The Immorality of Hell

I recently had a brief exchange with atheist Spencer Lo over the supposed immorality of God sending people to hell for committing sins he foreordained they would commit.

The exchange is brief but interesting since it gets into issues of compatibilism and moral responsibility.

I asked Spencer (through James Lazarus) if he wanted to post some final thoughts, or each have one more round, with him having the last word, but at this time he's letting the discussion go since he's writing his Masters Thesis (he's getting an MA in philosophy).

His non-response to my final post should not be taken as in any way his conceding my points. He also told Jim Lazarus that he may respond once he's done with his Thesis paper. If so, I will post it along with my future rejoinder.

For the moment, then, I post the exchange we had with the hopes that it will be helpful for Calvinists who hold to compatibilism.

Spencer's argument will be posted first, my response, his response, and lastly, my response.



**********

1. Ought implies can is essential to moral responsibility.

2. If God predetermined all human actions, no person can act contrary to the way he or she was predetermined to act.

3. God commands humans to act in accordance with his laws, and warns that any deviation from them is punishable by an eternity in hell.

4. Since all humans act contrary to God's laws (no one's perfect), God must have predetermined that no would always act in accordance with his laws. (from 2, 3)

5. Whenever humans act contrary to God's laws, God must have predetermined that they would have deviated from them. (restatement of 4)

6. Humans cannot be expected to act in accordance with God's laws, whenever God predetermined that wouldn't. (from 2)

7. Humans cannot be morally responsible for not acting in accordance with God's laws, when they do not act in accordance with God's laws. (from 1, 5, 7)

8. Therefore, humans do not deserve to spend an eternity in hell.


- Spencer Lo

**********

**********

1. How is "can" being used in the argument? In one sense, all Calvinists believe people "can" do otherwise in the sense that their body operates just fine. That is, God is not moving their arms to do an evil act against their will. they have the "ability" to do otherwise. For example, it was prophesied that Jesus' bones would not break. God predetermined that Jesus' bones wouldn't break during the crucifixion. Now, Calvin asks, "Where Jesus' bones unbreakable bones?" Of course not, they still "could" have been broken.

2. Why is "being able to do otherwise" a precondition for saying an act is immoral? Or for moral responsibility? Say that Spencer, hating the Whereican government, is well known for wanting to shoot the president of Whereica. Now, an evil crime Lord, James Lazarus, wants the president dead so he can move forward with his nefarious plot to rule the world. James thus hires Spencer to do the job. Now, James, a staunch proponent of the "failure is not an option" school of villainhood, implants a device into Spencer's cerebral cortex that, if Jim Lazarus presses a button, will make Spencer go though with the assassination plot. This is a back-up plan, in case Spencer has a failure of of nerve.

Well, it should be fairly obvious that Spencer "can't" do otherwise. So, the question is, if Spencer shoots the president, and does this without having Lazarus pressing the button, should Spencer "ought" not have killed the president?

3. Is Spencer or Jim a determinist? If so, how can there be "oughts" in their worldviews?

4. Isn't Spencer a Buddhist, and Jim a physicalist (or something near enough)? How is identity of a *person* through time accounted for? Moral responsibility also presupposes that the person punished forthe crime is the person who did the crime (note, I critique memory views of identity in my response to RSS, and other physicalist (supervenient) views of identity in an old post of mine (The Convenience of Supervenience).

5. With respects to P.5, the point is that persons have *chosen* to do so "freely" were "feely" means "they did what they wanted to do and where not compelled."

6. I deny that P.6 follows from P2. God certainly can *expect* them to act according to his laws, since he calls all men to an account.

7. Ought implies "obligation." Men are obligated to obey God's law, whether they "can" do so or not.

8. "Can" should be viewed ethically not metaphysically. Men are not puppets being forced to go this way or that, against their will. No, our arms, legs, eyes, and mouth all work the same whether we sin or not. If Spencer kicks some person, that does not mean that he didn't have the metaphysical "ability" to not kick the person in that his sensory-motor skills were broken.

