Question

why does bennett claim that jonathan edwards morality was worse than himmlers? edwards insists that people ought to be condemned to eternal pain. edwards morality would justify the suffering of billions of people, whereas himmlers would justify the suffering of only millions. edwards morality justified causing suffering for all eternity. whereas himmler advocated retaining ones sympathies while acting in violation of them. edwards would not admit to having any sympathies. none of the above

Explanation:

Bennett's claim likely hinges on the scale and nature of the moral implications. Edwards' morality, if it justifies eternal suffering (a more extreme and unending form of harm compared to Himmler's actions which, while heinous, were on a finite temporal scale in terms of the suffering's duration in a worldly sense), could be seen as worse. Himmler's actions, though involving millions, were within the bounds of a finite life - span on earth, while Edwards' (if the claim is about eternal damnation) implies suffering without end.

Answer:

Edwards' morality justified causing suffering for all eternity.