The Laws
Law of Destruction
The hardest of the laws. Destruction is not evil in itself — there are things that must end for anything to begin, and the moral weight lies in the motive.
CHAPTER VI
• Necessary Destruction and Abusive Destruction
• Destructive Calamities • War • Murder • Cruelty • Dueling • The Death Penalty Necessary Destruction and Abusive Destruction 728.
Is destruction a law of nature? “It is necessary for everything to be destroyed in order to be reborn and regenerated. What you call destruction is no more than transformation that is aimed at renewing and improving living beings.” – Has the destruction instinct been given to living beings for providential purposes? “God’s creatures are the instruments that God uses for attaining the divine ends. In order to feed themselves, living beings destroy each other with the dual purpose of maintaining the balance of reproduction – which might otherwise become excessive – and utilizing the remains of their external envelopes. But it is only the envelope that is destroyed; the envelope is only an accessory and not an essential part of the thinking being. The essential part is the indestructible intelligent principle, which is developed through the various metamorphoses that it undergoes.” 729.
If destruction is necessary for the regeneration of beings, why does nature surround them with the means of self-preservation and conservation? “To prevent their destruction before the proper time. Any destruction that occurs too soon retards the development of the intelligent principle. That is why God has given to each being the need to stay alive and reproduce.” 730.
Since death should lead us to a better life and deliver us from the ills of this world, and should therefore be desired instead of dreaded, why do humans have an instinctive horror of it and see it as a cause for apprehension? “We have already stated that humans should seek to prolong their life in order to accomplish their task. That is why God has given them the self-preservation instinct: it sustains them in all their trials. Without it they would frequently give in to discouragement. The secret voice that tells them to avoid death also tells them they may yet do something more for their progress. Whenever danger threatens them, it is a warning to them that they must take advantage of the time God has granted them. But ingrates usually give thanks to their lucky star instead of their Creator.” 731.
Why has nature placed the agents of destruction side by side with the means of self-preservation? “The remedy beside the illness. We already have told you: in order to maintain balance and to serve as a counterweight.” 732. Is the need for destruction the same on all worlds? “It is in proportion to how material each particular world is; it disappears altogether in a purer physical and moral state. On worlds more evolved than yours, the conditions of existence are altogether different.” 733.
Will the need for destruction always exist for humankind on the earth? “The need for destruction diminishes among humans to the degree that their spirit overcomes matter. That is why you may observe that the horror of destruction follows upon intellectual and moral development.” 734. In their present state, do humans have an unlimited right of destruction in regard to animals? “That right is limited to the need of providing for their food and safety. Abuse has never been a right.” 735.
What about destruction that exceeds the limits of need and safety: hunting, for instance, when it has no other objective than the pleasure of destroying needlessly? “It is a predominance of the animal nature over the spiritual nature. All destruction that exceeds the limits of need is a violation of God’s law. Animals only destroy to satisfy their needs, but humans, who have free will, destroy without need. They will be called to account for abusing the freedom granted to them because in such cases they yield to evil instincts.” 736.
Do those cultures that carry their scrupulousness to excess regarding the destruction of animals have any special merit? “Such excess is a sentiment that in itself is praiseworthy, but it becomes abusive and its merit is neutralized by other kinds of abuse. They act more out of superstitious fear than true humaneness.”
Destructive Calamities 737. For what purpose does God inflict humankind with destructive calamities? “To impel them to progress more quickly. Haven’t we stated that destruction is necessary for the moral regeneration of spirits, who accomplish a new degree of perfection during each new existence? You must see the end in order to appreciate the results. You only judge such things from your own personal point of view, and you regard such afflictions as calamities because of the injury they cause you. However, these hardships are often necessary in order to make things arrive at a better order more quickly, and to accomplish in a few years what would otherwise require many centuries.” (See no. 744) 738.
Couldn’t God employ other methods instead of destructive calamities for improving humankind? “Yes, and they are employed every day. Through the knowledge of good and evil, God has given to each of you the means of progressing. However, humans do not take advantage of them; thus, it is necessary to afflict them in their pride and make them feel their own weakness.” – But the moral person succumbs to these calamities along with the wicked. Is this just? “Throughout life humans relate everything to their body, but after death they think differently. As we have already stated, the life of the body is almost nothing – a century in your world is but a flash in eternity. The sufferings that last a few of your months or days are nothing, and are only a lesson that will serve you in the future. Spirits, who have preexisted and have survived everything else, comprise the real world (see no. 85). They are the children of God and the objects of the divine kindness. Bodies are no more than disguises behind which they make their appearance in the world. In the great calamities that decimate humankind, moral persons who succumb are like an army, which, during war, sees that its uniforms have become tattered, worn out or lost. The general is more concerned for his soldiers than their uniforms.” – But aren’t the victims of these calamities actual victims nonetheless? “If we considered life as it is in itself, and how insignificant it is in comparison with the infinite, the less importance we would attach to it. In another life, those victims will find ample compensation for their sufferings if they endured them without complaining.”
