When people get into a car, they take a known risk. They are aware of the dangers, and they are aware of the probabilities. Based upon those values they can choose to take the risk or decline it. That is not true in relation to hell.

So are you saying that criminals are unaware of the risks involved in breaking the law?

 

[mwok]

Maybe I could point it out this way:

A person commits a crime, they are not caught or apprehended immediately, but they are in fact guilty of a crime. So until they are caught they are under the assumption that they are free, when in fact they owe a debt to society for their injustice.

On that same token that persons crime also offended God, they haven’t died yet so they are under the assumption that they are free when in fact they owe restitution to God for their offense.

On both examples something has to be done to make right what the criminal wronged. A price has to be paid. And if you can’t pay the price, don’t commit the crime.