11 THE MORAL DUTY
Nowadays , it is very common to hear how many criminals try to justify saying that they had difficult childhoods, but forget that there are many who have problems in childhood just like them, however, they made an effort to live with dignity, because life is not only what we have but also what we try to have. In the end, it becomes clear that those who have never tried to live with dignity are the ones who always resort to that difficult childhood argument. Because if that were true, how is it possible then that there are so many cases of rich people who commit crimes or even crimes, when they have everything they need? The answer is simple, because dignity does not depend on the wealth that one has but on one's own will and in many cases the evil does not begin because of a lack of resources but because of the vain attitude that is acquired when someone is given every whim.
We have another example in criminal trials, they often say that the reason for their behavior is in their childhood and they claim to have been abused children. But what credibility can those who have spent their entire lives lying to do evil have? If we now believe what they tell us we will only give them more opportunities to continue with their crimes. Because for them the lie is their reason for being and their work tool and presumably what they say is only to give pain and avoid their conviction.
It is true that many children have had difficult childhoods, but the truth is that only a small part of them end up committing crimes, because in the end, everything depends on the path that each one decides to take. There are also abusers who have had abusive parents, but in these cases they do not act the same because they think it is okay, but because they do not want to admit that their parents were scoundrels, and by acting like this they become accomplices of them. This is arrogant behavior, because first they refuse to question their parents' behavior, and then they pretend to do the same. Therefore, they cannot be considered innocent, because instead of demanding responsibility from their parents, they prefer to deny reality and act like them. When they were children they could not help it, but as adults they know how to differentiate good from evil and even so they insist on acting evil, therefore, their behavior has no justification. It is true that on some occasions criminal behavior begins when an inferiority complex is combined with a desire for revenge, but the fact that these people hold resentment towards someone does not give them the right to take revenge on innocents, because whoever is just fights against those who are just criminals instead of behaving like them, and when they do it is because they use their own problems to hide that they are scoundrels. It will always be better to regain your confidence by fighting the criminals before them than to join them. Our moral duty is to fight evil instead of imitating it, and many people use their problems as a pretext to hide the degeneration of their own personality.
Forgiveness is necessary, but not for those who say they are repentant only as a means of avoiding their conviction, but for those who deserve it for their example and always after paying their debts to society. Because the fact of saying that you are sorry does not cancel the damage caused, and if by being benevolent, society easily frees criminals, it can end up provoking in them a sense of impunity and thus favor an increase in crimes. It is true that parents also have a responsibility in the future behavior of their children, but in most cases this criminal behavior is not the consequence of having been mistreated, but of having been too spoiled.
It is also common for criminals to try to get rid of their sentences by stating that they are violent from birth, but the truth is that genetics can only favor someone having an excess of character that makes them be more authoritarian than would be desirable, but in no case does this force him to do something unjust or prevent him from differentiating good from evil. Because every adult man either demands the right to use his free will or must also assume his own responsibility for his actions and resorting to that argument is more than a simplistic excuse. It is true that a genetic failure could favor someone to become a criminal or a homosexual, but in no case does it cause it, because in the development of the personality there are many factors that intervene, and although our body has birth defects that may disturb our emotions, we also have an intelligence that allows us to understand what our moral duty is. However, it would be reasonable to apply sterilization to criminals, to prevent them from having defective genes. The spirit must dominate matter and the mind must dominate the body, therefore, we have a duty to act with common sense regardless of the obstacles that we may encounter along the way.
We must not be fooled by tyrants, those who since childhood have believed that they have to do whatever they want just because their parents were so permissive that they let evil grow in them until it completely dominated them, ending up as antisocial people. Psychopaths, in addition to being evil, tend to have an excessively dominant personality, therefore, they behave like tyrants when they are with people who have low self-esteem, and if they consent to their whims they will become more and more evil. When that happens, abused people must choose between cutting off that behavior from the beginning or cutting off their relationship with them permanently because if they don't, their evil will grow without stopping.
