heaven: desirable - hell: not so much
by zoss in introflection, s-l-mwhy is that?
I mean, it is a very curious question — Is there an underlying assumption that heaven would be desirable and hell wouldn’t be? (not the other way around, and not even that the former is only more desirable than the latter)
Before I go any further, let me clarify two points — not that this is assumed or required to be very clear anyway. One, I am assuming the existence of both, heaven and hell, and disregarding all details, other than a generic qualification of what I mean by ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, which brings me to the second remark. The question of qualification seems unavoidable for the purpose of this post despite all my mental efforts to skip it for the time being. So, heaven, for now, is some “reward” for the “good”, and hell, “punishment” for the “wicked”.
Is this supposed to be an incentive for the choosing-agent to (at least wish to) be “good”? And if this is true, which (intrinsic?) quality of this agent is making this evaluation or this decision?
