Well, again I thank you for bearing with me while you disagree with and resent my thoughts. The core of your point seems to be:
You don't like imagining a world. were evil can persist. without justice.
and you seem to be the only idiot on planet earth. who think bad things don't go unpunished. which is weird to me.
In actuality, I do imagine such a world often enough. First thing I suggest, take the long view and remove "immediacy" from your perspective. If a bad thing gets fully punished much later, people still accept that justice has been done; but, if no late punishment can truly satisfy justice, then nobody should be required to say justice has been done. So to determine if all bad things are punished eventually or not, we need to agree that this means punished sufficiently fully and sufficiently close to the event to be just and meaningful. I think you're reasonable enough to recognize that it's not as simple as God hitting the Smite button on his computer immediately after any sin is committed.
So to imagine a world in which such evils occur that they can never be remedied to any innocent petitioner: if there is no universal justice and evil persists unpunished forever, then as you say each person is his/her own morality, each of us decide what is good or bad irrelevant of any external standard. You punish what you define to be crime, which is fine, except that others don't define it to be crime and keep doing it or empowering it. Everything is a fight then, isn't it? Now what happens is that since we decide what is evil, independently, everything we say about it is "all in our heads". Some other person, or even I myself later, could easily contradict what moral standard I propose today. That means your morality ("harder on crime") is not objectively better than anyone else's, and the meaningfulness of your system of justice is lost. You only find meaning in the fact that a few people agree with you and you've gotten "crime" punished according to your standards, and the poor "criminals" who think you're the wrong one only were defeated because of superior force, and when we don't hold on to superior force others overpower us with their preferred morality. You and I have both considered this at some length, haven't we?
That means that if evils go unpunished forever then there becomes no meaning, good or bad, in that fact, and no meaning to our own morality in complaining that they are evil. If you cannot appeal to anyone outside yourself, your appeal does nothing. So I'm looking forward to your thoughts on resolving your dilemma between wanting to uphold morality as you see fit (which I affirm) and denying that morality has any source outside yourself. If you don't see a contradiction there, well, that's part of meaninglessness.
Well, again I thank you for bearing with me while you disagree with and resent my thoughts. The core of your point seems to be:
In actuality, I do imagine such a world often enough. First thing I suggest, take the long view and remove "immediacy" from your perspective. If a bad thing gets fully punished much later, people still accept that justice has been done; but, if no late punishment can truly satisfy justice, then nobody should be required to say justice has been done. So to determine if all bad things are punished eventually or not, we need to agree that this means punished sufficiently fully and sufficiently close to the event to be just and meaningful. I think you're reasonable enough to recognize that it's not as simple as God hitting the Smite button on his computer immediately after any sin is committed.
So to imagine a world in which such evils occur that they can never be remedied to any innocent petitioner: if there is no universal justice and evil persists unpunished forever, then as you say each person is his/her own morality, each of us decide what is good or bad irrelevant of any external standard. You punish what you define to be crime, which is fine, except that others don't define it to be crime and keep doing it or empowering it. Everything is a fight then, isn't it? Now what happens is that since we decide what is evil, independently, everything we say about it is "all in our heads". Some other person, or even I myself later, could easily contradict what moral standard I propose today. That means your morality ("harder on crime") is not objectively better than anyone else's, and the meaningfulness of your system of justice is lost. You only find meaning in the fact that a few people agree with you and you've gotten "crime" punished according to your standards, and the poor "criminals" who think you're the wrong one only were defeated because of superior force, and when we don't hold on to superior force others overpower us with their preferred morality. You and I have both considered this at some length, haven't we?
That means that if evils go unpunished forever then there becomes no meaning, good or bad, in that fact, and no meaning to our own morality in complaining that they are evil. If you cannot appeal to anyone outside yourself, your appeal does nothing. So I'm looking forward to your thoughts on resolving your dilemma between wanting to uphold morality as you see fit (which I affirm) and denying that morality has any source outside yourself. If you don't see a contradiction there, well, that's part of meaninglessness.