3 ms·

The whole "an eye for an eye" thing doesn't exactly scale terribly well.

• sp332 16y ago
  Sorry, but this bothers me. <pedantry> In the culture of the day (middle-east, thousands of years ago) many arguments - even little ones - would escalate, sometimes into generations-long blood feuds. The "eye for an eye" law was a law of peace! Even if someone did something incredibly painful, disfiguring, and debilitating as gouging out your eye, you weren't allowed to extract revenge on their family or property, or even to torture or kill the guy. The most you were entitled to was his eye. No more blood feuds allowed. </pedantry>
  • Zev 16y ago
    Not being able to torture, maim or murder someone is a good thing. Really. If you're not sure about this, you'll just have to take my word on it. But, thats pretty far off-topic. The essence of my point still stands, even if you disagree with the wording of it. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't give you a license to do the same.
    • bobds 16y ago
      An eye for an eye is not about torturing, maiming or murdering anyone. It's a metaphor. Taking down their website for a few hours, is fairly close to harmless. I agree that they shouldn't be doing this. If they really want an eye for an eye they should sue them to oblivion. That I think would be quite appropriate.
      • chrischen 16y ago
        > Taking down their website for a few hours, is fairly close to harmless. That just makes it even more stupid. Not only does it not accomplish anything, but it's illegal and stoops down to their level. You'd basically sacrifice principal for nothing except a little "gotcha back" feeling.
    • sp332 16y ago
      > Not being able to torture, maim or murder someone is a good thing. Apologies for being totally misleading in my earlier post, because I agree with you. It was the best philosophy of retaliation until "turn the other cheek" came along, which I much prefer. > Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't give you a license to do the same. Morally, it doesn't. Legally, sometimes (self-defense and all that). Probably not this time.
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  • Jach 16y ago
    What if the guy's blind? Edit: the point here is that sometimes it's not possible to get directly equivalent reparations, so you have to come up with something else like a $5000 fine or a blood feud...
  • joe_the_user 16y ago
    I'm sure if you argue this approach actually changed the times that much: <God>"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."</God> Samuel 15:3, quite a while after Exodus and commandments
• amix 16y ago
  My favorite quote on this matter is from Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."