6

Necessary destruction and abusive destruction. — Nourishment. — Murder.

— Dueling. — The death penalty. — Destructive scourges. — Wars. (Questions 357 to 379 b.)

For what reason, alongside all the means of conservation and preservation with which Nature has surrounded organic beings, has it equally placed its destructive agents? [Question 731.] “It is the remedy alongside the evil.”

a. Is the principle of destruction a law of Nature? [Question 728.]

“Yes; it is necessary that everything be destroyed in order to be reborn and regenerated.”

The principle of destruction is thus a law of Nature, whose purpose is the renewal and the improvement of the living beings of Creation.

Is the destruction of living beings by one another a law of Nature?

“Yes; in order to nourish themselves, men and animals destroy one another. When, however, they do so out of vengeance or wickedness, the law is human, or else it is their evil instincts that dominate them.”

Will the necessity of destruction always exist among men? [Question 733.]

“No; it will cease with a more refined physical and moral state.”

a. In the worlds where the physiological organization is more refined, do living beings have the need to feed themselves? [Question 710.]

“Yes, but their foods bear a relation to their nature. Such foods would not be substantial enough for your coarse stomachs, just as theirs could not digest your foods.”

The necessity of destruction grows weaker in man as the Spirit dominates matter. Even here on Earth we can already see that the horror of destruction increases with intellectual and moral development.

Is the voluntary abstention from animal food contrary to the law of Nature?

“Given your material constitution, flesh nourishes flesh, for otherwise man perishes. The law of conservation imposes upon man the duty of preserving his energies and his health, in order to fulfill the law of labor.” [Question 723.]

a. Does the abstention from certain foods, prescribed in the tradition of various peoples, have any rational foundation? [Question 722.]

“It is permitted to man to feed himself on everything that does not harm his health. Some lawgivers, nevertheless, with a useful end in view, decided to prohibit the use of certain foods and, in order to give greater authority to their laws, presented them as emanating from God Himself.”

By virtue of the law of conservation, has God granted man the right of destruction over the animals?

“Yes, over those that may serve for his nourishment or endanger his safety; there the right of destruction given to man ends. When he lives at least as much for the Spirit as for matter, he will no longer have any need to destroy, above all his fellow man.”

a. What should one think of the destruction that exceeds the limits of need and of safety? Of hunting, for example, when it has as its sole object the pleasure of destroying without any usefulness? [Question 735.] “The predominance of bestiality over the spiritual nature. All destruction that exceeds the limits of necessity is a violation of the Law of God.”

Was the instinct of destruction given to men with providential ends? [Question 728 a.]

“Everything must be destroyed in order to be regenerated, and the creatures of God are the instruments of which He makes use. Animals destroy only with a view to their needs; but man, who has free will, destroys without necessity; he shall give account of the abuse of the freedom granted to him.”

Does the right of destruction give man that of disposing of the life of his fellow man?

“No; only God has that right.”

a. Is murder a crime in the eyes of God? [Question 746.]

“Yes, a great crime; because, since man has his free will, he is master to kill his fellow man; but, in doing so, he will cut short a life of expiation or of mission, and in this lies the crime.”

Does murder always have the same degree of culpability? [Question 747.]

“As we have already said, God is just and judges the intention more than the deed.”

a. Does God excuse murder in a case of legitimate self-defense? [Question 748.]

“Yes; one must, however, avoid it if possible; only necessity can excuse it. But if the one attacked can preserve his life without attempting against that of the aggressor, he should do so.”

Can the duel be considered a case of legitimate self-defense? [Question 757.]

“No; it is a murder and an absurd custom, worthy of barbarians. With a more advanced and more moralized civilization, man will understand that the duel is as ridiculous as the combats that in former times were regarded as the judgment of God.”

a. Can the duel be considered a murder on the part of one who, knowing his own weakness, is almost certain that he will succumb? [Question 758.]

“It is a suicide.”

b. And when the chances are the same, is it a murder or a suicide? [Question 758 a.]

“Both.”

In every case, even in those in which the probabilities are equal, the duelist is guilty. First, because he attempts coldly and with deliberate purpose against the life of his fellow man; then, because he uselessly exposes his own life, without benefit to anyone.

What is the value of what is called the point of honor in matters of dueling? [Question 759.]

“Pride and vanity: two wounds of Humanity.”

a. But are there not cases in which honor is truly engaged and in which a refusal would be cowardice? [Question 759 a.]

“That depends on usages and customs. Each country and each century has in this regard a different way of seeing. When men are better and more advanced in morals, they will understand that the true point of honor is above earthly passions and that it is not by killing that they will repair a fault.” There is more greatness and true honor in confessing oneself guilty, when one has committed some fault, in forgiving, when one is in the right, and, whatever the case may be, in scorning the insults that cannot reach us.

What do you think of the death penalty? Will it someday be able to disappear from human legislation? [Question 760.]

“Yes, the death penalty shall disappear. Its suppression will mark a progress in Humanity.”

Without doubt, social progress still leaves much to be desired. But we would be unjust toward modern society if we did not see progress in the restrictions imposed upon the death penalty among the more advanced peoples, and in the nature of the crimes to which its application is limited. If we compare the guarantees with which justice, among these same peoples, seeks to surround the accused, the humanity it uses toward him, even when it recognizes him as guilty, with what was practiced in times that are still not very distant, we cannot fail to recognize the progressive march along which Humanity walks.

