A Proof Offered Against the Possible Existence of
Heaven or Hell
By Josh Glazer
This proposal, to be adopted as
seen fit be each individual, under the
larger umbrella of normative cultural ethics, will attempt to prove that the
traditional notion of Heaven or Hell (As from the larger historical tradition
of Judeo/Christian ethics), is not
logical, based on true and fair standards.
Since
a significant part of the population believe, or have faith in, supernatural
eternal realms called ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’, upon which one’s soul enters after
death, based on one’s actions during life, I will argue that it is not
logically ‘fair’ for any one person to enter either eternal realm, based on
their earthly actions. I will argue,
instead, utilizing the rules set down as ‘Justice as Fairness’ by John Rawls in
1971, that it is not fair to assign eternal blame or reward, based on any one
single individual’s actions during their lifetime.
First,
to define my terms: in this case, acting ‘Good’ in one’s life, means what the
normative cultural idea of good is, in any particular society (as cultural
norms of ‘Good’ may differ between
cultures or societies). Here, in
America, acting good during one’s life requires not only following legal
institutions, but also moral institutions of loving, kindness, and charity. Acting ‘Bad’, however, means violating these
institutions to some degree during one’s life.
When a person dies, they are ‘Judged’ to be either Good or Bad, and are
sent to either Heaven, or Hell, respectively.
The
‘Judge’ in this scenario would be God, as the ultimate moral arbiter. Here, I am using the general idea of God as
put forth in the Old Testament, otherwise known as the Pentateuch, or the Five
Books of Moses. God, in this case, is an
active persona who takes an interest in human affairs at some level, acting as the ultimate judge of one’s life. God has the power to send you to either Heaven
or Hell, eternally, based on God’s judgment.
This conception of Heaven and Hell, as evidenced
through certain religions, common discourse, film, TV, literature, etc., is one
in which one’s soul goes to Heaven if one’s life is ‘judged’ to be ‘Good’, and
‘Hell’, if one’s life is ‘judged’ to be ‘Bad’. I would now like to state for consideration
the idea that there cannot logically exist such eternal institutions, based on truly
‘Fair’ rules.
The main
problem with assigning eternal justice, blame, reward, etc. lies in the ‘original
position’ of each person, or in their socio-economic/political position upon
entering this world (i.e. being born).
Although it is an established fact that each individual person is equal
before the law, considering mitigating circumstances such as mental illness, intoxication,
etc., it is also clearly obvious that each person is a unique individual with
their own special qualities, deficiencies, talents, and abilities. In addition to these more innate qualities,
there is also the environment in which a person grows up, socio-economically,
educationally, and politically.
Based
on these factors, it can be argued that certain tendencies can achieve the role
becoming habits, either in ‘Good’ ways, or ‘Bad’ ways, which may not be due to
the individual’s free choice, but rather are due (at least, in part) to the
individual in question’s original position.
In
order to illustrate this point further, we will use the definition of the ‘Original
Position’, as put forth in John Rawls’ Theory of Justice. (Rawls, 1999)
In Rawls’ doctrine of ‘Justice as
Fairness’ (a modernized version of Locke’s Social Contract), societal rules,
laws, and other norms are decided behind a theoretical ‘veil of ignorance’, in
which each individual does not know their original starting point in any of
these areas. As Rawls writes:
“The main idea of justice as
fairness carries to a higher level of abstraction the traditional conception of
the social contract… They are the principles that free and rational persons would
accept in an initial position of equality… The original position of equality
corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social
contract… It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation… No one knows his
place in society, his class, social, fortune, abilities, intelligence,
strength, and the like… Thus, the
principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or
disadvantaged by the outcome of natural chance or of social circumstances… This
explains the name ‘Justice as Fairness’: it conveys the idea that the
principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. ” (Rawls, 3 – 11)
In this way, according to Rawls, a society can be
constructed whereby no special person or group is enfranchised at the cost of
other individuals, since no one person knows where they will end up after the
veil of ignorance is lifted, and they
see where they have ended up in the lottery of life. This situation, as Rawls points out, is
purely hypothetical; in no way did such a ‘state of nature’ ever trule exist,
just as in the other major social contract theories of Locke, Rousseau, and
Kant.
(Incidentally, Rawls also argues
that any truly fair society is one in which any benefits which end up being
distributed to the most rich must also somehow be offset by equally benefitting
those at the lower socio-economic rungs.
Although that does not bear directly on our current subject, it is the
second major part of this theory of justice.)
Returning
to real life, however, it soon becomes
obvious that, based on where on the socio-economic scale a person is born /
raised, an element of determinism inevitably finds its way into the lives of
every human individual on this planet.
Rich or poor, educated or not, every individual ends up pre-disposed
towards certain habits, or actions, during their lifetime. Since this is not a ‘fair’ situation, as
defined above, each individual cannot
fairly be judged on their actions during their lifetime, and surely not for all
of eternity.
Logically,
therefore, it is not fair for any single individual to enter either Heaven or
Hell, for all eternity, based on their earthly actions.
This
same problem has been written about since before the first millennium. Epicurus (341 BC – 270 BC), held that:
“Two of the greatest sources of
fear were religion, and the dread of death, which were connected, since
religion encouraged the view that the dead were unhappy. He therefore sought a metaphysic which would
prove that the gods do not interfere in human affairs, and that the soul
perishes with the body… Supernatural interference with nature seemed to him a
source of terror, and immortality fatal to the hope of release from pain… We
cannot escape death, but death, rightly understood, is no evil.” (Russell, 246 – 247)
Living prudently, according to Epicurus, is our best hope
for achieving a measure of relief from pain.
This is certainly a modest gospel, but one which could still inspire
some enthusiasm for life without invoking the interfering powers of the gods.
Arthur
Schopenhauer (c. 1860) also had some choice words on the subject of the
afterlife:
“With man the terrifying
certainty of death necessarily appeared along with the faculty of reason… All
religions and philosophical systems are directed principally toward this end…
For example, to teach him that he came but recently from nothing, and yet for
the future is to be immortal, is just like teaching him that, although he is
the work of another, he shall nevertheless be responsible to all eternity for
his maker’s commissions and omissions… An entire infinity ran its course when
we did not yet exist, but this in no
way disturbs us…” (Schopenhauer,
463-466)
Schopenhauer is here drawing attention to the glaringly
obvious fact that, although we do not envision ourselves as having existence
before we were born, the idea of non-existence after our death is almost
unthinkable to us. He also sets forth
the argument, similar to Rawls’ original position, that being responsible for
all eternity for the things which we were ‘made’ to do, is ridiculous.
Thinking
ahead, other alternatives to the theory of the existence of Heaven and Hell
might be proposed, though completely out of faith. For example, perhaps souls are tormented in
Hell for a finite amount of time, before rising to Heaven. Or, perhaps in the afterlife, all souls are
treated equally, based on the unfairness of life on earth. The implications of such a ‘policy’ would be
grand indeed.
In
conclusion, there can be no logically fair basis for any one single individual
being assigned to either Heaven or Hell, for all eternity, based on their
earthly actions, and that therefore those supernatural realms cannot exist as
traditionally believed in, although certain modifications may make the idea
more easy to have faith in. One final note:
these ideas apply to the theoretical possibility of life after death, and not
to those legal institutions we currently have in place for people during their
lifetimes.
Bibliography:
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard Press
(1999), Cambridge, Mass.
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy.
Simon and Shuster (1945), New York, NY.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation,
Volume II. Dover (1966), Mineola, NY.
No comments:
Post a Comment