The passage discusses the viewpoints of philosophers such as Rousseau, Beccaria, and Hegel regarding violence and punishment. Rousseau criticizes the use of force by authoritative governments to regulate society and argues that individuals should willingly come under the law. He proposes a social contract where people unite and bring themselves under the law without the need for domination and violence. However, Rousseau does allow for the death penalty in cases where individuals violate the social contract and betray the public interest.
Beccaria, on the other hand, advocates for the abolition of the death penalty. He argues that the government’s commitment to preserving citizens’ lives and human dignity is incompatible with torture and execution. Beccaria emphasizes the contractual relationship between the government and citizens, stating that the government has a responsibility to protect human lives. If it fails to do so, it breaks the agreement, and the government itself becomes guilty, not the citizens. According to Beccaria, both parties have the right to hold each other accountable, and punishment should not be imposed without the consent of all parties involved.
Hegel criticizes Beccaria’s assumption of a contract between the government and citizens, but he also addresses the concept of violence. He believes that violence against the human body also affects the soul and psyche, rejecting the idea that the body can be separated from the inner self. Hegel engages in a thorough discussion of violence and presents his arguments on the purpose of punishment.
Overall, the passage explores different perspectives on violence and punishment, highlighting the debates between philosophers regarding the use of force, the death penalty, and the relationship between the government and its citizens.
To view the entire article please change the language of this page to Persian.
