If one innocent person is tortured so that everyone else can live and the world doesn't end, is that simultaneously unfair but also morally preferable over complete destruction of everything?
If one innocent person is tortured so that everyone else can live and the world doesn't end, is that simultaneously unfair but also morally preferable over complete destruction of everything?
You're viewing a single thread.
I mean, most Christians would say yes because that's the entire premise of the crucifixion.
This interpretation leaves out the most important part of the crucifixion story: Jesus willingly took on the world's sins out of love. So whether or not most Christians would say yes depends on if the one person being tortured has a choice in the matter, which is unspecified in the question.
I came to say the same thing. This is exactly what Christianity believes.
But of course, it was Jesus who gave himself willingly.
If he was forced to do that, it would've been reprehensible because he was the only truly innocent person who ever lived.