Is Heaven reserved for the truly Evil?

[Strivax]

I have understood that. What I haven´t understood is how you reconcile the statement "eternal justice is necessary for getting us rid of the truly evil" (paraphrased, I don´t recall the exact wording) with this notion, in which heaven and hell aren´t separate places but different states of mind.

I don't think I ever said that, or anything like it. But, if you can quote me, I'll willingly recant.

The only thing that would cause me to consider any special treatment of a serial rapist is the protection of other persons (with the least possible harm done to the person in question).
Incarcerating him isn´t good - it means treating him bad; however, it´s the only way of crisis management we can think of. We should do it with regrets.

Do you think then, that no rapist should suffer, as he has caused suffering? If so (and, regrettably, there are bad people out there) with no sanction, why should anyone not rape?

I´m not sure I understand fully what you mean here.
Conflicting principles, yet reconciled ideals? Could you tell me the difference between your concepts "principles" and "ideals" for purposes of this statement? Would "justice" be a principle or an ideal, in your book?

For me, justice is an ideal. It should be what we aim for. Conflicting principles might be, say, that 'the punishment should fit the crime', and that 'mercy is a good thing'.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[quatona]

I don't think I ever said that, or anything like it. But, if you can quote me, I'll willingly recant.

Post #14 (the very post from which our conversation started.

You wrote (in response to TFH´s question "So making someone suffer infinitely more than any human has ever suffered isn't wrong?"):
So, how would you dispose of the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Genghis Khans and the Pol Pots, the serial killers and the mass murderers of our times and previous? In the end, justice will be done, depend on it.

"Disposing of them" and having them live in the same place (but just with a different attitude than the "decent, ordinary" people) are not really compatible concepts, are they?

Do you think then, that no rapist should suffer, as he has caused suffering?

Yes, I have no desire for anyone to suffer. Intentionally inflicting suffering on another person is a bad idea, imo (even more so when the purpose is to make them suffer; or the purpose of making them suffer is to defend an abstract principle).

If so (and, regrettably, there are bad people out there) with no sanction, why should anyone not rape?

You make it sound like sanctions are the only thing that keeps you from raping other persons. This condition is alien to me. If that´s how you function, I am afraid we don´t have much common ground for discussing this topic.
On another note, I don´t believe there are "evil people". Judging an entire person "good" or "evil" requires a will to oversimplificate the complex psychology of a person that I can´t summon up.

For me, justice is an ideal. It should be what we aim for. Conflicting principles might be, say, that 'the punishment should fit the crime', and that 'mercy is a good thing'.

So mercy is an ideal (something "we should aim for") of yours, as well, no?

You said you tried to solve conflicting principles by "'transcend'[ing] them by appeal to reconciled ideals". Now, since not only the principles but also the ideals are in conflict, I don´t understand how that´s supposed to work. "Justice" and "mercy" (even though the latter depends conceptually on the former - that´s why "mercy" is just another concept I don´t buy into, btw.) are irreconcilable.