In Calvinistic (Christian) philosophy, the reason men "can't" obey God's laws is because that takes a desire to do so, and all men (without the regenerating work of the spirit) do not have that desire. Their nature is set against god and his law, hating it. It's rather like a lion, in some ways, who has the "choice" to eat lettuce or Gazelle flank. The lion's "body" works fine and nothing is broken with his control of his body to maneuver his mouth the chew the lettuce. But, it's not in his nature to choose the lettuce. And so as Jeremiah asks,

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil" (Jer. 13:23).

And I think the point here is that these things are part of their very nature (the point isn't to say that God could call skin color morally reprehensible, and so as we all know, all analogies break down). Men are ethically set against God and his law in such a way that, for them to do good is like an Ethiopian to change his skin color. In this way men "can't" obey God's law, unless they have a change in nature, becoming born again.

This doesn't mean that there isn't a law, though. This doesn't mean that the King of the Universe doesn't have obligations for all persons who live in his kingdom. And, this doesn't mean that God cannot expect men to live up to his law. That, they "ought" to live up to his law. Even though men ethically cannot choose to do good, this doesn't apply to the converse. They (ethically) "can" choose to do bad, and so since *they* have *chosen* from their *own desires* to do evil things, and they know these things are wrong, that these things "ought not" be done, i.e., that they *should not* be doing these things, then they most certainly deserve to go to hell, which is where they chose to go, the want to go there, and they desire it. Hell is a place where people will live without any common grace. They will not have God giving the regular blessing we enjoy now, while he waits patiently for his elect to come in. God will not restrain sin anymore, like he does now (pause... if you think the earth is bad, people are evil sick and disgusting, note that God is actually *restraining* people from being as bad and evil as they can be). And so people will go there, because that's where they wanted to go.

And, just because God determined that, that does not logically imply that *they* haven't chosen and desired to go there. Compatibilism is applied here.


I don't know, those are a few rough thoughts on the matter.

**********

**********

Paul:
-------------
1. How is "can" being used in the argument? In one sense, all Calvinists believe people "can" do otherwise in the sense that their body operates just fine.
---------------

Suppose I mean logical possibility. I claim that given the facts of the situation, it is logically impossible for a reprobate to choose God. One only has two options; either you reject God for eternity, or you come to accept him. I'll argue that the reprobate can't choose otherwise, in the strongest sense of "cannot" possible: it would entail a contradiction. Whether or not being able to choose otherwise makes the reprobate morally culpable is a debate for next time.

Let's look at the facts of the situation. (i) The only way for a person to choose Jesus is if Jesus chooses him first. (ii) God has determined who the reprobates are before any of them were born. (iii) Whoever God has determined to be a reprobate will never be chosen by Jesus, and will always reject him.

It follows from these three facts that a reprobate cannot logically choose Jesus. Why? The necessary and sufficient condition for choosing God consists in Jesus choosing you first. If Jesus has not chosen you first, then you cannot choose Jesus. It's irrelevant that a reprobate's body "operates just fine," because there's nothing that the body can do which could enable one to choose Christ. A person can open his mouth and assert the words, "Jesus, please save me," but that won't save him; those words need to be spoken from the heart. Since the unsaved can't desire what he doesn't want to desire, unless Jesus changes his desires, there's nothing that the unsaved himself can do to desire salvation. Hence, there's nothing that the reprobate could do, himself, to choose to speak those words from the heart. This all goes to show that there is no sense in which the reprobate "could" choose.

I'll make my point more explicit. It is logically impossible for the reprobate to accept Christ because that would contradict the facts.

If a reprobate could choose Jesus, then (i) would be false; it would not be true that Jesus has to chose you before you can choose Jesus. Jesus choosing you wouldn't be the necessary sufficient condition for salvation, if one could choose Jesus without Jesus choosing him.

If a reprobate could choose Jesus, then (ii) would be false. It would not be true that you're a reprobate if you could choose Jesus, since a reprobate is someone who, by definition, would never chose Jesus.

**********

**********

Hey Spencer,

Okay, and I deny that the ability to do otherwise is a condition on moral responsibility. That is, I deny the "ought implies can" principle.

