The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 4 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY
Open accessAbstract
Ted Sider's Proportionality o f Justice condition requires that any two moral agents instantiating nearly the same moral state be treated in nearly the same way.I provide a countermodel in supervaluation semantics to the proportion ality of justice condition.It is possible that moral agents S and S' are in nearly the same moral state, S' is beyond all redemption and S is not.It is consistent with perfect justice then that moral agents that are not beyond redemption go determinately to heaven and moral agents that are beyond all redemption go determinately to hell.I conclude that moral agents that are in nearly the same moral state may be treated in very unequal ways.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
69 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 4 Sources not found
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the response to the problem of second-order vagueness can be generalized.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemably Evil Redeemably Evil |----------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is consistent with perfect justice then that moral agents that are not beyond redemption go determinately to heaven and moral agents that are beyond all redemption go determinately to hell.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Universalism is false.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Only those moral agents that are beyond redemption go determinately and eternally to hell.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And those important moral diff erences can justify very unequal treatment.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no discrete transition, for instance, from a moral state that is defi nitely irredeemably evil to a moral state that is indefi nitely irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The borderline cases include all of the indefi nitely irredeemably evil moral states.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Degrees of Goodness and Higher-Order Vagueness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is possible that moral agents S and S' are in nearly the same moral state, S' is beyond all redemption and S is not.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The borderline cases include all of the indefi nitely defi nitely irredeemably evil moral states.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Degrees of Goodness and Higher-Order Vagueness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A moral agent that instantiates a moral state that is irredeemably evil might not be much worse than a moral agent that instantiates a moral state that is not irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does not in general violate the proportionality of justice not to treat S and S' in nearly the same way even when S' is not defi nitely worse than S.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Vague Depravity Thesis ensures that there is no precise border between moral agents that are irredeemably evil and moral agents that are not irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The moral agent S' is defi nitely irredeemably evil and moral agent S is borderline irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of principle PJ1, the agent S' goes determinately and eternally to hell and on the basis of PJ2 the agent S goes determinately and eternally to heaven.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ1: Moral agents that are definitely irredeemably evil cannot be saved and so must go determinately and eternally to hell.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ2: Moral agents that are borderline irredeemably evil can be saved and so go determinately to heaven.
In the paper
“Ted Sider's Proportionality of Justice condition requires that any two moral agents instantiating nearly the same moral state be treated in nearly the same way.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sider
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“S' is among the irredeemably evil and S is on the borderline of the irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemably Evil Redeemably Evil |----------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So again there will be some moral agents S and S' such that S' is not definitely morally worse than S and such that there is an important and nonarbitrary moral diff erence between S and S'.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemably Evil Redeemably Evil |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Every moral state in the sequence is instantiated.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moral agents instantiating k (n+1)i are in nearly the same moral state as moral agents instantiating k ni .”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The obscenity criterion is no more than a useful expository device.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Degree of Goodness Argument Generalized
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sider
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It might be that every moral agent that is superdefi nitely irredeemably evil cannot be saved and every moral agent on the borderline of irredeemable evil is not quite beyond redemption.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The card S holds up is not defi nitely more red than the card S' holds up, so the a itude that S expresses is not defi nitely worse than the a itude that S' expresses.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > What about Degrees of Acceptance?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ3: Every moral agent that definitely rejects God as his savior cannot be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to hell.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ4: Every moral agent that does not definitely reject God as his savior can be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to heaven.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course the objection from second-order vagueness arises again at the third order of vagueness and so on upward.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemably Evil Redeemably Evil |----------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If S is borderline irredeemably evil and S' is defi nitely irredeemably evil, then S' is not defi nitely worse than S, but it is not possible to treat S and S' in nearly the same way.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But if there is an important and non-arbitrary moral diff erence between moral agents S and S', then according to P'', S and S' cannot be in adjacent moral states k (n+1)i and k ni .”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemable Evil and Supervaluationism
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fi gures (1) and (3), for instance, the moral state k (n+1)i is not on any borderline of irredeemable evil and so k (n+1)i is not only defi nitely irredeemably evil but superdefi nitely irredeemably evil as well.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemably Evil Redeemably Evil |----------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assumption does commit us to the plausible position that there are minor evils.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Degree of Goodness Argument Generalized
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There are insignificant evils: increments insignificant enough that k (n+1)i is not definitely worse than k ni.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“S' is defi nitely irredeemably evil and so S' cannot be saved.But S is borderline irredeemably evil and so S can be saved.”
