Three Boxes

[Sitswithamouse]

I'd have to choose box 2 for others , although I'm wavering on my choice to go for box 3 for myself. I'm thinking that you have to have the pleasure to go with the pain or else you wouldn't learn all there is to being human.

I honestly can't decide.

 

[sidhe]

Let me keep the Dune analogy going.

First, I'm putting their hand in box #2.

Secondly, I'm hoping I get put in box #1.

When, in years to come, the people I've put in box #2 have grown soft from their indolence, I'll have been hardened by box #1. I'll create my own bliss at that point at their expense, TYVM. God created Box #1 to train the faithful. One does not oppose the will of God.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Uhhh.... I think I followed but somewhere I was lost. Mind trying to write that out again, but in a different way?

 

[tcampen]

I got rid of box #1 and box #3, leaving box #2 as the only option left. I realize this was not part of the original OP, but I figure enough license was granted in the original concept to allow me a little of my own.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

If people deserve pleasure, why not give them loads of it? If people deserve pain, give them loads of it! I would never just throw all people one way or the other, with no justification.

well since you decided to go with those who have never felt pain. You are ok with possibly condemning them to everlasting torment ?
Seems pretty cruel if not immoral to knowingly choose a path for someone that may lead them to horrible pain when there is a much better alternative.

On a similar thread. lets say your kids have a choice of having a scholarship to their chosen university that pays for everything or not having one, you could choose which they get. Would you refuse them the chance knowing that without it they may not get where they are trying?

 

[cantata]

If people deserve pleasure, why not give them loads of it? If people deserve pain, give them loads of it! I would never just throw all people one way or the other, with no justification.

Does anyone deserve eternal pain?

What do you even mean by "deserve"?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Let me keep the Dune analogy going.

First, I'm putting their hand in box #2.

Secondly, I'm hoping I get put in box #1.

When, in years to come, the people I've put in box #2 have grown soft from their indolence, I'll have been hardened by box #1. I'll create my own bliss at that point at their expense, TYVM. God created Box #1 to train the faithful. One does not oppose the will of God.

Well you can take your hand out of box #3 and be put right in #1. Some may argue that whatever the torture is its tailor made so its always torture and never bliss, same with bliss, its always great, no matter what you experienced before. Of course in truth you are a servant of Our Lord the Great Cathulu. May he eat our souls first..

 

[PantsMcFist]

well since you decided to go with those who have never felt pain. You are ok with possibly condemning them to everlasting torment ?
Seems pretty cruel if not immoral to knowingly choose a path for someone that may lead them to horrible pain when there is a much better alternative.

On a similar thread. lets say your kids have a choice of having a scholarship to their chosen university that pays for everything or not having one, you could choose which they get. Would you refuse them the chance knowing that without it they may not get where they are trying?

Nuh uh uh. Now you're changing the terms of the dilemma. There is a chance, based on their actions, that they get one or the other. Why not let them act freely, and let their choice decide their fate? That's all I'm doing.

Your other analogy is faulty. I'm not choosing anyone's fate. I'm putting them on a hill, and letting them choose which side to roll down.

Does anyone deserve eternal pain?

What do you even mean by "deserve"?

Well, if someone willfully commits acts intended to produce no good, and actively harms others, and the only product of their having been alive is pain in other people's lives, I see no problem with tossing them to the flames.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Nuh uh uh. Now you're changing the terms of the dilemma. There is a chance, based on their actions, that they get one or the other. Why not let them act freely, and let their choice decide their fate? That's all I'm doing.

Your other analogy is faulty. I'm not choosing anyone's fate. I'm putting them on a hill, and letting them choose which side to roll down.



Well, if someone willfully commits acts intended to produce no good, and actively harms others, and the only product of their having been alive is pain in other people's lives, I see no problem with tossing them to the flames.

No im not, there is a chance based on who knows what that they may be placed in box 1 or 2. And in all likely hood they will be placed in box 1. And why would you want anyone to be punished for eternity? You seem to suggest that they will no doubt go to box #2 even though you dont know the conditions needed to get to 2. So I know you dont like the idea so your trying to wiggle out as much as possible but seriously. You have the choice. You would knowingly possibly condmem someone for eterentity to torture. Just so they may have the chance to appreciate bliss a little more?

 

[PantsMcFist]

No im not, there is a chance based on who knows what that they may be placed in box 1 or 2. And in all likely hood they will be placed in box 1. And why would you want anyone to be punished for eternity? You seem to suggest that they will no doubt go to box #2 even though you dont know the conditions needed to get to 2. So I know you dont like the idea so your trying to wiggle out as much as possible but seriously. You have the choice. You would knowingly possibly condmem someone for eterentity to torture. Just so they may have the chance to appreciate bliss a little more?

