But the reason we find such reasoning (about the babies) repugnant is that we don’t actually believe that heaven and hell are real. Even the majority people who profess to hold these beliefs actually don’t. So what we see is just babies being killed.
But what if heaven and hell were real things? What if it were the case that some or most people go to hell and suffer eternally, and we knew this, for a completely reliable fact, and also knew that murdered babies go to heaven? Don’t you think our view of things might be different?
I think it’s less that they don’t believe heaven and hell are real, and more that heaven and hell are such far concepts that they don’t generally intrude on regular believers’ reasoning.
Most people believe in starving children, but they generally don’t incorporate that knowledge into their day to day behavior even in situations where it would be relevant.
But what if heaven and hell were real things? What if it were the case that some or most people go to hell and suffer eternally, and we knew this, for a completely reliable fact, and also knew that murdered babies go to heaven? Don’t you think our view of things might be different?
It so happened (I’m running on memory and too lazy to google these things up) that people who did this lived in a society where Catholicism was the dominant religion and more or less universally believed. Notably, that didn’t stop anyone from arresting these people and prosecuting them for murder.
Of course Catholicism is very far from utilitarianism.
Yes; the people doing the arresting and the prosecuting are unlikely to be literal believers. The afterlife is just not a concept for which we get any support in our experience; and in general, most people do not take their religions sufficiently seriously to integrate the implications of their religions’ supernatural teachings into their belief systems.
There’s a reason why one relatively-common path to nonbelief is that of the intellectual who attempts to take their religion seriously and finds it horrifying and incoherent.
You’re right, that is a good point. I often forget that most Christians (and indeed most people) are not consequentialists.
I guess I should have said:
What if we, here at lesswrong, or elsewhere where consequentialists hang out, knew that heaven and hell were real and etc. etc.? THEN would our views be different?
There is a reason why most religions are not consequentialist and usually include strong prohibitions on suicide.
A society of consequentialists who fully believe in Christian heaven and hell would probably start by killing all (innocent) children and then commit suicide at the moment which maximizes their chances of getting into heaven. Thus after a single generation such a society would cease to exist.
But the reason we find such reasoning (about the babies) repugnant is that we don’t actually believe that heaven and hell are real. Even the majority people who profess to hold these beliefs actually don’t. So what we see is just babies being killed.
But what if heaven and hell were real things? What if it were the case that some or most people go to hell and suffer eternally, and we knew this, for a completely reliable fact, and also knew that murdered babies go to heaven? Don’t you think our view of things might be different?
I think it’s less that they don’t believe heaven and hell are real, and more that heaven and hell are such far concepts that they don’t generally intrude on regular believers’ reasoning.
Most people believe in starving children, but they generally don’t incorporate that knowledge into their day to day behavior even in situations where it would be relevant.
It so happened (I’m running on memory and too lazy to google these things up) that people who did this lived in a society where Catholicism was the dominant religion and more or less universally believed. Notably, that didn’t stop anyone from arresting these people and prosecuting them for murder.
Of course Catholicism is very far from utilitarianism.
Yes; the people doing the arresting and the prosecuting are unlikely to be literal believers. The afterlife is just not a concept for which we get any support in our experience; and in general, most people do not take their religions sufficiently seriously to integrate the implications of their religions’ supernatural teachings into their belief systems.
There’s a reason why one relatively-common path to nonbelief is that of the intellectual who attempts to take their religion seriously and finds it horrifying and incoherent.
I don’t think so. In particular, I can’t see why a literally believing Catholic would not arrest and prosecute these people for murder.
You’re right, that is a good point. I often forget that most Christians (and indeed most people) are not consequentialists.
I guess I should have said:
What if we, here at lesswrong, or elsewhere where consequentialists hang out, knew that heaven and hell were real and etc. etc.? THEN would our views be different?
There is a reason why most religions are not consequentialist and usually include strong prohibitions on suicide.
A society of consequentialists who fully believe in Christian heaven and hell would probably start by killing all (innocent) children and then commit suicide at the moment which maximizes their chances of getting into heaven. Thus after a single generation such a society would cease to exist.