- Also stated in: § |-------------------------|--|------------| · plain
“S' is defi nitely beyond redemption and cannot be saved; S is not defi nitely beyond redemption and can be saved.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § |-------------------------|--|------------| · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the Moral Diff erence Thesis there can be an important and non-arbitrary moral diff erence between moral agents that instantiate nearly the same moral states.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“S' is not defi nitely morally worse than S but there remains an important and non-arbitrary moral diff erence between S' and S that justifi es treating S' and S in very unequal ways.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemably Evil Redeemably Evil |----------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proportionality of justice thesis entails that any two moral agents instantiating adjacent moral states must be treated in nearly the same way.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proportionality of justice thesis assumes that there cannot be an important and non-arbitrary moral diff erence between moral agents that instantiate nearly the same moral state.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Vague Depravity Thesis ensures that, for all moral states k n and k (n+1) , there is some i (i > 0) and some admissible precisifi cation such that a moral agent that instantiates k (n+1)i is irredeemably evil only if a moral agent that instantiates k ni is also irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There will be a card k (n+1)i that is defi nitely red and a card k ni that is just a shade diff erent and not defi nitely red.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > What about Degrees of Acceptance?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For every card in the sequence there is some moral agent that holds up that card.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The penumbral connections in P and P', for instance, seem true.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemable Evil and Supervaluationism
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The claim that there is an important and non-arbitrary moral diff erence between S and S' also commits us to the Moral Diff erence Thesis.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Essentially perfectly just beings that apply PJ3 and PJ4 send moral agents determinately and eternally to hell only if they defi nitely reject God as their savior.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > What about Degrees of Acceptance?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ3: Every moral agent that definitely rejects God as his savior cannot be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to hell.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ4: Every moral agent that does not definitely reject God as his savior can be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to heaven.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Moral Diff erence Thesis asserts that there might be an important and non-arbitrary moral diff erence between moral agents that instantiate nearly the same moral state.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is therefore some moral agent S that instantiates the moral state in k ni and some moral agent S' that instantiates the moral state in k (n+1)i .”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Every moral state in sequence S is instantiated.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“S is sent determinately and eternally to hell because S defi nitely rejects God as his savior and cannot be saved.S' is not sent determinately and eternally to hell because S' does not defi nitely reject God as his savior and can be saved.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > What about Degrees of Acceptance?
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ3: Every moral agent that definitely rejects God as his savior cannot be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to hell.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ4: Every moral agent that does not definitely reject God as his savior can be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to heaven.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So the moral state k (n+1)i is defi nitely irredeemably evil and k ni is not defi nitely irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every moral agent that holds up k ni goes determinately and eternally to heaven and every moral agent that holds up card k (n+1)i goes determinately and eternally to hell.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > What about Degrees of Acceptance?
