system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
There is no way to morally justify the idea of an eternal-suffering 'hell'. CMV.

I am aware that many religious people today do not believe in the concept of hell - or if they do, it isn't the fire-and-brimstone hell of tradition, but an abstract one of 'separation from god' or suchlike. My argument is not about the existence or non-existence of this place, but rather: it's about whether or not it can ever be moral to send someone to a place of eternal torture. Many people - even if they don't believe that this place exists - think that if it did exist, it would be just to send murderers and rapists there. I would argue that through logic, such a place cannot *possibly* be morally justifiable.

---------

So here's the thing. When we talk about 'justice', we mean that the wrongdoer gets a punishment befitting of his crime, right? If a child steals a cookie from the cookie jar, a just punishment might be to send him to his room. Cutting off his hand for stealing the cookie would be *un*just  and immoral because it is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed. I would argue that any crime - any immoral activity - has a point where the punishment would start to outweigh the crime (and thus be more immoral than it). For tiny crimes like stealing a cookie, that point is pretty obvious to see. But for massive crimes - like murder - the threshold at which the punishment begins to outweigh the crime (and thus become unjust) is quite hard to distinguish. However, the point is that this threshold *does exist* somewhere. *And logically - a hell of eternal suffering has to - by very definition - reach that point, and then go beyond it.*

For example, maybe we hypothetically say that 100 years of suffering is a morally just punishment for a murder. Imagine a dripping tap in the bathroom of the 50th floor of a skyscraper. Imagine it dripping for hundreds of thousands of years. When that tap eventually wears away the sink it is dripping against, and wears away all the floors of the skyscraper below it, guess what? That's just a day - a minute - a *second* of time in eternity. Now imagine that happening all over again a million times more. Forever. Now think how disproportionate the punishment is now to the threshold we set as a reasonable punishment. Think how much it has eclipsed the point we set as 'just' punishment (100 years). Logically, eternal punishment HAS to go beyond the point of being more unjust than chopping off a child's hand for stealing a cookie - and it will keep going, and get more and more unjust and immoral over time.

Essentially: it can never be moral to use an infinite punishment for a finite crime. And so regardless of whether this hell exists or not, it can never be a morally justified place. CMV.
gpt
I think your issue is that you're applying utilitarian morality to a non-utilitarian philosophy.  Christianity isn't a religion in which one weighs good deeds against bad deeds in order to determine the fate of one's soul.  You can rape and murder all you like and still get into heaven so long as you truly repent your sins and ask for forgiveness, because God has an infinite capacity for forgiveness.  So, trying to reason about how severe a punishment Hell is compared to the harm caused by sin totally misses the point, which is that any sin (without forgiveness) is the same as any other.  God created the world for humans, we fucked up our own lives, God gives us a sort of release valve for all our bullshit, and all we have to do is ask to use it.  From this view, it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could possibly complain about being placed in Hell, everyone is given the easiest possible way out and it's their own fault for not taking it.