No one deserves to go to Hell

I thank DakotaKrafick for accepting the debate.

My argument will center around the following syllogism:

P1: Hell is only justified if we have the free will to choose good from bad.

P2: We do not have the free will to choose good from bad.

C: Hell is unjustified.

P1: Hell is only justified with free will

The common justification for hell is that we choose our actions, and if we choose evil, then we will be punished. However, if I can prove that we ultimately do not have the free will to choose our actions, then hell is all but rational. In short, one would go to hell on the basis that he made immoral judgments while he had the option of making moral judgments. If this option to decide between good and evil is taken away, then hell would be unfair.

“Argument that Free Will is Required for Moral Judgments

1. The moral judgment that you shouldn’t have done X implies that you should have done something else instead
2. That you should have done something else instead implies that there was something else for you to do
3. That there was something else for you to do implies that you could have done something else
4. That you could have done something else implies that you have free will
5. If you don’t have free will to have done other than X we cannot make the moral judgment that you shouldn’t have done X” (1)

I believe this particular premise is relatively uncontroversial, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

P2: We do not have the free will to choose good from bad

I offer a deterministic argument in support of this, and ask that readers and my opponent keep an open mind in the process.

All human behavior is governed by external factors. We are who we are, not because we chose to be that way, but because things ultimately beyond our control, made us that way. I am not attempting to say that one cannot change his personality, but the fact remains that the will to change one’s personality is also governed by his own tendencies and externally developed character.

“Children seem to have distinct temperaments almost from birth…Most psychologists agree that such temperamental differences are biologically based and have genetic origins.” (2)

Please refer to Erickson’s 8 stages of psychosocial development:

(3)

You will notice that Erickson’s diagram postulates a positive and negative outcome depending on what events occurred during the respective periods. However, at no point in the development of human character is there an opportunity for active and conscious control over our personalities. Take stage 1 for example, concerning young infants. Whether or not one grows to trust others and gains the capacity to rely is wholly contingent upon whether he received food, warmth, and affection as a child.

“ If the parents expose the child to warmth, regularity, and dependable affection, the infant's view of the world will be one of trust. Should the parents fail to provide a secure environment and to meet the child's basic needs a sense of mistrust will result.”(4)

What we do with our free will is governed by who we are, and who we are is governed by what we experience and how we are born. I understand the concern this argument may raise. For we do have the free will to change our personalities once we are adults. HOWEVER, whether or not we change our personality is dependent on our outlook on life, which is dependent on how we involuntarily developed as human beings. The issue of evil ultimately becomes a perplexing domino effect instigated by a series of uncontrollable and uncontainable factors that made us who we are.

Assuming a person has the free will to choose who he becomes, is like expecting a computer to program itself, it’s impossible.

Essentially, your conscious mind can choose good over evil, yes,…but the external factors that shaped who you are will DECIDE whether your conscious mind will choose good over evil.

In Conclusion

Hell punishes the sinful soul. However, there is nothing intrinsic that makes a soul sinful. If man sins, it is due to his upbringing, personality, and all that which governs his mental predispositions. If Hitler were born in a stable, affectionate home, had his siblings not died, had he done well in school, had he passed positively even a majority of the stages of development, who would believe that he would have still grown up to be who he became? “The death of his younger brother Edmund from measles on 2 February 1900 deeply affected Hitler. He changed from being confident and outgoing and an excellent student, to a morose, detached, and sullen boy who constantly fought with his father and teachers.”(5) We should ask ourselves, is hell really punishing an evil spirit,… or a victim of life?

Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://www.education.com...

3. http://www.electrical-res.com...

4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

5. http://en.wikipedia.org...

God IS morality

My opponent's conclusion that God deserves hell presupposes two things: 1. God has free will. 2. God has done something immoral.

I find the first presumption rather indisputable. God certainly has pure free will. However, it is the second that should warrant close examination.

I contend that God IS morality. If God exists as the being which decides who does and does not go to heaven, then morality is the board of laws through which one would be accepted in heaven. If a God exists and a heaven exists and a hell exists, then we will act in a way that would send us to one of those places. That method of behavior is referred to as morality…and the degree of morality is measured by how much it agrees with the operations of heaven and the actions of God. In short, God's actions are the definition of that which is moral, so therefore he cannot EVER be immoral. Thus, either God does not do these immoral things we think he does, or our perceptions of morality are wrong.

If Our perceptions of morality are correct

Through both options we find hell unjustified for ALL. Therefore, please vote PRO. Thank you.

Source

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...