Psychopaths, when you have a problem with someone they cannot control, hide their aggressive and dominant personality and pretend to have normal behavior, then wait to be with their partner or with those over whom they have an influence to show their violent personality. They do not do this simply because they are impulsive but because they are scoundrels. Because a fair person, even being impulsive, tries to solve their problems without looking for innocents to vent their discomfort. It should also be emphasized that although psychopaths are usually spoken of as if they were men, in reality there are both sexes equally, the difference is that women have less physical strength which makes their evil less visible.
Sometimes, parents, believing they help their children, actually corrupt them, because when they commit an act of evil they oppose their being punished, thus favoring their behavior to get worse and worse, because by preventing the punishment they make them think that the it badly compensates them. These parents have no dignity, because if they really cared about their children they would teach them to be decent people instead of turning them into simple scoundrels and they would do everything possible to expel evil from them. When parents act like this, it is because they care very little for their children and that is why they want to pretend that they are their friends by supporting them on those occasions when they should be punished, they want to hide in this way the little time they dedicate so that they do not reproach him, but that behavior turns his children into hooligans and them into hypocrites. It is a pity how many families end up destroyed by being dominated by evil, this would not happen if they tried to live with dignity.
It is true that there are criminals who have been mistreated as children, and they affirm that this gives them the right to do what they want, but this is not done by simple imitation, but by vanity, because they know that their victims are not to blame for what what happened to them and they still insist on their behavior. This shows that they use their own problems as a pretext to hide that these crimes are committed out of simple arrogance. Because an abused person when he is decent fights against those who are abusive but does not imitate them. On the other hand, when the fact of having been mistreated is used as an excuse to mistreat others, it is because they are trying to hide their own vanity behind that argument.
Nor is it fair to apply mitigations to those who commit crimes under the influence of drugs, because it is like giving them a prize to encourage consumption. We all have a duty to respect our fellow human beings regardless of other issues. Because if we voluntarily decide to consume hallucinogenic substances, then we have a duty to pay for the damages that we can cause under the influence of those substances. We must not forget that being fair is not the same as being stupid, a just society is one in which decent citizens feel safe and criminals fear the law and not the other way around, because evil only disappears when the law fights delinquency to its last consequences, therefore, those who act with justice should never accept condescension towards criminals if they seek to achieve peace. It does not matter how many police officers there are or how many laws are made to combat crime if then the penalties applied are mediocre as is the case in some countries, because a criminal only stops committing crimes when the punishment is strong enough to find no compensation in continuing with that attitude.
The problem of contemporary society is that the eradication of crime is not proposed, but only living with it, which is quite absurd, and all because it is not able to understand that it can be achieved simply by taking the necessary measures to end poverty and combine it with the punishment of those acts in which intentional evil is evident. One of the biggest obstacles to achieving this is the politicians' intent to commit crimes, because they refuse to apply the necessary reforms to prevent their own crimes from being exposed. Because the truth is that in many countries the laws support crime or, in other words, weak or inadequate measures are taken to end it, in this way, politicians have the law on their side when they consider crime. A first step to achieve this would be to create a work program by the state to prevent those who did not have it from being left behind, because it will always be better to give a job rather than financial aid, in this way they are prevented from achieving their goal those who make a living from stealing and asking for social assistance without having any real intention of working. And because true l humanitarianism, not to d ar money to those who ask, but give work to those who sincerely want to integrate into society. Logically, there would be exceptions in those cases in which a disease prevents it.
It is the duty of society to be fair to criminals, but justice is not the same as impunity, because applying a weak sentence to those who commit a serious crime is above all a contempt for the victims, as well as a way of favoring the crime, because a penal system that takes crimes as something unimportant causes a relaxation of society when it comes to complying with the law. Therefore, the Justic ia and have no mercy for what to contradict, because justice requires that the offender p u and for crimes committed, and calls for clemency that the punishment is only necessary to do justice. The key to clemency lies in the intention of the offender, because it is not the same who commits a crime out of necessity or by mistake as who does it out of vanity, therefore, the law must differentiate between the two situations, because those who act with arrogance and evil, only the force of the law can make them change.