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ3: Every moral agent that definitely rejects God as his savior cannot be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to hell.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ4: Every moral agent that does not definitely reject God as his savior can be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to heaven.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is possible that moral agents S and S' are in adjacent moral states k (n+1)i and k ni , and also that there is an important and non-arbitrary moral diff erence between S and S'.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Irredeemable Evil and Supervaluationism
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But then for some increment i (i > 0) in the sequence S, k (n+1)i is defi nitely irredeemably evil and k ni is borderline irredeemably evil, and k (n+1)i is not defi nitely worse than k ni .”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > |-------------------------|--|------------|
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There are insignificant evils: increments insignificant enough that k (n+1)i is not definitely worse than k ni.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It might be, for instance, that all and only moral agents that are superdefi nitely irredeemably evil cannot be saved.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no moral state k n , (k > k n > k 0 ) in S such that for every increment i (i > 0) and every admissible precisifi cation, k ni is not irredeemably evil and k (n+1)i i is irredeemably evil.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The property of being irredeemably evil is vague.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It assumes, for instance, that it's impossible that a moral agent instantiating k (n+1)i is irredeemably evil and cannot be saved and a moral agent instantiating k ni is borderline irredeemably evil and so can be saved.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Vague Depravity Thesis and the Moral Diff erence Thesis. Here is the Vague Depravity Thesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So there will be moral agents S and S' such that, S defi nitely rejects God as his savior and S' does not defi nitely reject God as his savior, and the card S holds up is not defi nitely more red than the card S' holds up.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > What about Degrees of Acceptance?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For every card in the sequence there is some moral agent that holds up that card.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The important moral diff erence is that S defi nitely rejects God as his savior and cannot be saved and S' is on the borderline of rejecting God as his savior and can be saved.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > What about Degrees of Acceptance?
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ3: Every moral agent that definitely rejects God as his savior cannot be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to hell.
- The authors state this as an assumption: PJ4: Every moral agent that does not definitely reject God as his savior can be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to heaven.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And it might also be that moral agents that are on some borderline of irredeemable evil are, fortunately, not quite beyond redemption.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it seems close to certain that moral states come in degrees.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And a perfectly just being might respect the degrees of goodness among moral agents in the distribution of these rewards and punishments.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I'm claiming rather that it is possible that some agents are beyond redemption in the sense described and others are not.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The right eschatology might then entail that every moral agent is either sent determinately to heaven or sent determinately to hell.”
§ ON VAGUE ESCHATOLOGY > Conclusions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Universalism is false.
“Since we have assumed that universalism is false, an adequate principle of justice must provide a moral justifi cation for distributing punishments and rewards in such a way that some people go determinately and eternally to heaven and some people go determinately and eternally to hell.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Only those moral agents that are beyond redemption go determinately and eternally to hell.
“Let's stipulate fi nally that only those moral agents that are beyond redemption go determinately and eternally to hell.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Every moral state in sequence S is instantiated.
“The Degree of Goodness Argument assumes that there are moral agents instantiating every moral state in the sequence.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There are insignificant evils: increments insignificant enough that k (n+1)i is not definitely worse than k ni.
“It is assumed that there are increments (or decrements) insignifi cant enough that the moral state k (n+1)i resulting from having commi ed n + 1 minor evils is not defi nitely worse than the moral state k ni resulting from having commi ed n minor evils.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No moral agent that does not reject God as his savior is beyond redemption.
“Suppose it is true that no moral agent that does not reject God as his savior-no ma er how many obscenities he has u ered during his lifetime-is beyond redemption.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Only those moral agents that reject God as savior go determinately and eternally to hell.
“We are assuming instead that only those moral agents that reject God as savior go determinately and eternally to hell.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
God provides every moral agent with a final opportunity to accept or reject him as savior.
“Let's suppose that God provides every moral agent with a fi nal opportunity to accept or reject him as his savior.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Everyone knows that only those moral agents that definitely reject God as their savior are sent determinately and eternally to hell, and everyone knows that every moral agent that does not definitely reject God as their savior is sent determinately and eternally to heaven.
“We assume that everyone knows that only those moral agents that defi nitely reject God as their savior are sent determinately and eternally to hell.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For every card in the sequence there is some moral agent that holds up that card.
“Assume that for every card in the sequence there is some moral agent that holds up that card.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
PJ1: Moral agents that are definitely irredeemably evil cannot be saved and so must go determinately and eternally to hell.
“PJ1.Moral agents that are defi nitely irredeemably evil cannot be saved and so must go determinately and eternally to hell.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
PJ2: Moral agents that are borderline irredeemably evil can be saved and so go determinately to heaven.
