Infinite punishment for finite sins

[Wootah]

Q: is it just that God supposedly punishes anyone by torturing them in hell for eternity? Infiinite punishment for finite sins?

A: Sins are finite. We can see this from small crimes if you steal a cow then you pay back a cow. For larger crimes the only punishment is death. It is often not fair. A mass murderer dying once does not pay for their multiple victims. That is not a problem of justice but about our rational limits on applying justice.

So if you are a good person all your life but not asking for God's mercy why are you going to hell?

Because the punishment for a crime is not in proportion to the crime but in proportion to the victim.

Two examples.

1) if you punch an adult there is a reasonable chance of no punishment or a fine. If you punch a baby there is a reasonable chance of a large punishment. Same punch, same force different punishment.

2) if you crash into another car, just a dingle, depending on the other car they may do nothing, they may ask for a few dollars or if it is an expensive car you might have to sell your home to pay for it.

With that understanding we can see that our small finite crimes are against an infinite God.

There's no means of paying that fine, there's no means of getting out of jail. But this is good news.

If God doesn't accept even the smallest of sins then how amazing must God and Heaven be? (It's the tuna that John West rejects that makes it the best. Groucho Marx said he wouldn't want to belong to a club that would let him in.)

Is hell eternal punishment? If God is good and you choose to not live with God then where ever you go will not have God there. It will not be good. And with the absence of good being in hell it will be as bad as it gets.

[Justin108]

Both victims are human. Humans are equal. Why would one human then get compensated more than the other human? Or are you suggesting that the cars are the victims...?

It happens all the time. Suppose you hurt a doctor versus hurting an office worker and they cannot work for several months. It stands to reason that you would need to compensate the doctor more than the office worker for the loss of income.

Again, loss of income is damage done

OK let's presume it's terminology we are differing over. The damage done is different based on the person.

In post 20 you said we are all equal. If we are all equal, then there would be no "based on the person" because all people are equal, so what would be the difference? Why would person A ever be punished more than person B if both of their victims were equal? The only thing that would explain this is if the damage done to person A's victim is more than the damage done to person B's victim. The victims are equal, but the damage done is not

[Wootah]

Both victims are human. Humans are equal. Why would one human then get compensated more than the other human? Or are you suggesting that the cars are the victims...?

It happens all the time. Suppose you hurt a doctor versus hurting an office worker and they cannot work for several months. It stands to reason that you would need to compensate the doctor more than the office worker for the loss of income.

Again, loss of income is damage done

OK let's presume it's terminology we are differing over. The damage done is different based on the person.

In post 20 you said we are all equal. If we are all equal, then there would be no "based on the person" because all people are equal, so what would be the difference? Why would person A ever be punished more than person B if both of their victims were equal? The only thing that would explain this is if the damage done to person A's victim is more than the damage done to person B's victim. The victims are equal, but the damage done is not

Yes I think that comment of mine was most unhelpful. Ignore it if you can and let's get back to the topic.

Assuming we are just having linguistic difficulties ... The damage done is different based on the person.

So what do you call the initial injury?

The infringement perhaps?

[Wootah]

I wrote: Because the punishment for a crime is not in proportion to the crime but in proportion to the victim.


Would it be better for you if it said: Because the punishment for a crime is not in proportion to the infringement but in proportion to the victim.

[Justin108]

Assuming we are just having linguistic difficulties ... The damage done is different based on the person.

No. The damage done is different based on the damage done. If two people owner the same car of the same value and I smash both of these people's car windows, I will owe them both the same because the value of the damage done is equal, regardless of who the people in question are. If I total someone's Ferrari and if I total someone's MINI Cooper, I will pay more for the Ferrari because the Ferrari is more expensive regardless of who the owner of the Ferrari is. It is not about who the victim is, it's about how much damage is done.

[Justin108]

I wrote: Because the punishment for a crime is not in proportion to the crime but in proportion to the victim.


Would it be better for you if it said: Because the punishment for a crime is not in proportion to the infringement but in proportion to the victim.

Neither. Punishment for a crime is not in proportion to the crime but in proportion to the damage done.

[Wootah]

Assuming we are just having linguistic difficulties ... The damage done is different based on the person.

