To Four Thousand Years Later

Leonardo thought for a moment. Open your mouth and ask:

"I need to know more about their claims. Do you remember? Tell me about it.

"I remember, I remember!"

Arthur was overjoyed when he heard this, and he responded repeatedly...Because the birth of criminals is related to the complex society, society also needs to bear the corresponding responsibilities. At the same time, merely imposing the death penalty on a criminal can neither solve the corresponding social problems nor eradicate the soil of crime. , nor can you make up for the loss of society. According to their theory, criminals who will commit the death penalty either do not understand the law and do not know that this matter is serious enough to be the death penalty, or they have become enlightened. So the death penalty cannot effectively deter crime, Leonardo laughed when he heard this. He shook his head: "If it is said that the death penalty cannot deter crime, will it deter crime more if you lock up a person?"

"Since execution can't deter, and being locked up can't deter, then this is tantamount to ineffective. Because the death penalty itself is not entirely based on deterrence, but a considerable part of it is to appease the victim's relatives. Leonardo Sighing: "I ask you, Arthur. If you don't get the death penalty for killing, how do you ensure that the victim's family won't kill again? Then this time, the victim's personal exhibition will go on again, and this cycle is different from the ancient revenge of blood relatives. It points to some kind of inanimate device, machine or system, which will be raised by passionate young people to "resist" The tyranny of the machines' idea. "And if it is said that with the development of civilization, human beings are always becoming more civilized, and the punishment is getting lighter and lighter." Leonardo smiled: "If this is the case, can't you not commit capital crimes?" In the laws of any country, the death penalty is also a heinous crime. I think it is possible.

"As for making up for the loss of society," Leonardo chuckled softly: "You have to know that suffering can only stimulate people's potential, but cannot give people the lacking qualities. The kind of people who go into prison and come out become honest. Not because he was enlightened inside and became a perfect saint. It's because he was intimidated by the law and realized that his past actions were wrong.

"Ah, I understand, Your Majesty," Arthur grinned, "it's as if no matter how you feed him, his heart is always toward the woods."

"This is also a bit too decisive, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing."

Leonardo shrugged. Slightly frowned.

Something is wrong. The conclusion they draw is that even if the death penalty will gradually decrease or even be completely abolished with the advancement of civilization, it will never be based on the false test of "morality" and "compassion"—after all This personal power has no standard and is not stable. It will appear vulnerable to the power of social "public opinion".

If one day human beings really do it, it must be based on the changes in the culture, living habits and public opinion atmosphere at that time, which makes it better and closer to the "common sense" of the people and society than not to do so. "need". Abolishing the death penalty on the grounds of the right of advancement and civilization will never bring true human rights and civilization. Because it will not improve the soil of society.

- It should be the result after a state is achieved, not the means to achieve this state. How did this kind of morality alienated from humanitarian existentialism emerge in this era?

Although from a philosophical point of view, the background of the birth of existentialism is indeed in line with the current situation of the Frankish Republic: as the king drove the priests out of the country. Religion, the all-inclusive philosophical framework, was lost, and the Franks, whose worldview was based on religion, became spiritually destitute and lost their sense of belonging; Subside, the material survival crisis fades. The existential crisis of the spirit becomes more acute. The individual who existed in the historical era, portrayed him as the dynamic force of history. Therefore, in their view, it is "human personality" and human free will that promote the progress of history, and collective human rights should be higher than God, science, rationality, law and morality. This is undoubtedly a metaphysical point of view .

Safeguarding and safeguarding human rights is naturally a basic moral principle. Just like violating the right to life of others is the greatest crime. However, if human rights are placed above external social laws and regulations, it will lead to all kinds of social chaos. Individuals who advocate the abolition of the death penalty, complete freedom of marriage, or excessive preferential treatment of certain ethnic groups. It is to purpose-purpose collective human rights and deliberately confuse this point of view.

Human rights should be an underlying power. For example, the presumption of innocence, not being a slave, not being killed and exiled at will, or taking property away, etc. It is the "least common factor" that should be shared by all civilizations and countries

The basis for its existence is, first of all, the objective inequality between people and the injustice in society, because the private ownership of the means of production has not been eliminated, and the major issue of "human liberation" has not been completed. Therefore, human rights must be faced squarely and respected, maintained and guaranteed. Therefore, it recognizes a kind of "freedom of the exploited who does not need to eliminate classes and achieve equality", and builds rationality for it and solidifies its progress. This is undoubtedly a cultural imperialist concept. It is an ideological attack that has the political effect of dividing people from their traditional class and social circles and creating a divide between them.

Based on an objective analysis, in the current social soil of the Frankish Republic, such an idea should not have been born. Even if a great man is able to come to the world in advance, this method is too advanced. So, what needs to use the "abolition of the death penalty" as a means in the current social environment, such a fierce and anti-ethical testimony? "_Your Majesty, what are you thinking about?" Arthur looked at Leonardo who was lost in thought, and asked.

"I'm a little curious.

Leonardo said softly: "According to the inference, the birth of Abolitionism should be accompanied by another voice. "Some people who profit in the black field, can make a lot of profits in a short period of time, and are not conducive to social stability. For example, officials with sudden windfalls, rulers of violent civil organizations, and some businessmen who sell **** gadgets, if nothing else, may not be the only "enemy" that can be harvested in Frank.

Leonardo slowly turned back, turning his deep eyes back to Arthur, "The best advice I can give you is to go back and find some absolutely trustworthy nobles or officials, and carefully check who The businesses that most need the abolition of the death penalty.

“You know, speaking and lobbying cost money.

"The unruly businessman heard the words, Arthur was stunned for a moment, as if he had some thoughts in his mind. He nodded slowly, and said softly, cautiously and gratefully: "Your advice is very precious, His Majesty the Pope. I think I have an idea.

"If you have any questions," Leonardo smiled slightly, "remember to write a letter to me, and ask to write to His Majesty Pope Leonardo'. If the letter cannot be sent, burn it after writing Lose.

Leonardo said, showing a kind smile.