I agree that all these bad things are bad and that charity is a good way to alleviate it. But aren't you supposed to believe in an eternal heaven for everyone? How can you then think the premature death of a child is bad and morally urgent if you don't think the child died at all actually, but went to an infinitely better place where it will remain forever?
In death, do these children (and those surrounding them), not experience suffering? I think the death of someone in old age is significantly better than a child dying.
I didn't "own" anyone; I'm literally a Christian (or at least very close to that). I made an argument that there is a tension between the idea that death is bad and the idea that everyone goes to heaven when they die. Seems like a relevant thing to say on an article written by a universalist that talks about how death is bad.
The Talmud makes the related argument that the death on one person results in the loss of all his potential offspring. In Sanhedrin 37a, the Talmudic rabbis are discussing a witness's potential false testimony in capital cases. In such cases, the court warns the witness that false testimony leading to death of the accused is like destroying a whole world. The proof text comes from Cain killing Abel: “ 'The voice of your brother’s blood [damei] cries out to Me from the ground' (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: 'Your brother’s blood [damei],' in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain."
As an atheist, yes. But why would a religious person who believes in a great afterlife believe death is a horrible thing for a person? It should be a blessing.
My sentiment is of agreement, though I think you join me in thinking that death is not really any worse than failing to create. If that’s right we should either radically calibrate our attitude about failing to create, or our attitude about death
At least we have gotten much better at saving the lives of young children--although we could certainly do better.
I wrote about mortality of children in the past, as well as the growing popularity of the morally bankrupt argument that's it's not in our self-interest to try to prevent the deaths of others' children about a year ago, here:
I agree that all these bad things are bad and that charity is a good way to alleviate it. But aren't you supposed to believe in an eternal heaven for everyone? How can you then think the premature death of a child is bad and morally urgent if you don't think the child died at all actually, but went to an infinitely better place where it will remain forever?
In death, do these children (and those surrounding them), not experience suffering? I think the death of someone in old age is significantly better than a child dying.
If they go to paradise, aren't they suffering far more on earth?
Remember to take any opportunity to own the theist, even on an article about the death of innocent children.
Also; this is supposed to be a philosophical exercise, why are you bringing in some ridiculous appeals to emotions?
Why would you curse an innocent with a life of suffering on earth when they could be living in paradise?
I didn't "own" anyone; I'm literally a Christian (or at least very close to that). I made an argument that there is a tension between the idea that death is bad and the idea that everyone goes to heaven when they die. Seems like a relevant thing to say on an article written by a universalist that talks about how death is bad.
The Talmud makes the related argument that the death on one person results in the loss of all his potential offspring. In Sanhedrin 37a, the Talmudic rabbis are discussing a witness's potential false testimony in capital cases. In such cases, the court warns the witness that false testimony leading to death of the accused is like destroying a whole world. The proof text comes from Cain killing Abel: “ 'The voice of your brother’s blood [damei] cries out to Me from the ground' (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: 'Your brother’s blood [damei],' in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain."
As an atheist, yes. But why would a religious person who believes in a great afterlife believe death is a horrible thing for a person? It should be a blessing.
My sentiment is of agreement, though I think you join me in thinking that death is not really any worse than failing to create. If that’s right we should either radically calibrate our attitude about failing to create, or our attitude about death
Do you have a source for the 13,000 under five deaths per day?
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/child-mortality-and-causes-of-death
4.8 M per year = 13 K per day
Do you take death to be bad in itself or only the usual suffering happening in the process and the one caused to the relatives ?
At least we have gotten much better at saving the lives of young children--although we could certainly do better.
I wrote about mortality of children in the past, as well as the growing popularity of the morally bankrupt argument that's it's not in our self-interest to try to prevent the deaths of others' children about a year ago, here:
https://doctrixperiwinkle.substack.com/p/stabat-mater-dolorosa