“PJ2. Moral agents that are borderline irredeemably evil can be saved and so go determinately to heaven.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
PJ3: Every moral agent that definitely rejects God as his savior cannot be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to hell.
“PJ3.Every moral agent that defi nitely rejects God as his savior cannot be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to hell.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
PJ4: Every moral agent that does not definitely reject God as his savior can be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to heaven.
“PJ4.Every moral agent that does not defi nitely reject God as his savior can be saved and so goes determinately and eternally to heaven.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Every moral state in the sequence is instantiated.
“The right response to the objection from higher-order vagueness is to note that, by hypothesis, every moral state in the sequence is instantiated.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There are very small increments in evil.
“We have been supposing that there are very small increments in evil.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
It is possible that moral agents instantiate every moral state in the sequence.
“Strictly, the Degree of Goodness Argument assumes that it is possible that moral agents instantiate every moral state in the sequence, not that moral agents actually instantiate every moral state in the sequence.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Possibly there is a point at which any agent that instantiates an irredeemably evil moral state is beyond redemption.
“We are assuming that, possibly, there is a point at which any agent that instantiates an irredeemably evil moral state is beyond redemption.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The property of being irredeemably evil is vague.
“My assumption that the property of being irredeemably evil is vague concedes to Sider that u ering one minor obscenity cannot change an agent from being defi nitely redeemable to being defi nitely irredeemable.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There are borderline cases of being irredeemably evil in which it is not true that S is irredeemably evil and not false that S is irredeemably evil.
“I assume there are borderline cases of being irredeemably evil in which it is not true that S is irredeemably evil and not false that S is irredeemably evil.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Possibly PJ1 and PJ2 are true.
“I assume that possibly PJ1 and PJ2 are true and in those worlds they are the principles God applies.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The assumption of divine control must be consistent with Sider's assumption of non-universalism and God's perfect justice.
“The assumption of divine control must be consistent with Sider's assumption of non-universalism and God's perfect justice.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
It is consistent with God's perfect justice that some moral agents are sent determinately and eternally to hell.
“According to these assumptions, it is consistent with God's perfect justice that some moral agents are sent determinately and eternally to hell.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Some moral states k_ni and k_mi in the sequence are such that an agent that instantiates k_ni is redeemable and an agent that instantiates k_mi is irredeemable.
“The assertion is intended to follow directly from the assumption that some moral states k ni and k mi in the sequence of moral states from k 0 to k are such that an agent that instantiates k ni is redeemable and an agent that instantiates k mi is irredeemable.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
An agent S instantiates an irredeemably evil moral state k_ni if and only if S is himself irredeemably evil.
“We have supposed that an agent S instantiates an irredeemably evil moral state k ni if and only if S is himself irredeemably evil.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A moral state k_ni is irredeemably evil if and only if k_ni is sufficiently bad that God cannot save any agent that instantiates k_ni.
“Further we have supposed that a moral state k ni is irredeemably evil if and only if k ni is suffi ciently bad that God cannot save any agent that instantiates k ni .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No one indefinitely holds up his card.
“To avoid additional sources of vagueness, we should add the simplifying assumption that no one indefi nitely holds up his card.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
We can measure the size and number of small evils.
“Assuming we can measure the size and number of small evils, n is some positive integer and i is some small real value.”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Buckareff, A. A., & Plug, A. (2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118608005.ch9 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Almeida, M. J., & The Society of Christian Philosophers
- Corresponding author
- Almeida, Michael J.
- ORCID
- Almeida, Michael J.
- Venue
- Faith and Philosophy
- Publisher
- Society of Christian Philosophers
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-375
- ISSN
- 0739-7046 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2086082254
- Semantic Scholar
- 5e58ebbad1075b82284cd0f6bff2aa93e18b3626
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Faith and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
- ePlace - Preserving, Learning, and Creative Exchange (Asbury Theological Seminary) (submittedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
- Keywords
- vagueness, eschatology, moral state, redemption, heaven and hell, countermodels
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
