Can cruelty be justified if its for the benefit to all ?

Question

Who would be more apt to believe this a christian or an atheist or is it about equal and not dependent on a religeous stance ?

Answer 1

It's hard to justify cruelty. However, I can think of extreme situations were it might be the least evil. I'm an atheist.

Answer 2

Well you have to think of this question in context. A good example would be WWII. The cruelty of war deffinately did a greater good by stopping the Germans from killing millions more people. Yes it can be justified under the right conditions. However, cruelty should be kept at a minimum or you'll be just as bad as those you are trying to stop.

I think humanity is the true source of cruelty as is all emotions, sins, and desires.

btw you are truly a beautiful angel... by the look of your pic you must be one hot mama

Answer 3

I think your question assumes that there can be a larger benefit in cruelty. I don't this is true. I cannot imagine that there is any true benefit that requires the application of cruelty. If there is some overall benefit I believe the benefit can be realized without said cruelty.

In short, no. Cruelty is not justified.

Answer 4

You need to (1) define cruelty and (2) give a specific example of how cruelty could conceivably be "for the benefit of all". Generally speaking, cruelty (as the word is commonly understood) cannot be justified under any circumstances.

It has nothing to do with religion, as far as I can see.

Answer 5

I think cruelty intended to benefit is a misnomer. We are all diminished when cruelty is used to further a cause.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As far as who, I imagine it is probably equal. I believe there is morality on both sides. Usually only sociopaths are the ones with an immensely diminished sense of morality.

*I understand the why for the references to Christ, but I must say that I feel terrible that the only way I could be saved was for the One who loves me the most to be beaten and stabbed and nailed to a cross to bleed to death. I can never repay that.

Answer 6

It depends on the specific situation. If a tarriest is hiding a nuclear device in his position, and told someone he is going to ignite in 3 hours in a crowded city. He was arrested in time.
The authority use special ways to make him to tell the agent where he hide the bomb, how to disable the device. That act could be considered as "justified" as "self-defense for the benefit to thousands, even millions of innocent citizens". In general, the cruelty can not be justified.

Answer 7

you're making all the factors a in charge animal proprietor could. those unfavorable domestic dogs being bred with the help of uneducated people giving them "dressmaker" names will in basic terms be stopped whilst the wide-unfold public stops paying for those canines. only because of the fact a Hollywood character has made them a fashion accessory would not make it best. The old adage, 'you get what you pay for' relatively applies right here plenty to the suffering of the animals. relatively than spend the money from a good breeder, people get the coolest purchase puppy and are generally shocked whilst the vet costs initiate. there is not any actual thank you to stop the BYBs of the international different than by practise. Bob Barker spent years attempting to get the message out. i would not desire to be certain rules surpassed requiring puppy vendors to neuter their animals yet maximum in charge vets motivate it it strongly, the two for the wellness of the animal and to keep away from out of control breeding. i'm effective that there are some obtainable that would desire to assert that it relatively is only too costly to pass to a breeder. a good breeder is conscious extra appropriate to the lineage of their canines to make sure a healthful, nicely-tempered better half than do the people making their funds jointly as a definite breed is a warm commodity. i'm sufficiently old to recollect whilst the popularity of Lassie and Rin Tin Tin had the two Collies and German Shepherds being bred with the help of uneducated vendors which led to lots of undesirable and sick-tempered canines giving the two breeds a foul recognition for years. returned, this is as much as clever puppy vendors to place an end to those unfavorable domestic dogs being introduced into the international with the help of no longer buying from the BYBs. in case you may no longer have sufficient funds a purebred, undertake from a safeguard. a minimum of you're no longer helping a situation industry,

Answer 8

It all depends upon what the circumstances surrounding the "cruelty" are. For example, it was very cruel what happened to Jesus before and on the cross. But the Bible says that...

Hebrews 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

So while the people who beat up and crucified Jesus were not personally justified in what they did, in the larger scheme of things many others were justified through faith in the sacrifice that Jesus made and allowed to happen to Him self.

Answer 9

Leaving religion aside for a few moments, it has been argued in the past that it can sometimes be considered moral to not help a beggar as they then have to stand up for themselves [presuming they have legs]. Similar to the idea that feeding birds in your garden renders them poorer at catching their own food when you are not there.

There is also an argument that abolishing world hunger would lead to massive overpopulation. A lack of food in fact decreases female fertility. It seems that when exercising morality, sometimes we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

Possibly Christianity has not yet taken these considerations into account, so at this time id imagine the average atheist is more likely to understand morality in this indirect sense. This however is stereotypical prejudice and in fact moral preference is always a personal question.

Answer 10

this is has little religious input, its a moral issue, i hate it when people assume non - religious folk have no morality, it is a human sense, and i would happily argue religion is not the best example of humanity. and you are implying Atheists are heartless, yet medieval Christians had 'holy' wars and tortured for the church 'kill the non believers'.

i don't think there would really show a correlation, because, of course, you get many different 'local variations' of Christians with different moral priorities