If we analyze the relationship between punishment and clemency from a biblical point of view, it can be said in conclusion that there is no contradiction between the eye for an eye that Moses defended and the clemency that Jesus defended, because each of them defends the same thing, but raised from different points of view. Moses, as head of his tribe, demanded the right of the victims to be compensated in proportion equal to the damage caused, and he told the criminals that the law will not rest until the evil is eradicated in them. Because the meaning of an eye for an eye is that evil can only be eradicated from society, when the force of the law is the same as the violence used by the criminal. On the other hand, Jesus emphasized clemency, because the forcefulness of the law should only seek justice, but it should never be used as a pretext to abuse the offender. This means that both were right, but each raised it differently.
In the most successful countries, it is usually easier for psychopaths to appear than in those that do not have it, this is because despotic people believe that if their country is successful then they will also have it in their personal sphere , and they think that implies that they can do whatever they want without worrying about the consequences. This happens because optimism reduces the distance between what we think we can do and what we can really do. When vain people hear that news about how great their country is and that no one can beat it, they think that they are talking about themselves, and they believe that if this is true it is because of them, so if they were already vain and arrogant before, Upon hearing this news, his arrogance increases to the point of abandoning all judicious behavior. This would not have happened, if from childhood their parents and educational systems had been concerned with offering them moral education.
A society that wants to have social peace has to be energetic against crime, because a country that applies weak punishments to serious crimes is condemned to see anarchy and disorder grow in its streets. It is also necessary for the state to take pity on the poor, and therefore have a work program so that no one is unemployed. In this way, it will be easy to know who commit crimes because they are scoundrels and who do it out of true necessity.
Although it is true that an effective judicial system can contain a lot of crime, however, every evolved society needs to have a solid code of moral values that has the defense of justice as its greatest value, because those societies that lack this moral reference are condemned to have many conflicts inevitably, this would not happen if since childhood they had been educated in the defense of justice and human rights. Because learning that every act has a consequence should also be a fundamental part of education.
Every society that wants to feel safe needs an effective police force, but it also needs an army to defend it, because it is not the army that causes evil but the existence of evil that makes an army necessary, therefore, those who are wrong He says that being a pacifist implies rejecting the existence of an army, because if a country did, it is clear that it would be invaded by its neighbors immediately. The fact of not wanting to see a problem does not imply that this problem does not exist and the fact that a country can dismantle its army does not mean that for that reason others will respect it. True pacifism does not consist in saying phrases that sound good but lacking in meaning, but in defending justice and coexistence starting with oneself. In my opinion, one day humanity will be civilized enough to make it possible to do without the army, but it is clear that this will not be possible as long as there is selfishness on earth.
DRUGS AND HOMOSEXUALITY
The hypocrisy of society with respect to homosexuality is surprising, because from the point of view of those who support it, it is ethically correct for a mother to reprimand a son who becomes a drug addict, but instead and in order not to contradict current topics, she must support him if he becomes homosexual. This is obviously a contradiction, because if a father must encourage his son to be on the right path and therefore must oppose drug use, then according to the same reasoning he should also oppose when he decides to become homosexual. They claim that in this case they oppose their son's behavior because he is wrong, but if becoming a drug addict is the wrong option, then becoming homosexual can be too. Then they respond, that homosexuality is by birth and therefore does not depend on their own will, but this hypothesis is as simplistic as any other, in the first place because they try to support a deviant behavior against the natural sense of things, and secondly because they deny that a child can choose and therefore make mistakes in this matter. How can they determine that becoming a drug addict is degenerate behavior and becoming homosexual is not? How can they know that it is not an absurd fad? Because, even if there were genetic failures that could favor it, that does not mean that it has to be supported, because it is our moral duty to go towards nature instead of away from it, even if a genetic failure could confuse us. It is evident that with this matter the political parties are trying to force us to accept their arguments by manipulating the sense of things and only in order to promote those points of view that provide them with more votes and consequently more power, but without caring about the social damage that cause.