LAW OF DESTRUCTION.

Necessary destruction and abusive destruction. — 2. Destructive scourges. — 3. Wars.

— 4. Homicide.

— 5. Cruelty.

— 6. Duel.

— 7. Death penalty.

Necessary destruction and abusive destruction.

Is destruction a law of Nature?

“It is necessary that everything be destroyed in order to be reborn and regenerated.

For what you call destruction is nothing but a transformation whose purpose is the renewal and improvement of living beings.”

a — Would the instinct of destruction have been given to living beings by providential design?

“Creatures are instruments of which God makes use to attain the ends He aims at.

In order to feed themselves, living beings reciprocally destroy one another, a destruction that obeys a twofold purpose: the maintenance of the balance in reproduction, which could become excessive, and the use of the remains of the outer covering that undergoes the destruction.

This covering is merely an accessory and not the essential part of the thinking being.

The essential part is the intelligent principle, which cannot be destroyed and which is elaborated through the various metamorphoses it undergoes.”

If the regeneration of beings makes destruction necessary, why does Nature surround them with means of preservation and conservation?

“So that destruction may not occur before its time.

Every premature destruction hinders the development of the intelligent principle.

That is why God made each being feel the need to live and to reproduce.”

Since death makes us pass into a better life, frees us from the ills of this one, and is therefore more to be desired than feared, why does man instinctively hold it in such horror that it is always for him a cause of apprehension?

“We have already said that man must seek to prolong life, in order to fulfill his task. That is why God gave him the instinct of conservation, an instinct that sustains him through his trials.

Were it not so, he would very often give himself up to discouragement.

The inner voice that prompts him to repel death tells him that he can still accomplish something for his progress.

The threat of a danger constitutes a warning, so that he may take advantage of the reprieve God grants him. But, ungrateful, man more often renders thanks to his lucky star than to his Creator.”

Why, alongside the means of conservation, did Nature place the agents of destruction?

“It is the remedy beside the ill. We have already said: to maintain the balance and to serve as a counterweight.”

Is the need for destruction identical in all worlds?

“It keeps proportion with the more or less material state of the worlds.

It ceases when the physical and the moral are more purified.

The conditions of existence are very different in the more advanced worlds than in yours.”

Will the need for destruction always exist among the men of Earth?

“That need grows weaker in man as the Spirit overcomes matter.

Thus it is that, as you can observe, the horror of destruction grows with intellectual and moral development.”

In his present state, does man have an unlimited right of destruction over the animals?

“That right is regulated by the need he has to provide for his sustenance and his safety.

Abuse has never constituted a right.”

What should be thought of destruction when it goes beyond the limits set by needs and safety? Of hunting, for example, when it aims at nothing but the pleasure of destroying uselessly?

“Predominance of bestiality over the spiritual nature.

Every destruction that exceeds the limits of need is a violation of the law of God.

The animals destroy only to satisfy their needs; whereas man, endowed with free will, destroys without need.

He will have to render account for the abuse of the freedom that was granted him, for this means that he yields to evil instincts.”

Will peoples who carry to excess their scruple regarding the destruction of animals have special merit?

“This excess, with respect to a sentiment praiseworthy in itself, becomes abusive, and its merit is neutralized by abuses of many other kinds.

Among such peoples, there is more superstitious fear than true kindness.”

Destructive scourges.

With what purpose does God strike Humanity by means of destructive scourges?

“To make it progress more quickly.

Have we not already said that destruction is a necessity for the moral regeneration of the Spirits, who, in each new existence, climb a rung on the scale of perfection?

One must see the objective in order to appreciate the results. You appreciate them only from your personal point of view; hence you qualify them as scourges, because of the harm they cause you.

But these subversions are frequently necessary so that a better order of things may come about more promptly, and so that what would have required many centuries may be accomplished in a few years.”

To achieve the betterment of Humanity, could God not employ means other than destructive scourges?