For what reason does cruelty form the dominant character of primitive peoples? [Question 753.]

“In primitive peoples, as you call them, matter predominates over the Spirit. They give themselves over to animal instincts and, since they have no needs other than those of the life of the body, they care only for personal conservation, which generally makes them cruel. Moreover, peoples of imperfect development are under the dominion of equally imperfect Spirits, who are sympathetic to them, until more advanced peoples come to destroy or weaken that influence.”

Does cruelty not result from the absence of moral sense? [Question 754.]

“Say that the moral sense is not developed, but do not say that it is absent, because it exists, as a principle, in all men. Later on, this moral sense will cause cruel men to become good and humane beings. The moral sense, therefore, exists in the savage, but in him it is like the principle of fragrance in the germ of the flower that has not yet bloomed.” All the faculties exist in man, in a rudimentary or latent state. They develop according as the circumstances are more or less favorable to them.

How is it explained that within the bosom of the most advanced civilization there are sometimes found beings as cruel as savages? 120 [Question 755.]

“In the same way that on a tree laden with good fruit some defective ones may be found. They are, if you will, savages who have only the appearance of civilization, wolves strayed into the midst of lambs.”

Will the society of good men someday see itself purged of malevolent beings? [Question 756.]

“Humanity progresses. These men, in whom the instinct of evil predominates and who find themselves out of place among good people, will gradually disappear, as the bad grain is separated from the good after the latter has been sifted, only to be reborn under another envelope. Since they will then have more experience, they will better understand good and evil. You have an example of this in the plants and animals that man has managed to improve, developing in them new qualities. Well then! Only after many generations does the improvement become complete. It is the image of the diverse existences of man.”

With what end does God strike Humanity by means of destructive scourges? [Question 737.]

“To make it progress more quickly. Destruction is necessary for the moral regeneration of the Spirits, who in each new existence climb one more rung on the ladder of perfection.”

And could God not employ, for the improvement of Humanity, other means than destructive scourges? [Question 738.]

“Yes, and He employs them daily, for He has given to each one the means of progressing through the knowledge of good and evil. It is man who does not avail himself of these means. It is necessary, then, that he be chastised in his pride and feel his own weakness.”

a. But in these scourges the good man succumbs as well as the perverse one. Is that just? [Question 738 a.]

“During life, man refers everything to his body; after death, however, his manner of thinking is different. As we have already said, the life of the body is a very small thing. A century of your world is a flash of lightning in eternity. Hence, the sufferings of a few months, or of a few days, represent nothing; it is a teaching that is given to you and that will serve you in the future.” Scourges seem to us such great misfortunes only because we judge everything from the narrow angle of material life. These scourges strike only the body, and in the eyes of God the Spirits are everything, the bodies represent little. Whether death comes to us through a scourge or through a common cause, no one fails to die when the hour of departure has sounded. The only difference, in the case of a scourge, is that a greater number of persons depart at the same time. If we could raise ourselves in thought so as to dominate Humanity and embrace it completely, those scourges so terrible would seem to us no more than passing storms in the destiny of the world.

Do destructive scourges have any usefulness from the physical point of view, notwithstanding the evils they cause? [Question 739.]

“Yes; sometimes they change the conditions of a region, although the good that results from them is felt only by future generations.”

For man, would scourges not also be moral trials, in making him confront the most distressing necessities? [Question 740.]

“Yes, and they afford him the occasion to develop all the faculties of the soul. Happy is he if he knows how to take advantage of it!”

Scourges are trials that give man the opportunity to demonstrate patience and resignation before the will of God, allowing him to manifest his sentiments of self-denial, disinterest, and love for his neighbor, provided that selfishness does not dominate him

Is it permitted to man to avert the scourges that torment him? [Question 741.]

“In part, yes; not, however, as it is generally understood. Many scourges result from man's lack of foresight. As he acquires knowledge and experience, he becomes able to avert them, that is, to prevent them, if he knows how to investigate their causes.”

What is the cause that leads man to war? [Question 742.]

“The predominance of the animal nature over the spiritual nature and the satisfaction of the passions.”

Is man guilty for the murders he commits during war? [Question 749.]

“No, when constrained by force; but he is guilty for the cruelties he commits, just as his humanitarian sentiment will be taken into account.”

What is the providential end of war? [Question 744.]

“Liberty and progress.”

a. If war must have as its effect the leading toward liberty, how is it explained that it frequently has as its object and result subjugation? [Question 744 a.]

“Temporary subjugation, to press the peoples, in order to make them progress more quickly.”

b. Will war someday disappear from the face of the Earth? [Question 743.]

“Yes, when men understand justice and practice the Law of God. At that time, all peoples will be brothers.”

In the state of barbarism, peoples know only the right of the stronger; that is why war is for them a normal state. As man progresses, it becomes less frequent, because he avoids its causes; and when it is necessary, 121 he knows how to add humanity to it. [120] E. N.: See “Explanatory note,” p. 551.

[121] T. N.: Here the expression “when necessary” should be understood as “when inevitable,” since war is never necessary.