>>2
That "visiting Centurion," (centurionem visitat) committed one major wrong: injuring another man's slave. We can debate the validity or wrongness or slavery ad absurdum, but one concept or the other is nearly universally accepted: that you should not injure another's property; or that you should never injure an innocent person. Any person or people or law which advocates the injury of innocents is inherently inhuman.
I know it is an emotional argument, but who here would say that the wanton murder of an infant is somehow morally relative?