• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.351-380
• /
• 2018

In every society, citizens must decide how to punish criminals, uphold the virtue of justice, and preserve the security of the community. In doing so, the members of society must ask themselves how they will punish those who carry out the most abhorrent of crimes. Many common responses to such a question is that death is an acceptable punishment for the most severe crimes. But to draw some theoretical distinction between a crime that deserves incarceration and a crime that is so heinous that it deserves capital punishment is subject to three errors. First, what possible line could be drawn? To decide on a particular number of deaths or to employ any standard would be arbitrary. Second, the use of a line would trivialize and undermine the deaths of those whose murderers fell below the standard. Third, any and all executions still are unjust, as the State should not degrade the institution of justice and dehumanize an individual who, although he or she has no respect for other human life, is still a living person. Simply put, all murders are heinous, all are completely unacceptable, and deserve the greatest punishment of the land; however, death as punishment is inappropriate. Also, while this article arrives at the conclusion that the death penalty is an inappropriate form of punishment, I have not offered an acceptable alternative that would appease those who believe capital offenders deserve a punishment that differs in its quality and severity. This is a burden that, admittedly, I am unable to meet. I finally conclude that the death penalty is unjustified retribution. This is the only claim that can effectively shift the intellectual paradigms of the participants in the debate. The continued use of the death penalty in society can only be determined and influenced by the collective conscience of the members of that society. As stated at the outset of this article, it is this essentially moral conflict regarding what is just and degrading that forms the backdrop for the past changes in and the present operation of our system of imposing death as a punishment for crime.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.191-214
• /
• 2018

Mozi was a practitioner who suggested the most persuasive theory about the cruelty of war among Chinese thinkers, and was a theorist who applied his theories into reality. In order to do systematic and comprehensive analysis of Mozi's book,'Non-aggression'in which he suggested anti-war and peace theory, we tried to review his theory both theoretical and practical aspects. We examined the theoretical aspects in three different parts. First, the moral basis of Mozi's anti-war peace theory is "Mutual love" in which they love each other and share their mutual benefits. Second, according to Mozi it is clear that those who caused the war as well as those who steal other people's goods should be punish based on the retribution point of view. Third, Mozi demonstrates that war is not profitable from the economic aspects as well. These three aspects are at the core of anti-war peace theory of Mozi. Next, we looked at the case of Mozi's effort to protect the weak countries in reality. His theory of 'Anti-war and Peace' is presented to protect the weaker countries. Finally, we have looked at some of the Mozi's defensive tactics, which is called the best of all in ancient. Through these considerations, it can be guessed how much he tried to narrow the gap between theory and practice. The Mozi's theory of Anti-war and Peace, which has been struggle to establish a peace in reality, still has realistic significance today.

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.19 no.1 s.32
• /
• pp.47-109
• /
• 2006

서양의학상인위남녀근근시재생식기부동적인(西洋醫學上認爲男女僅僅是在生殖器不同的人). 최근(最近), Legato, Marianne J.박사창립료(博士創立了)‘성인지의학(性認知醫學)’학(學), 개시인식도남녀적차이(開始認識到男女的差異), 주장남녀재치료방법상역부동법(主張男女在治療方法上亦不同法), 종이저일연구진입도료신적단계(從而這一硏究進入到了新的段階). 단시한의학종(但是韓醫學從)${\ulcorner}$황제내경(黃帝內經)${\lrcorner}$개시(開始), 취인위남녀재구조상유근본적차이(就認爲男女在構造上有根本的差異), 이차재생리(而且在生理), 병리(病理), 진단(診斷), 치료상야부동(治療上也不同). 기록한의학기본원리적주역적상관서적화(記錄韓醫學基本原理的周易的相關書籍和)${\ulcorner}$황제내경(黃帝內經)${\lrcorner}$, 이급역대적주요한의서적급종사임상적한의사적서적상(以及歷代的主要韓醫書籍及從事臨床的韓醫師的書籍上), 역도인위남녀유차이(亦都認爲男女有差異). 관어남녀적생성(關於男女的生成), 재(在)${\ulcorner}$보제방(普濟方) 방맥총론(方脈總論)${\lrcorner}$적변남녀형생신육론중제출료(的辨男女形生神毓論中提出了男女的形成有異). ${\ulcorner}$동의보감(東醫寶鑑)${\lrcorner}$여기타한의서부동(與其他韓醫書不同), 불시이질병위주(不是以疾病爲主), 이시이신위중심(而是以身爲中心), 즉목차안형상진행료배열(卽目次按形象進行了排列), 차상세지언급료남녀(且詳細地言及了男女). 나요남녀시고정불변적마 불시적(不是的). ${\ulcorner}$동의보감(東醫寶鑑) 신형장부론(身形臟腑論)${\lrcorner}$인위(認爲)‘인적형색유차이(人的形色有差異), 장부이유이(臟腑易有異), 고외증수동(故外症雖同), 치법인인이이(治法因人而異).’ 안형상선용부동적치법적관점(按形象選用不同的治法的觀点), 이통과주단계지언이표명(已通過朱丹溪之言而表明). 불변관점상여자체격소이동(不變觀点上女子體格小易動), 남자체격대이와(男子體格大易臥). 남자속양기이산(男子屬陽氣易散). 여남자정서초차(如男子情緖稍差), 즉음주해수(卽飮酒解愁), 불이득우울증(不易得憂鬱症). 응보기정기(應補其精氣). 여자속음기이울체(女子屬陰氣易鬱滯), 다유인기지성질(多有忍氣之性質), 이득우울증(易得憂鬱症), 고다용산기약(故多用散氣藥). 간단이언(簡單而言)‘남자위병허증(男子爲病虛證), 여자위병실증(女子爲病實證).’ 종변화적관점래용약(從變化的觀点來用藥), 예여남자수소가용여자약적사물탕(例如男子瘦小可用女子藥的四物湯). 여자비가용남자약적사군자탕(女子肥可用男子藥的四君子湯). 여자골장가용남자약적육미지황환(女子骨壯可用男子藥的六味地黃丸). 위료갱용역이해(爲了更容易理解)‘남녀불변화변화적관점재의학적운용(男女不變和變化的觀点在醫學的運用)’, 이임상병례진행설명(以臨床病例進行說明). 재임상상통과형색맥증적합일화변증론치결정처방(在臨床上通過形色脈證的合一和辨證論治決定處方). 즉불능단순적인위(卽不能單純的認爲), 인위시남자취용육미지황환(因爲是男子就用六味地黃丸), 여자취용사물탕(女子就用四物湯). 남자약소가용사군자탕(男子若小可用四君子湯) 사물탕(四物湯) 육미지황탕(六味地黃湯), 이여자약대가용사군자탕(而女子若大可用四君子湯) 이진탕(二陳湯) 평위산(平胃散) 육군자탕(六君子湯). 인차(因此) 남녀재구조(男女在構造) 생리(生理) 병리유근본성차이(病理有根本性差異), 불이형상래구분(不以形象來區分), 용약상시지불변적입장(用藥上是持不變的立場), 이이형상용약(而以形象用藥), 시종변화적입장래고려적(是從變化的立場來考慮的). 인위이남녀위기준종사임상(認爲以男女爲基準從事臨床), 시부합한의학기본원리지음양관(是符合韓醫學基本原理之陰陽觀).