IS THE STATUS PRINCIPLE BEYOND SALVATION? TOWARD REDEEMING AN UNPOPULAR THEORY OF HELL (original) (raw)
Related papers
Contingency, Arbitrariness, and the Basis of Moral Equality
Ratio, 2023
Hardly anyone denies that (nearly) all human beings have equal moral status and therefore should be considered and treated as equals. Yet, if humans possess the property that confers moral status upon them to an unequal degree, how come they should be considered and treated as equals? It has been argued that this is because the variations in the degree to which the status-conferring property is held above a relevant threshold are contingencies that do not generate differences in degrees of moral status. Call this the contingency argument for the basis of moral equality. In this paper, I reject the contingency argument. Instead, I develop an attitude-based account of the basis of moral equality: according to this account, the basis of moral equality lies in a fitting, basic, and independent moral attitude which is owed to human beings qua moral status-holders, and provides a coherent and plausible explanation for why the variations above the threshold for moral status do not matter.
On Commonplace Punishment Theory
2005
This essay examines three examples of commonplace punishment theory. According to innumerable briefs, judicial opinions, and academic articles, punishment requires proof of culpability, especially if one adopts a retributive theory of punishment. Furthermore, according to commonplace punishment theory, culpability is paradigmatically a matter of intentional states of mind. At least three things are wrong with this picture. First, retribution as a function of punishment is insufficient to define a theory of punishment, because the retributive function can be theorized in a number of ways. Second, culpability is an ambiguous term that should be replaced by the more accurate terms “fault in wrongdoing” and “fair candidacy for punishment.” And finally, intentions are not paradigmatic of criminal fault. On the contrary, the seeming outlier among fault concepts, negligence, is closer to the paradigm of criminal fault.
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 1999
According to reward/punishment theology (RPT), God rewards and punishes humans according to how well they live in conformance with His will. RPT gives rise to a question about the postmortem fate of humans who die without reaching moral accountability. Four interpretations of RPT: RPTD, RPTS, RPTL, and RPTA, referred to collectively as RPTx, describe theists’ most common answers to this question. The Argument from Unfairness (AFU) aims to demonstrate that God would act unfairly in determining the postmortem fate of humans according to any of the RPTx interpretations. This unfairness would compromise God’s omnibenevolence. Hence, the AFU concludes that no RPTx God exists.