Is purposeless torture moral?

Evlreala"From their perspective, hell is a moral punishment."Their perspective is demonstrably wrong.
You should see how Christians have run from this post I wrote some time ago.Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?Is hell a moral construct or not?Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.Regards
DLEdited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.

Courts and laws are unrelated to morality except within the moral framework of the specific culture of that court.

I only have to "justify" the morality of my actions to myself. If the society I live in has different moral values than I do, I may or may not try to explain it to them.

Not according to your framework.You provided the mechanism to determine what was morally good from morally bad, all I did was apply your mechanism to a given scenario. So..Either, my reasoning was flawed (in which case I invite you to show me where and how).or..Your mechanism is flawed. Relivance? Can you demonstrate this to be necessarily true? Are you so sure about that? Do you speak on behalf of all human laws? What standard, where? Actually, first you must establish what criteria makes something morally good or morally evil, then you make a determination based on that criteria. According to your moral paradigm, yes, it can be. My views on the matter are irrelivent, were discussing your views. Do you wish to stick to the Code of Hammurabi, or are you ready to try another approach to your views on morality?

Jar"Courts and laws are unrelated to morality except within the moral framework of the specific culture of that court."LOL.
Which says that courts and laws are within the moral framework of all cultures.Regards
DL

Ringo"I only have to "justify" the morality of my actions to myself. If the society I live in has different moral values than I do, I may or may not try to explain it to them."Care to attempt to to explain and justify your crime here?
I eagerly want to see such an attempt.Before you do, note the first principle of morality.Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives | TED TalkRegards
DLEdited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.

EvlrealaYou, like the Christians I alluded to, have run from answering the questions posed and tried to deflect.Regards
DL

Not really. It says that in those cultures that have courts or laws, the courts or laws will reflect the morals of that culture.

The one deflecting is you.
Once again, this was your scenario and your moral paradigm, all I have done is applied one to the other and shown you how the result doesn't add up to your claims. Can you demonstrate where my reasoning is flawed?If you cannot and cannot come up with a better moral framework, then this topic becomes nothing more then one big argumentum ad ignorantiam.I have not answered your questions because they were a weak attempt to not address the issue that was raised and to deflect the bourdon of proof onto myself. Stones and glass houses and such...Oh, and you didn't allude to anyone, you quite clearly called attention to the Christians from your previous post directly. You still haven't addressed how that was relevent, or any of the questions and objections I've called to your attention.Let's not turn this into a game of chess with a pigeon, shall we?

Not to interject, but I've always understood the nature of law to pertain to the culture's ethics predominantly, I've not really considered morality much of a factor.Do you by any chance know of a good reference on the topic? I admit, I'm fairly ignorant on the nature of law and I would be interested in educating myself.

I was using the terms 'ethics' and 'morality' (perhaps inappropriately) as somewhat synonymous. I suppose that 'morality' is a subset of ethics and more closely related to a particular set of religious beliefs as opposed to the broader term ethics.

Jar.Ok.Regards
DL

EvlrealaYou have rejected my moral framework without refuting or answering the questions posed that created it so why should I come up with another while the first is sound FMPOV?Regards
DL

What crime is that? Is it a crime not to resist crime? Kindly tell us in your own words what the "first principle of morality" is.

Morality is always relative. You just gotta be creative in some cases:Raper: "If I don't rape your daughter, then I'll push this button that will blow up the whole world."In that case, the moral action would be saving the world by letting him rape your daughter.