2006-12-11 20:31:12 · 17 answers · asked by TLC 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
That depends on who the person in hell IS.
2006-12-11 20:35:30 · answer #1 · answered by Bella 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well whoever .. a very astute question .. do you have knowlege about this .. it is in fact becoming a true situation ... the earth IS fast becoming a paradise and the universe becoming more accessible .. the hell is the worst thing you could ever ever possibly imagine .. what makes it so evil is that the person concerned has been set up all his life!!!! and it was a really miserable life to boot.
2006-12-11 23:46:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am suprised that no one came up with my answer yet. The answer you seek is yes and no. Here's why...
If you did not have compassion for that person, then you would be happy. If you thought that the person deserved to be in hell, you would be happy. But if you could put yourself into that person's point-of view, then you would have compassion, and you would not be happy. That is unless the person believes that they deserve being in hell.
It is the perception of deserving, unless you simply don't care. If I had to make the decision for someone to go to hell for everyone else to go to paradise, then I would only chose a person who deserves it. Believe me, there are people who believe they deserve it, so that wouldn't be a problem.
2006-12-11 22:09:13 · answer #3 · answered by tristan-adams 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great illustration from Gurcim. In english the title is "The ones who walk away from Omelas." It tells a story of utilitarianism taken to the extreme and those that refuse a happy life in a world based on such an injustice. Check it out, it's only a few pages you can read it below.
2006-12-12 03:35:58 · answer #4 · answered by Zarathustra 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So many of us are enjoying our life here knowing fully well that millions and millions of people over here are suffering in poverty and ill health. Before imagining any paradise or hell, we should perhaps put our mind first to try take a few steps towards eradicating poverty and disease.
2006-12-11 21:03:09 · answer #5 · answered by small 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ursula LeGuin has a story named (I translate it from Turkish, so the original title is something like this): "The ones that leave Omelas". It is based on a philosophical question: if the condition of unlimited happiness for everyone is that only 1 person will have to suffer, but the rest of the world would become a perfect utopia, would you be okay with it? The story is in: "The wind's twelve quarters". I think you would like it.
2006-12-11 20:40:57 · answer #6 · answered by gurcim 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hell is a choice that is made based on your actions. Why not reduce your chances of going there by helping those in 'living hell' right now by supporting charities such as Cafod?
2006-12-11 21:07:49 · answer #7 · answered by MrsC 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If one person is in hell that is a good thing. That way you won't have to listen to that person scream in anguish. You could just tuck that knowledge away and save it for a rainy day.
2006-12-11 20:40:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you was in paradise why would you care who was in hell, as you would be as happy as Larry
2006-12-12 20:30:04 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is entirely possible, plenty of people enjoy happiness while others suffer. I guess there is theoretical knowledge and "in your face" knowledge. You know kids starve in africa but we have moments of happiness. however if some starving somalian were sitting in front of you as you ate your krispy cremes, could you enjoy the krispy creme, i think not.
2006-12-11 20:45:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