Where did the law come from – starting with the abolition of the death penalty

I saw a small video today that I think the abolition of the death penalty is the progress of civilization, and I can't agree with that. I have the impression that from time to time I see discussions on this topic, which are like ocean waves, and there is a small climax every once in a while. I'm not a legal professional, and I don't intend to participate in the debate, but lately I feel that there is something fusctile in the discussion on this issue and that it is slowly going off the rails - there are people who think that the abolition of the death penalty is the progress of civilization, so I want to talk about it.

To discuss an issue, it is best to first understand the origin of the problem and the history of its development, so that we do not get bogged down in a purely positional debate. So what is the root cause of law? It's a governance model. After the emergence of human beings in a social society, individuals need to interact with each other, and frequent interactions will require rules, and this rule is the original abuse of law.

Due to the differences in geographical and cultural conditions between the East and the West, the understanding of law is also different. Whether the law is a management tool or a contract are two completely different models of social governance. In order to illustrate these two different understandings and the differences they bring, let's try to look at law from both Eastern and Western perspectives.

We are Chinese and have a home advantage, so let's start with an Eastern perspective. Here we want to borrow a legal work that has been lost, Li Ke's "Book of Laws" during the Warring States Period. The Book of Law was compiled by Li Ke in the early Warring States period, when he reformed the law with the support of Wei Wenhou of Wei State, and the Book of Law is an important document to record the changes. This "Book of Laws" also influenced the Shang Dynasty reform of the Qin State, and also had a great influence on the later development of Chinese law.

The "Book of Law" has strict entries, and there are provisions on various situations in the lives of the people at that time, and here we will only look at a representative provision.

The "Book of Law" strictly prohibits gambling, and those who break the law must pay a fine, if the prince is caught gambling, what should I do? To beat, the specific way to play is "flogging", which means to whip with a whip or bamboo strip. If the prince goes to gamble again and is caught, the punishment will be upgraded to "special flogging" and he will be whipped hard. If he is caught for the third time, he will abolish his status as a prince and set up another prince. This seems to have a bit of equality before the law, let's look down, if the monarch violates the law, will he be guilty of the same crime as the common people?

The answer to this question is very simple and unambiguous: absolutely not. There is a summary at the end of the "Book of Laws", saying that the above laws and regulations must be complied with from Wei Hou down. Wei Hou himself is above the law. This is the most basic legislative spirit of the Legalists, no matter how much the law is made equally, the supreme ruler must be above the law, not only is not restricted by the law, but also has the right to interfere with the law. The spirit of this law has been carried through throughout ancient society.

Under this understanding, the significance of the law lies in the fact that the supreme ruler can "rule the country by law", and the focus is on the word "to", not according to the basis, but so to, which means that the supreme ruler "uses" the law to govern the country, the law is a management tool, and the attribute of the law is the attribute of the instrument.

Next, we will find that Western law is largely contractual in nature. Today we often talk about the term "spirit of contract", but the "spirit of contract" has developed neither from business practices nor from political relations, but from the much older relationship between man and God.

We know that the Bible is divided into two parts, the Old Testament, which tells the story of the ancient history of Israel before Jesus, and the New Testament, which tells the story of Jesus and the apostles. Judaism only recognizes the Old Testament, not the New Testament, and Christianity understands the Old Testament based on the New Testament. But both the Old Testament and the New Testament have one thing in common: they both have the meaning of "covenant."

For the contract, it should be mutually beneficial for both parties, and people have a request for God, and God also has a request for man, that is, let people worship themselves as the only God, and must not worship other gods. This "reciprocal relationship" constitutes a contract between man and God.

In the ancient Western world, the God in the Bible was not the god of all mankind, and from the understanding of the Old Testament, God was only the protector of the Jews. From the perspective of Christians, although God and the Jews made a covenant long ago, but the Jews kept breaking the contract, God abolished the covenant with the Jews, no longer regarded the Jews as his chosen people, and instead made a new covenant with all those who believed in Jesus, which is the New Testament. So, the Old Testament was a covenant between God and the Jews, and the New Covenant is a covenant that God re-established with believers through Jesus.

Although many legal experts in the West believe that the abuse of Western law is natural law, it is undeniable that Western law has been greatly influenced by Christianity in the process of development, and it can be said that the legal basis of Western law has a deep Christian imprint.

Why is there such a difference in the understanding of the law between the East and the West? I think the reason for this is that China has always been a unified empire, while the West has always been divided. The geographical situation, low productivity and feudal system in ancient Europe made it impossible for Europe to form a unified and stable regime, and many secular forces could only have relative advantages over each other and could not form absolute advantages, so that the various regimes reached a state of stalemate.

In this process of compromise, the Christian faith is the "greatest common divisor" among the various regimes, and then Christian philosophy slowly enters the secular life of the people through the form of law.

From these two different understandings, we will find that different cultures will produce different legal paradigms, and different paradigms are all for more efficient and low-cost governance. Cultures should be judged by differences rather than whether they are advanced or not, just as we cannot say which is more advanced or more civilized, either Buddhist or Christian. Therefore, if the Western culture makes a logical deduction, there is a high probability that the death penalty will be abolished, while the Eastern culture will recognize the positive significance of the death penalty in social governance.

Last but not least, I am a human resource manager, and my years of work experience have allowed me to see that many companies are keen to introduce "advanced management experience", but few have succeeded. In this regard, I would like to say that whether it is governing a country or an enterprise, chasing fashion is the most important thing, you must be clear about the cultural roots of your organization, and then you can adapt to the appropriate governance plan. A best practice that you don't understand may be the driving force behind your company's collapse, after all, there is a saying that "my honey is arsenic".