Whether death results from a calamity or an ordinary cause, we cannot escape it when the hour for our departure has come. The only difference is that in the former case a greater number depart at the same time. If we could elevate ourselves through thought so as to encompass all humankind in a single glance, these terrible calamities would seem no more than passing storms in the destiny of the world. 739.
Are destructive calamities useful from a physical point of view, notwithstanding the hardships they cause? “Yes, they sometimes modify the conditions of a region, but the good that results from them is usually only felt by future generations.” 740. Couldn’t calamities also be moral trials for humankind by exposing humans to the most afflictive needs? “Calamities are trials that furnish humans with an opportunity to exert their intelligence and to demonstrate their patience and resignation before the will of God.
At the same time, calamities enable them to develop the sentiments of self-denial, self-detachment and love for their neighbor – if they are not dominated by selfishness.” 741. May we avert the calamities that afflict us? “Yes, in part, but not as is generally supposed. Many calamities are the consequences of your own improvidence.
As you acquire knowledge and experience you become able to avert them, that is, to prevent them if you know how to study their causes. Among the ills that afflict humankind, however, there are those of a general nature that belong to the designs of Providence, and from which all individuals receive, in a greater or lesser proportion, the share for which they are responsible. They can do nothing about these except resign themselves to God’s will. But even these ills are usually aggravated by human carelessness.”
Among the destructive calamities that are natural and independent of human actions we find plagues, famine, floods, and the inclement weather conditions that are fatal to the productions of the earth. But in science, in works of art, in improvements of agriculture, in crop rotation and irrigation, and in the study of hygienic conditions, has not humankind found the means to neutralize or at least mitigate such disasters? Aren’t certain regions that were formerly devastated by terrible calamities protected nowadays? Therefore, what will humankind not accomplish for their material well-being when they know how to make use of all the resources of their intelligence, and when, caring for their own self-preservation, they know how to ally it with the sentiment of true charity for their fellow beings? (See no. 707) War 742.
What is the cause that leads humankind to war? “The predominance of the animal nature over the spiritual, and the satisfaction of their passions. In the state of barbarity, nations only know the right of the strongest, and that is why war is a normal state for them. As humans evolve, war will become less frequent since they will avoid its causes, and when it does become necessary, they will know how to make it more humane.” 743.
Will war someday disappear from the earth? “Yes, when men and women understand justice and practice God’s law. Then all nations will live as brothers and sisters.” 744. What has been the goal of Providence in making war necessary? “Freedom and progress.” – If war is meant to bring freedom, why is it that it has usually had subjugation as its objective and result? “Temporary subjugation enables cultures to evolve more quickly.” 745.
What is to be thought about those who stir up war for their own gain? “They are truly guilty and will require many lives to expiate all the murders they have caused, for they will have to answer for every individual whose death they caused to satisfy their own ambition.” Murder 746. Is murder a crime in God’s sight? “Yes, a great crime because those who take the life of another fellow being thereby cut short a life of expiation or mission – hence the evil.” 747.
Is there always the same degree of culpability in murder? “We have already said: God is just; God judges the intent rather than the deed.” 748. Does God excuse murder in cases of legitimate defense? “Only necessity can excuse it; but if we can save our life without having to take the life of the aggressor, we must do so.” 749.
Are persons culpable for the murders they commit in war? “Not if they are coerced through force; nonetheless, they are responsible for the cruelties they commit. Likewise, their display of humaneness will also be taken into account.” 750. Which is more culpable in God’s sight: parricide or infanticide? “They are both equally culpable, for all crime is crime.” 751.
Why is infanticide a custom condoned by legislation among certain cultures that are already evolved from an intellectual perspective? “Intellectual development does not necessarily imply moral development. Spirits of superior intelligence may be evil. They are the ones who have lived many lives without improving themselves.”
Cruelty 752. May we link the sentiment of cruelty to the instinct of destruction? “It is the destruction instinct in its worst form because, even though destruction is sometimes necessary, cruelty never is. It is always the result of an evil nature.” 753. Why is cruelty the dominant characteristic of primitive peoples? “Among primitive peoples – as you call them – matter dominates spirit. They abandon themselves to their animal instincts, and since they do not have any other needs beyond those of the body, they care only about their own self-preservation. This is what usually makes them cruel.
Moreover, peoples of imperfect development are under the dominion of equally imperfect spirits. These imperfect spirits remain sympathetic to them until more highly advanced peoples come to destroy or weaken their influence.” 754. Doesn’t cruelty result from an absence of moral sense? “You may say that the moral sense is not developed, but do not say that it is absent, since it exists in principle in all human beings. This moral sense is what later transforms them into good and humane beings. It exists in the primitive like the onset of the aroma in the bud of the flower that has not yet opened.”
All faculties exist in humans in a rudimentary or latent state and develop according to how favorable the circumstances are. The excessive development of some impedes or neutralizes that of others. The overexcitement of the material instincts stifles (so to speak) the moral sense, as moral development gradually weakens the purely animal faculties. 755.