I affirm that (i) having alternative possibilities is not required for moral responsibility, and (ii) there is no reason why moral responsibility and determinism (or divine foreordination, for that matter)would be incompatible other than the fact that such determinism (or foreordination) would preclude alternative
possibilities.

Once premise 1 is refuted, then premise 6 does not follow from 2 (and 1). I'd defend both (i) and (ii) by appeals to Frankfurt-type counter example and (ii) by Fischer's refutations of source incompatibilists. Also, given my view, I see no reason to accept your argument as bearing on my theological distinctives. Though I'd say it's a good argument against libertarians (assuming they granted the sovereignty of God in the sense you employ it).

Also, I'd add that your argument is incoherent for assuming an deterministic worldview and a libertarian one. Your argument hinges upon my accepting determinism, but if so I reject libertarianism, but P1 asks me to accept libertarianism, and if I did that I'd reject other premises. So, your argument mixes internal and external critiques.

I think we can briefly look at your argumentation, though:


1) If you mean "logical possibility" (broadly logical) then I'd disagree. It is true that S cannot choose Christ in our world W where God has decreed that S would not chose Christ. But, it could be that at W* S is not reprobate since the decree is not the same. The same decree qualification is required, because if God's decree with respect to S in W* is that S be elect in W* -i.e. if W* were actual, then S would be elect - then it is not the case that S would be *necessarily* reprobate; for God could have decreed differently.

So, just because a person is actually reprobate, it doesn't follow that it is "logically impossible" for him to choose to come to Christ. For who knows if God's decree with respect to that person could have been different in another possible world?

But, if the decree is the same, then we can say that at any world W*, if God's decree is the same as in W, and S is decreed reprobate in W, S will be decreed reprobate in W*.

Same with physical determinism. One could ask, "could S have done different?" And, since there is no logical necessity to our physical laws being what they are, or what has happened physically in our world must physically have happened in all possible physical worlds, then govern a world W* with different laws or antecedent events, then S "could have" done different in the "broadly logical sense." And, therefore, your comments, construed as "logically possible," are false. Now, I suppose you could exegete Holy Scripture and make the case that God must have decreed in W* who he decreed in W (the actual world). But, minus that, it's false to say that by "can" you mean "logical possibility" and, based on that, S "cannot" chose Christ.

2. I maintain that *your construal* of "can" or "cannot" is subject to a serious reductio. If "ought implies can" in the "broadly logical sense" of "logically possible or impossible," then how could you say that S "ought" not, say, beat his wife for merely saying his name? Imagine the possible world W* where the laws of biology are such that, not unlike when a doctor hits your knee to check your reflexes, every time you hear your wife’s voice, you automatically swing your arm forward and punch her. So, it is "logically possible" that S "can't* refrain from hitting his wife for merely saying his name, therefore S has no moral obligation to not hit his wife!

3. Even if you change your "supposings," I still find your account problematic. I still don't know what you mean by "can" or "cannot." There are many different ways to look at this. To begin with an obvious example, which will prove my point without recourse to any moral dilemma, let's look at this example: due to psychological factors, a woman might freeze upon seeing a mouse in her kitchen. Paralyzed by fear, she "cannot" move a muscle. But, she "physically" can in the sense that this phobia is "all in her head." So, she "can" physically throw a glass at the mouse, psychologically she "cannot."

Now, take moral cant's and can's. Say that S is raised in a culture where the tribe members have a moral obligation to kill witch-people (say, all those from the tribe upstream). Now, say that S meets witch-S in the jungle. We would say that S not kill witch-S. But, S may reply, "I just can't let witch-S go. It is my duty to kill it." Certainly S *physically* can refrain from killing witch-S, but morally S believes he cannot, and this belief is as powerful for him as any other basic belief.

A more contemporary example, is that of someone raised in Hitler's Germany. S is reared in a society where he cannot help (as a psychological fact) to hate and act badly against the Jews. Say that S cannot help but see Jews as evil and in need of extermination. But S ought not do this, even though he might not be able to think or act otherwise.