“He can, and He employs them every day, for He has given to each one the means to progress through the knowledge of good and evil. But man does not take advantage of these means.

It becomes necessary, therefore, that he be chastised in his pride and that he be made to feel his weakness.” a — But in these scourges the good man succumbs as well as the wicked. Is that just?

“During life, man refers everything to his body; yet he thinks differently after death.

Now, as we have said, the life of the body is very little.

A century in your world is but a flash of lightning in eternity. The sufferings of days or of a few months, of which you complain so much, are therefore nothing. They represent a teaching given to you, which will serve you in the future.

The Spirits, who pre-exist and survive everything, form the real world . They are the children of God and the object of all His solicitude. Bodies are mere disguises with which they appear in the world.

On the occasion of the great calamities that decimate men, the spectacle is like that of an army whose soldiers, during war, were left with their uniforms damaged, torn, or lost. The general concerns himself more with his soldiers than with their uniforms.” b — But the victims of these scourges are no less victims for that.

“If you considered life as it is, and how little it represents in relation to the infinite, you would give it less importance.

In another life, these victims will find ample compensation for their sufferings, if they know how to bear them without murmuring.”

Whether death comes by a scourge or by a common cause, no one fails to die once the hour of departure has sounded. The only difference, in the case of a scourge, is that a greater number depart at the same time.

If, in thought, we could rise so as to dominate Humanity and embrace it as a whole, these so terrible scourges would seem to us no more than passing storms in the destiny of the world.

Are destructive scourges of use, from the physical point of view, notwithstanding the ills they cause?

“Yes. They often change the conditions of a region.

But the good that results from them is experienced only by future generations.”

Are scourges not likewise moral trials for man, by bringing him to grapple with the most distressing necessities?

“Scourges are trials that give man the occasion to exercise his intelligence, to demonstrate his patience and resignation before the will of God, and that offer him the opportunity to manifest his sentiments of abnegation, of disinterestedness, and of love for his neighbor, if egoism does not dominate him.”

Is it given to man to avert the scourges that afflict him?

“In part, it is; 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.

Nevertheless, among the ills that afflict Humanity, there are some of a general character, which lie in the decrees of Providence and of which each individual receives, more or less, the repercussion. To these man can oppose nothing but his submission to the will of God.

These same ills, however, he often aggravates by his negligence.”

In the first rank of destructive scourges, natural and independent of man, must be placed pestilence, famine, floods, the inclemencies of weather fatal to the produce of the earth. But has not man found in Science, in works of art, in the improvement of agriculture, in crop rotation and in irrigation, in the study of hygienic conditions, means of preventing, or at least of mitigating, many disasters? Are not certain regions, once devastated by terrible scourges, today protected from them?

What, then, will man not do for his material well-being, when he knows how to take advantage of all the resources of his intelligence, and when, to the care of his personal conservation, he knows how to join the sentiment of true charity toward his fellow beings?

Wars.

What is it that drives man to war?

“Predominance of the animal nature over the spiritual nature and the overflowing of the passions.

In the state of barbarism, peoples know but one right — that of the stronger. That is why, for such peoples, the state of war is a normal state.

As man progresses, war becomes less frequent, because he avoids its causes, waging it with humanity when he feels it necessary.”

Will war some day disappear from the face of the Earth?

“Yes, when men understand justice and practice the law of God.

At that time, all peoples will be brothers.”

What did Providence aim at in making war necessary?

“Liberty and progress.”

a — Since war is to have as its effect the bringing about of liberty, how can it frequently have enslavement as its objective and result?

“Temporary enslavement, to crush peoples, in order to make them progress more quickly.”

What should be thought of one who incites war for his own profit?

“He is greatly guilty, and many existences will be necessary for him to expiate all the murders of which he has been the cause, for he will answer for all the men whose death he has caused to satisfy his ambition.”

Homicide.

n

Is homicide a crime in the eyes of God?

“Yes, a great crime, for he who takes the life of his fellow being cuts short the thread of an existence of expiation or of mission. Therein lies the evil.”