Why is it that in the most advanced civilizations there are individuals who are at times as cruel as barbarians? “For the same reason that on a tree loaded with good fruit there is always some that is rotten. Such individuals have, if you wish, only the appearance of civility, like wolves in sheep’s clothing. Low order, very backward spirits, may incarnate among advanced people in the hope of their own progress. However, if the trial is too difficult, their barbaric nature prevails.” 756.
Will the society of moral individuals someday be purged of evildoers? “Humankind is evolving. Those who are dominated by the instinct of evil and who are out of place among moral people will disappear little by little – like bad grain being separated from the good when threshed – but they will be born again in other envelopes. Then, with more experience, they will comprehend good and evil better.
You have an example in the plants and animals that you have learned how to perfect by developing new qualities in them. Very well, it is only after many generations that perfection becomes complete. This is a picture of the different existences of human beings.” Dueling57 757. Can dueling be considered a case of lawful self-defense? “No, it is murder and an absurd custom worthy of barbarians. In a more advanced and moral civilization, people will understand that dueling is as foolish as the combats of antiquity that were regarded as ‘the judgment of God’.” 758.
Can dueling be considered as murder on the part of him who, knowing his own weakness, is almost certain to be killed? The male gender language was maintained in this section, which deals with this obsolete 19th century male-oriented custom. Actually, we continue to practice a more subtle form of dueling nowadays in our daily lives by using words and other antagonistic attitudes that are just as destructive – Tr. “It is suicide.” – And when the odds are equal, is it murder or suicide? “It is both.”
In all cases, even in those in which the odds are equal, the dueler is culpable, first because he coolly and deliberately attacks the life of his fellow-man; second, because he exposes his own life needlessly and without benefit to anyone else. 759. In dueling, what is the value of what is called “the point of honor”? “That of pride and vanity – two sores of humankind.” – But aren’t there cases in which honor really is at stake, and where refusal would be cowardice? “It depends on customs and usages. Each country and each epoch has a different way of regarding such matters.
Nevertheless, when human beings are better and more advanced morally, they will understand that the true point of honor is above earthly passions, and that it is neither by killing nor by getting themselves killed that a wrong is redeemed.” There is more greatness and true honor in recognizing wrongdoing if we err, or in forgiving if we are right, and in all cases, in not attaching importance to insults that cannot harm us.
The Death Penalty 760. Will the death penalty someday disappear from human legislation? “The death penalty will assuredly disappear and its suppression will signal progress for humankind. When humans become more enlightened, the death penalty will be completely abolished on the earth. They will no longer need to be judged by others. I speak of a time which is still very distant for you.”
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 on the death penalty among more advanced nations, and on the nature of the crimes to which its application is limited. If we compare the safeguards by which justice is enforced to protect the accused nowadays and the humaneness with which they are treated (even when found guilty) with what was practiced in the not-too-distant past, we cannot fail to recognize the path upon which humanity is progressing. 761.
The law of self-preservation gives us the right to defend our own life. Doesn’t this right apply when we eliminate a dangerous member from society? “There are other means of saving yourselves from danger without killing. Moreover, it is necessary to open the door of repentance to the criminal rather than to close it.” 762.
Although the death penalty may be banned from civilized societies, wasn’t it necessary in less-advanced times? “Necessary is not the right word. People always think a thing is necessary when they cannot find anything better. But as they become enlightened, they better understand what is just or unjust, and they repudiate the excesses committed in times of ignorance in the name of justice.” 763.
Is the restriction on cases in which the death penalty is applied an indication of the progress of civilization? “How can you doubt that? Doesn’t your spirit revolt when you read the reports of the human slaughters that were formerly perpetrated in the name of justice and frequently in honor of the Divinity; of the tortures to which the condemned and even the accused were submitted in order to wrest from them, through excess pain, a confession for a crime that they very often had not even committed?
Well then, if you had lived in those times, you would have thought that it was all quite natural, and perhaps as a judge you would have done even more. It is thus that what seems just in one era seems barbaric in another. Only the divine laws are eternal. Human laws change with progress, and they will change further until they have been placed in harmony with the divine laws.” 764.
Jesus said, “Whoever kills by the sword shall perish by the sword.” Don’t these words represent the consecration of the penalty of talion? And isn’t the death imposed on the murderer an application of this penalty? “Be careful! You are as mistaken about these words as you are about many others. The penalty of talion is the justice of God; it is God himself who applies it. You all suffer this penalty at every moment because you are punished wherein you have sinned either in this life or in another.
Those who have caused their fellow humans to suffer will be in a situation in which they themselves will suffer in like manner. This is the meaning of Jesus’ words. Didn’t he also say to you ‘Forgive your enemies?’ And didn’t he teach you to ask God to forgive your offenses as you yourself forgive, that is, in the same proportion in which you yourself have forgiven? Understand this well.” 765.
What about the death penalty imposed in the name of God? “It is equivalent to taking God’s place in the practice of justice. Those who act thus reveal how far they are from actually understanding anything about God, and how much they still have to expiate. The death penalty is a crime where it is applied in the name of God, and those who do so will be responsible for such murders.”
Disagree with any of it? Good.
Write to us. A challenge to this chapter is more useful than an agreement with it.
Write to us