No. The damage done is different based on the damage done. If two people owner the same car of the same value and I smash both of these people's car windows, I will owe them both the same because the value of the damage done is equal, regardless of who the people in question are. If I total someone's Ferrari and if I total someone's MINI Cooper, I will pay more for the Ferrari because the Ferrari is more expensive regardless of who the owner of the Ferrari is. It is not about who the victim is, it's about how much damage is done.

I said previously: Where it gets clouded probably is that many crimes and punishments are the same and so it becomes less obvious that it is actually based on the victim and not on the damage done.

You gave an example of this.

If you broke the window of a taxi you could well be paying compensation for work lost.

The initial infringement is the same (a broken window) the damage done can be different based upon the victim.

How's that?

[Justin108]

Assuming we are just having linguistic difficulties ... The damage done is different based on the person.

No. The damage done is different based on the damage done. If two people owner the same car of the same value and I smash both of these people's car windows, I will owe them both the same because the value of the damage done is equal, regardless of who the people in question are. If I total someone's Ferrari and if I total someone's MINI Cooper, I will pay more for the Ferrari because the Ferrari is more expensive regardless of who the owner of the Ferrari is. It is not about who the victim is, it's about how much damage is done.

I said previously: Where it gets clouded probably is that many crimes and punishments are the same and so it becomes less obvious that it is actually based on the victim and not on the damage done.

You gave an example of this.

If you broke the window of a taxi you could well be paying compensation for work lost.

The initial infringement is the same (a broken window) the damage done can be different based upon the victim.

How's that?

Because the damage done is greater. You are not only damaging his car, you are also damaging his income

[Wootah]

Assuming we are just having linguistic difficulties ... The damage done is different based on the person.

No. The damage done is different based on the damage done. If two people owner the same car of the same value and I smash both of these people's car windows, I will owe them both the same because the value of the damage done is equal, regardless of who the people in question are. If I total someone's Ferrari and if I total someone's MINI Cooper, I will pay more for the Ferrari because the Ferrari is more expensive regardless of who the owner of the Ferrari is. It is not about who the victim is, it's about how much damage is done.

I said previously: Where it gets clouded probably is that many crimes and punishments are the same and so it becomes less obvious that it is actually based on the victim and not on the damage done.

You gave an example of this.

If you broke the window of a taxi you could well be paying compensation for work lost.

The initial infringement is the same (a broken window) the damage done can be different based upon the victim.

How's that?

...because the damage done is greater...

How about you write it? Bearing in mind that attempted murder means no damage was done and so we don't want to let failed criminals go free.

[Justin108]

Assuming we are just having linguistic difficulties ... The damage done is different based on the person.

No. The damage done is different based on the damage done. If two people owner the same car of the same value and I smash both of these people's car windows, I will owe them both the same because the value of the damage done is equal, regardless of who the people in question are. If I total someone's Ferrari and if I total someone's MINI Cooper, I will pay more for the Ferrari because the Ferrari is more expensive regardless of who the owner of the Ferrari is. It is not about who the victim is, it's about how much damage is done.

I said previously: Where it gets clouded probably is that many crimes and punishments are the same and so it becomes less obvious that it is actually based on the victim and not on the damage done.

You gave an example of this.

If you broke the window of a taxi you could well be paying compensation for work lost.

The initial infringement is the same (a broken window) the damage done can be different based upon the victim.

How's that?

...because the damage done is greater...

How about you write it? Bearing in mind that attempted murder means no damage was done and so we don't want to let failed criminals go free.

You're forcing me to repeat myself. I already told you that damage is not the only thing being considered

[Replying to post 5 by Justin108]

Is the punishment in accordance with the victim or the damage done?

Should a thief who fails to steal the crown jewels go unpunished?

Or suppose a murderer fails and doesnt even hurt anyone?

The damage done shouldn't be a factor in the punishment. It's as if failed criminals should not get punished.

I never said it was the only factor. Actions and intentions are also taken into account. When someone attempts a crime and fails, the courts look at the potential damage the person could have inflicted had the crime succeeded.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 39 by Justin108]

Yes but considering damage is immoral. It allows failed criminals to go free.

Do you think failed murder is less than successful murder?