Does the one who commits homicide always have the same degree of culpability?

“We have already said it: God is just, He judges more by the intention than by the deed.”

Does God pardon homicide in the case of legitimate defense?

“Only necessity can excuse it.

But, provided that the one attacked can preserve his life without making an attempt upon that of his aggressor, he must do so.”

Is man responsible for the deaths he causes during war?

“No, when he is constrained to it by force; but he will answer for the cruelties he commits, just as his humanitarian sentiments will be taken into account for him.”

Which is the more reprehensible in the eyes of God, parricide or infanticide?

“Both are equally so, because every crime is a crime.”

How is it to be explained that among some peoples, already advanced from the intellectual point of view, infanticide is a custom and is sanctioned by legislation?

“Intellectual development does not imply the disposition toward good.

A Spirit superior in intelligence may be evil.

This happens with one who has lived much without improving himself: he merely knows.”

Cruelty.

Can the sentiment of cruelty be linked to the instinct of destruction?

“It is the instinct of destruction at its worst, 2 for, although destruction sometimes constitutes a necessity, the same is never true of cruelty.

It always results from an evil nature.”

For what reason does cruelty form the predominant character of primitive peoples?

“Among primitive peoples, as you call them, matter prevails over the Spirit. They give themselves up to the instincts of the brute and, as they feel no needs other than those of the life of the body, they think only of personal conservation, and this is what makes them, in general, cruel.

Moreover, peoples of imperfect development remain under the dominion of Spirits likewise imperfect, who are in sympathy with them, until more advanced peoples come to destroy or weaken that influence.”

Does cruelty not derive from the lack of moral sense?

“Say — from the lack of development of the moral sense; do not say from its absence, for the moral sense exists, as a principle, in all men.

It is this moral sense that will later make of cruel beings good and humane ones.

It exists, then, in the savage, but like the principle of fragrance in the germ of the flower that has not yet bloomed.”

In a rudimentary or latent state, all the faculties exist in man. They develop according as circumstances are more or less favorable to them. The excessive development of some arrests or neutralizes that of the others.

The overexcitement of the material instincts stifles, so to speak, the moral sense, just as the development of the moral sense little by little weakens the purely animal faculties.

How can it be that, in the midst of the most advanced civilization, beings are found at times as cruel as savages?

“In the same way that, on a tree laden with good fruit, true rejects are found. They are, if you will, savages who have only the exterior of civilization, wolves astray in the midst of lambs.

Spirits of an inferior order and very backward may incarnate among advanced men, in the hope of likewise advancing. But, since the trial is too heavy, the primitive nature predominates.”

Will the society of good men some day be purged of malevolent beings?

“Humanity progresses.

These men, in whom the instinct of evil dominates and who find themselves out of place among good people, will gradually disappear, as the bad grain is separated from the good when the latter is winnowed.

But they will disappear to be reborn under other coverings. As 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 succeeded in improving, developing in them new qualities.

Well then, only after many generations does the development become complete. It is the image of the various existences of man.” Duel.

n

Can the duel be regarded as a case of legitimate defense?

“No; it is a homicide and an absurd custom, worthy of the barbarians.

With a more advanced and more moral civilization, man will understand that the duel is as ridiculous as the combats that were once regarded as the judgment of God.”

Can the duel be regarded as a homicide on the part of one who, knowing his own weakness, is almost certain that he will succumb?

“It is a suicide.”

a — And when the probabilities are the same for both duelists, will there be homicide or suicide?

“Both.”

In all cases, even when the probabilities are identical for both combatants, the duelist incurs guilt: first, because he coldly and with deliberate purpose makes an attempt upon the life of his fellow being; then, because he uselessly exposes his own life, to no one’s benefit.

What value has what is called the point of honor, in the matter of dueling?

“Pride and vanity: a twofold sore of Humanity.”

a — But are there not cases in which honor is truly engaged and in which a refusal would be cowardice?