Of course S would be *physically* able to refrain from killing Jews.

So, how is "can" being used?

I think it is obvious that in some cases, given that S cannot do act A, S is still obligated to do (or refrain from doing) A. So, there are some cases where one still has the ought even though one cannot refrain from an immoral act (see above).

Having proven that there are some ways in which people have obligations, even though they "cannot" act otherwise, I must wonder how you're using "can." Perhaps (and this would fit with both examples you gave me on the phone) you mean something like this maxim: Ought implies 'can' where 'can' means 'physically able.'

In this case, we can say that the witch-S murderer, and the Jew hater, ought not do the immoral acts they do, because they 'can' physically refrain from doing those immoral acts.

So, either "ought implies can" is outright false, or you save it by appeal to mere physical ability. The latter renders your argument without any teeth. Because, as you admitted above, people "can" physically utter the words "I choose Jesus," in the sense that their body is able to perform this function, it's not broken. The vocal cords are in tact. The speaker can form their mouth to make the English words intelligible, etc. And so even though God determined that S would ~A, S is still *physically* able to A. More specifically, God determined that people would put His son to death. But, these people still had the physical ability to refrain from hammering the nails into his hands. They were not trying to hold back with all their might, shouting "No, we don't want to crucify the Lord of glory!," while God was just stronger, pushing their hands down, thus rendering them physically unable.

Since I take it to be obvious that, given different things which refrain us from doing something (i..e, psychological, moral, etc), there can be cases where S just can't A but nevertheless ought to do A, I'll try to refute the last out, i.e., "ought implies that we physically can:"

4. Suppose that I promised to pick Spencer's parents up from downtown New York, after the Chinese new years parade. One would say I 'ought' to do so since, after all, I promised that I would do that.

Now, suppose that I purposefully handcuff myself to the bed in my hotel (since I'm visiting New York to see Laz and Spencer). Thus it appears that people can control their moral obligations. If you don't want to be obligated by a moral "ought," render yourself unable to do it. In that case, then obligation disappears.

Once I eliminate my "can," I eliminate the obligation. To respond that I should not posture myself as to not be able to do the obligation seems wrong since up until I render myself unable, I still "can" do it, but the second I incapacitate myself, the obligation leaves that second. And, now there is no more obligation. It "disappears" as soon as I render myself unable to perform it. Further, if we have 2nd level duties to perform 1st level duties, do we have 3rd level duties to perform 2nd level duties, and on and on...

5. And, take my Frankfurt-type counter examples: Why is "being able to do otherwise" a precondition for saying an act is immoral? Or for moral responsibility? Say that Spencer, hating the Whereican government, is well known for wanting to shoot the president of Whereica. Now, an evil crime Lord, James Lazarus, wants the president dead so he can move forward with his nefarious plot to rule the world. James thus hires Spencer to do the job. Now, James, a staunch proponent of the "failure is not an option" school of villainhood, implants a device into Spencer's cerebral cortex that, if Jim Lazarus presses a button, will make Spencer go though with the assassination plot. This is a back-up plan, in case Spencer has a failure of nerve.

Well, it should be fairly obvious that Spencer "can't" do otherwise. So, the question is, if Spencer shoots the president, and does this without having Lazarus pressing the button, should Spencer "ought" not have killed the president?

Here, though Spencer *psychologically* and *morally* could refrain from killing the president, Spencer could not do so physically. But, it turns out that Spencer didn't refrain from killing the president, but Spencer could not have done otherwise. So, if "ought implies can," then why is Spencer morally to blame for shooting the president?

6. Lastly, if Spencer cannot show that libertarian free agency is possible, given prevailing secular accounts of the world we live in (a deterministic one), which would put him up against the majority of atheists, naturalists and scientists today, then either Spencer must hold that ought does not imply can, or that there are no moral oughts. If the former, accepted. If the latter, so much the worse for his argument against the immorality of sending people to hell. If he wants to say that it is strictly an *internal* critique, then he must change his argument to premises I accept, and also deal with the arguments which show how I have no internal incoherence here.

best,

~PM

**********

The End