An age cannot bind itself and ordain to put the succeeding one into such a condition that it cannot extend its (at best very occasional) knowledge , purify itself of errors, and progress in general enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, the proper destination of which lies precisely in this progress and the descendants would be fully justified in rejecting those decrees as having been made in an unwarranted and malicious manner. The touchstone of everything that can be concluded as a law for a people lies in the question whether the people could have imposed such a law on itself.
One thing we should not forget: if we don’t guard against those trying to sell justifications for letting the gory constructions of their criminal instincts run wild and concoct pretexts for their malicious acts, we might miss out on the moments they are stealing the appropriate junctures, impersonate a god and usurp the spirit of religious beliefs. (“No longer in the middle?”)
Humanity should eliminate processes that base one’s happiness in another’s unhappiness. Moral people follow this direction, but there are still people with malicious intentions that must change.