“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 morality, they will understand that the true point of honor lies above earthly passions, and that it is neither by killing nor by letting oneself be killed that wrongs are redressed.”

There is more greatness and true honor in a man’s confessing himself guilty, if he has committed some fault, or in pardoning, if reason is on his side, and, in any case, in despising insults, which cannot reach him.

Death penalty.

Will the death penalty some day disappear from human legislation?

“Incontestably it will disappear, and its suppression will mark a progress of Humanity.

When men are more enlightened, the death penalty will be completely abolished on Earth. Men will no longer need to be judged by men. I am referring to an epoch still very distant from you.”

Without doubt, social progress still leaves much to be desired. But anyone who did not see a progress in the restrictions placed upon the death penalty, among the more advanced peoples, and in the nature of the crimes to which its application is limited, would be unjust toward modern society. If we compare the guarantees with which, among these same peoples, justice seeks to surround the accused, the humanity it uses toward him, even when it recognizes him as guilty, with what was practiced in times not yet very far off, we cannot deny the advance of the human race along the path of progress.

The law of conservation gives man the right to preserve his life. Will he not make use of that right when he eliminates a dangerous member from society?

“There are other means for him to protect himself from danger than by killing.

Moreover, the door of repentance must be opened, not closed, to the criminal.”

The death penalty, which may come to be banished from civilized societies, will it not have been of necessity in less advanced epochs?

“Necessity is not the term. Man judges a thing necessary whenever he discovers nothing better.

As he instructs himself, he comes to understand better what is just and what is unjust, and he repudiates the excesses committed, in times of ignorance, in the name of justice.”

Is the restriction of the cases in which the death penalty is applied an indication of the progress of civilization?

“Can you doubt it? Does your Spirit not revolt when you read the narrative of the human carnages once carried out in the name of justice and, not infrequently, in honor of the Divinity; of the tortures inflicted upon the condemned and even upon the mere accused, in order to wrench from him, through the keenness of suffering, the confession of a crime that he had often not committed? Well then! Had you lived in those epochs, you would have found all this natural, and perhaps even, had you been a judge, you would have done the same. Thus it is that what seemed just in one epoch seems barbarous in another.

Only the divine laws are eternal; the human ones change with progress and will continue to change, until they have been brought into accord with those.”

Jesus said: Whoever has killed with the sword, by the sword shall perish. Do these words not sanction the penalty of retaliation, and thus, is not the death given to the murderer an application of that penalty?

“Take care! You have greatly deceived yourselves regarding these words, as regarding others.

The penalty of retaliation is the justice of God. It is God who applies it.

You all undergo that penalty at every instant, for you are punished in that wherein you have sinned, in this existence or in another.

He who was the cause of suffering for his fellow beings will come to find himself in a condition in which he will suffer what he has made others suffer. This is the meaning of the words of Jesus.

But did he not also say to you: Pardon your enemies? And did he not teach you to ask God to pardon your offenses as you yourselves have pardoned, that is, in the same proportion in which you have pardoned — understand it well?”

What should be thought of the death penalty imposed in the name of God?

“It is for man to take the place of God in the dispensing of justice.

Those who act thus show how far they are from understanding God and that they still have much to expiate.

The death penalty is a crime when applied in the name of God; and those who impose it burden themselves with as many murders.” Murder or homicide — [Justification for the change of the title from Murder to Homicide and for the translation of the questions running from no. 746 to 751 and the questions on the duel, from no. 757 to 758a, in order to conform to the original texts (in French) that treat the above-mentioned theme. As can be verified in the originals present in this compilation, at no moment was the French word “assassin” used, but rather “meurtre.” Both were used by the Codifier in question no.

See: Note of question 861. Aurélio Buarque de Holanda Ferreira, in his dictionary, defines assassínio (murder): the act of assassinating; to assassinate: “to kill with violence or by treachery”; and homicídio (homicide): “the death of a person brought about by another.” K. J.]