聽神談【「懲罰」、「死刑制度」與「功能性」】
正是你們那「自以爲是的公平正義」在摧毀你們。(It is your righteousness that is killing you.)
你們將許多「 功能」的差錯敗壞都貼上標籤，歸咎於「 道德」的腐敗。
這種行爲產生了道德批判，而批判又引發正當性的辯護。
批判某人或某國的行爲是否合乎道德，你們將自己的反應合理化。
你們將這樣的反應稱爲「道德職責」，聲稱在道德上你們有義務採取行動。
你們的「死刑」即是一個最好的例子。
你們聲稱「以眼還眼，以牙還牙」的道德規範（或稱神的律法），
足以將死刑正當化，而它甚至和社會安全無關，因爲終生監禁即可達到社會安全的目的。不，這目的非常明顯的，就是爲了扯平報復。
「死刑制度」是否有助於達到你們想達成的目的？
尼爾：統計數字顯示出，那些最常採用死刑的政府與國家，犯罪率並不比那些最少採用的政府與國家低。如果死刑足以嚇阻暴力犯罪，那麼犯罪率爲何不會因此而下降？
如果你們是尋求體驗一個和平、和諧、合作的世界，那麼哪些「行得通，能夠帶來你們想要的」和哪些「行不通，無法帶來你們想要的」將不難被衡量。目前你們並非如此衡量判定，否則你們絕對不會做出那些你們現在對世界所做的事。
如果一個社會還在實行「以暴制暴」的方式，那它是否有點落後了？
這正是許多「道德合法化」的問題。它們會孕育出不理智的行爲。
尼爾：我仍然感到疑惑，一個「行得通」與「行不通」的世界，是不是只會産生混亂而已？
相對於你們目前「對與錯的世界」所産生出的和平與平靜嗎？
尼爾：好啦！但至少如此一來，當我們知道某人做錯時可以據以處置。
例如去懲罰他們，以展示出“負負得正”的效果嗎？
一件事是「對」是「錯」，端視它對於産生原先希望産生的結果，它行得通或行不通。視它是否具備了「功能性」。因此讓我們再問一次：你們希望藉著懲罰人得到什麼結果呢？是爲了體驗惡有惡報？或是報復？或只是藉由移除威脅來感受安全嗎？
摘自《與神對話之新啟示》第22章
It is your righteousness that is killing you.
You insist on labeling all errors of functionality matters of moral decay. This creates judgment, and judgment creates justification. By your judgments about whether a person or nation has behaved morally, you justify your response.
You call this response your “moral obligation.” You claim that you are morally compelled to act in a certain way.
Your death penalty is a perfect example.
You claim the moral code (or God’s Law) of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is justification for this punishment. It is not even about rendering society safe because life imprisonment would accomplish that. No, it is a simple matter of evening the score, plain and clear.
Yes. We try to soften this edge by calling it justice, but there is a saying, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” In this case it”s a duck named Revenge.
But what if morals—which are moveable feasts in any event—were not part of the equation?
Neale: Statistics clearly show that the states and nations using the death penalty the most have no lower crime rates than those using it the least. What is that about? If the death penalty deters violent crime, why don’t the rates go down and stay down?
If you are seeking to experience a world of peace and harmony and cooperation, then “what works” and “what does not work” would be measured against that. Currently, you are not using this measurement, or you would never do the things you are doing in your world.
Could it be that a society that practices violence in order to end violence has something a bit backward?
That is the problem with many “moral” justifications. They can breed insane behaviors.
Neale: I still wonder whether a world of “what works” and “what does not work” could produce anything but chaos.
As opposed to the peace and tranquility produced by your current “right” and “wrong” world?
Okay, but at least we know when somebody has done something wrong, and we can do something about it.
Such as punishing them and demonstrating that two “wrongs” make a “right”?
Neale: It is not “wrong” to punish someone!
That is accurate. It is not “wrong” to punish someone.
A thing is only “right” or “wrong” depending upon whether it works or does not work in producing an outcome you wish to produce.
So we get to ask again, what is it you wish to produce by punishing someone?
An experience of “payback”? Of revenge? Of safety, by removing a threat?