This is where your analogy is breaking down. You're trying to create a dilemma which paints a theistic deity in a bad light based on your approximation of the situation.

If people do good their entire lives, without promise of reward, what should their reward be? How long would bliss last? Why should it not be forever?

On the flip side, if someone has made no effort to have a positive effect on the world around them, and has caused only pain, I see no reason to not punish them. If the purveyors of good are rewarded eternally, why should the purveyors of evil not be punished equally?

Also, they will not as you say "in all likelihood be placed in box 1". This implies that you have outside knowledge of the criteria which allots placement following their stint in box 3. You have no basis to judge where they will end up anymore than anyone but the person who set the criteria.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

This is where your analogy is breaking down. You're trying to create a dilemma which paints a theistic deity in a bad light based on your approximation of the situation.

If people do good their entire lives, without promise of reward, what should their reward be? How long would bliss last? Why should it not be forever?

On the flip side, if someone has made no effort to have a positive effect on the world around them, and has caused only pain, I see no reason to not punish them. If the purveyors of good are rewarded eternally, why should the purveyors of evil not be punished equally?

Also, they will not as you say "in all likelihood be placed in box 1". This implies that you have outside knowledge of the criteria which allots placement following their stint in box 3. You have no basis to judge where they will end up anymore than anyone but the person who set the criteria.

The analogy is apt. We have been given many ideas of what must be done to reach heaven. And by most accounts it is easier to reach hell than heaven. Now you would deem it ok to send one to a better than even chance of eventually ending up in hell when now you can ensure there place in heaven before anything else.

 

[stan1980]

Box 2 obviously. It says bliss, that's all you need to know. For those that say you need to feel pain to feel bliss, that might be right for all I know, but it doesn't really matter as box 2 states you will get bliss so anything else is irrelevant.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

And it seems they keep assuming that your actions must be good to be placed in box 2. it says that nowhere , it says that there are many ideas as to what may get your hand placed in box 2. It does say in the end of the OP that there is a greater chance that they will be placed in box1 if you want we can say 51 percent chance. regardless of that. It seems evil to even potentially condemn someone when there is a much better alternate with no risk.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

So for those that have said box #3, how do you feel about potentially condemning someone to torment?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Is it moral to put them in box 3 since there is a good chance they will later be placed in box 1?

 

[PantsMcFist]

Some problems I still have - if I am deciding the fate of these people, how can I not know what the criteria is for them to end up in box 2?

Are we playing the role of God in this analogy, or humans judging humans?

If we are playing the role of God, you also need to define why we created people in the first place.

I still choose box 3.

You said that there IS criteria for getting rewarded with box 2 after 3, so placing someone in 3 isn't condemning them to torment. Through their own action/inaction they will be condemned.

 

[JTKIRK]

Some problems I still have - if I am deciding the fate of these people, how can I not know what the criteria is for them to end up in box 2?

Are we playing the role of God in this analogy, or humans judging humans?

If we are playing the role of God, you also need to define why we created people in the first place.

I still choose box 3.

You said that there IS criteria for getting rewarded with box 2 after 3, so placing someone in 3 isn't condemning them to torment. Through their own action/inaction they will be condemned.

Do all fit into a box?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

If my hand is in box 2 or 3, will I have to witness or be aware of others having their hands in box 1? Will I be obliged to praise and feel gratitude towards the mover for putting my hand in box 2, knowing s/he has put hands in box 1?

If I'm in control of where everyone's hand goes, we're all in box 2. If I have control over some but not others, I ask them what they want and I'd be in 1. If I can only decide for myself and I am aware of others being or risking being in box 1 then I'd put my hand in box 1. If I wasn't aware of that, I'd be in 2.

I don't understand the idea that one can experience any meaningful, complete bliss with the knowledge that others are suffering and nothing can ever be done about the situation. The mover cannot really take away the most valuable and fundamental freedom that exists in our minds--s/he can cause me physical pain but doesn't have the choice of whether I spend eternity a helpless, morally bankrupt coward* or still helpless, in great pain but knowing I have acted morally for the benefit of others.

*No, I'm not saying this necessarily accurately describes those that believe in the afterlife and seek a positive one for themselves.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Its unknow as to whether you can witness others, the only one you know you will be aware of is you and when you put someone in a box. after that you have no clue.

the rules for having your hand moved are unknown but there are several rumors.
The only one rule your sure of is that if you take your handout of box 23 i will be placed in box 1 (torture box)

 

[sidhe]

Do all fit into a box?

I've seen two hands in a box, at most.