Can there be just retributive punishment in any situation? Or is all punishment corrective? Is it ever justified to simply harm someone with no remedial possibilites, even ones which they will not accept?
If we do not freely choose our actions, could there be any just retribution? How could it be just for us to suffer harm for something we were compelled to do by another, no matter how much our phenomenology suggests otherwise?
Could there be just retributive punishment in which neither the punishee nor the punisher gains? God would not need anything which the punishment of the unjust would provide, so what would retribution for its own sake avail?
Could there be justice without an eye toward a given result in which someone at least benefits? Is there some abstract honor or justice of which God needs to keep track, even if this is one with God's nature? What does justice mean without reference to concrete states of affairs and the results for persons of one sort or another?
5 comments:
Good question(s)!!
I'm in need of a persuasive argument to accept retribution as just. My interpretation of Jesus' ethics was already straightforwardly nonretributivist before--or in a very early stage of--my transition into pacifism.
To play devil's advocate (an unfortunate turn-of-phrase in this context, really), God would benefit from displaying His nature--i.e. glorifying Himself in His public acts--by justly punishing the non-elect in Hell.
I guess an Arminian view of Hell (as Talbott classifies it) would say that there is some good for the populous of Hell being realized by their being in Hell--they are getting what they desire.
I read an article by a scholar of JH Yoder once which said that in Yoder's view God condemned the non-elect to Hell out of respect for their freedom. (Not sure I'm fully convinced of this--but then I'm not fully convinced of restorationism either.)
I think I could accept the view of Hell which Walls describes (though I still would prefer it if Talbott's view were true); the damned are in Hell because they chose to pursue their own goods instead of the Good. I'm not sure whether or not I would truly consider this punishment. It could possibly be a mild form of retribution if one looks at it one way, and the only form that I think could be just (and that only if determinism is false).
As for the necessity of God's displaying his nature, a) wouldn't that be shown as clearly in annihiliation (and perhaps there better tempered by mercy), and b) does God really have a need to display God's nature to creatures? And if so, does God need to do this more than what has been, is, and will be done through Christ? It seems that God would have to show His nature only insofar as it would benefit us to know who He really is.
It seems to me that God's nature would be displayed by whatever God does with individuals (elect, non-elect, both). That we don't know whether restorationism, annihilationism, or conditional immortality is true (or a traditional Augustian view of Hell) says something about how little we understand God's nature, or how much epistemic uncertainty we feel about the conception we have of God's nature. I confess that God's nature is fully and perfectly revealed in Christ--but unfortunately my understanding of God's nature is still limited enough that I cannot predict what God will do, apart from my best guess based on what I understand God to have said in propositional revelation and what I understand God to have done in propositional revelation and personal religious experience.
There seems something wrong here. What is the point of God's "perfect self-revelation" in Jesus if after being given that revelation we still don't understand God well enough to tell what the content of God's love for His creatures, made in His image, is? If the point of the revelation really is for God to make his own nature known, it seems He has done a poor job, for we don't really know His nature that well, do we?
I am inclined to say the problem lies with us and our understanding, and not with God. But couldn't God make His revelation a perfect fit for our cognitive faculties? Perhaps Calvin believed that God did make his revelation perfect in that way, and simultaneously regenerated our cognitive faculties, so that we could know the truth about God for sure. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure. As Corduan points out in Contemp Xian Belief, Reformed Epistemology is great--if you already know what you believe. If you are still searching for the truth, rather than just a philosophical defense of the rationality of believing what you already believe, Reformed Epistemology doesn't have that much to offer, it seems.
BTW - We went off into a discussion of Hell rather quickly. Did you want to discuss retribution in Christian ethics with respect to pre-final-judgment issues?
If fine with the issue of Hell. It seems to me to be a good test case; if any retribution would be just, then Hell could be just. However, if anyone could make sense of this-worldly retribution, then I'd glad to hear; I just am extremely skeptical about the possibility from within a Christian worldview.
As for the point of God's perfect self-revelation, I think we could make a distinction between saying that every aspect of God's character could be found in Jesus (if we knew where to look), as opposed to needing to be established on the basis of what we've seen/heard alone. It may be that we can always find something more about God's nature through the world, through experience, etc., but we'll always be able to turn around and point to Jesus and see him in that new light if the insight is authentic. Though this doesn't completely solve the epistemological question.
Post a Comment