It's no better for Hitler to go to hell than for Gandhi too, except to the extent that it will discourage future Hitlers!

Elijah wrote:Assuming that deterrence is partialled out.

If so, then sure. But you can't just say "ignoring factor X" and then expect your intuitions to actually ignore it. Our retributive intuitions assume that we live in a world in which deterrence is effective.

It is also probably more useful to endorse choices that correspond to common sense justice, if they have no additional cost.

The "hell" part adds a confusion, namely infinitarian paralysis (if hell exists, and there's at least one person in it, mathematically it doesn't matter what else happens)

Being wicked doesn't make it hurt any less. It just makes you empathize with them less.

Personally, I empathize pretty strongly whether they're good or bad. For example, I've once seen a My Little Pony fanfiction about what would have happened had Discord, the second season villain, won. It took me 24 hours to recover. Despite that, I still find seeing him turned to stone at the end of the episode disturbing.

Awesome!:D!!

But even if nobody would even know about this suffering, isn't it better for the wicked than for the good man to suffer?

If I had to choose between sending an innocent man to jail or a murderous, psychopathic bully, without question, I would send the innocent man if I thought that the guilty man would suffer more. In normal scenarios, I would view sending the innocent man as worse only because the guilty man can rationalize that he deserved it and that he brought it on himself, this might give him a greater sense of agency and control over the situation or I might assume that the more hardened someone is, the more able they are to survive the prison environment, but basing the decision entirely on what I thought would prevent the most suffering seems intuitively right to me. I wouldn't want to be held to this since I don't know what my feelings will be in future but I think justifying my meta-ethical world view (philosophical hedonism) with empiricism/epistemological idealism instead of faulty logic, more than anything else, has killed off any desire for retribution and vengeance I once had since I can't deny the intrinsic badness of someone else's suffering without denying my own direct experience of pain.

Being wicked doesn't make it hurt any less.

Well said.

It just makes you empathize with them less.

I've come to think that if you only caring about the well-being of people who are non-threatening or pleasing to you, your concern is ultimately egocentric. I think genuine compassion is unconditional and universal, even if 'liking' is not.

It is also probably more useful to endorse choices that correspond to common sense justice, if they have no additional cost.

I think any desire for 'justice' that would be tempered by the person feeling connected to the pain of the wrongdoer should be enthusiastically discouraged. Mercy should be favored when deterrence isn't an issue.

I think people want there to be some sort of "reward" for being good, like preferential treatment in "who am I going to torture" scenarios. I'm fine perpetuating that, but I suppose that's purely deterrence. Apart from that, my intuitions are very utilitarian here -- the idea of torturing (let alone Hell) even Hitler kinda horrifies me. I don't want extreme suffering inflicted on anyone (unless it would prevent yet more extreme suffering).

Elijah wrote: can anyone here really say that it is no better for Hitler than Gandhi to go to Hell

I must ask you a question: What is your belief in the self? I currently hold the idea of no-self. Can you really say that the Hitler sent to hell is the same person who initiated so many deaths? Surely in such pain as inflicted in hell it would be very difficult to form Hitler thoughts, or any thought other than "ow, ow, ow...".
Another similar way to say it: would you prefer to send a tiger to hell over a deer?
Or perhaps better: send baby Hitler or baby Gandhi to hell?