4 ms·

> Schoolchildren all over the world learn that Hammurabi’s code — famous for its “eye for an eye” vision of retributive justice — was the world’s first. The mo

by kindkang2024 1y ago

> Schoolchildren all over the world learn that Hammurabi’s code — famous for its “eye for an eye” vision of retributive justice — was the world’s first. The more I think about ancient laws, the more I appreciate the wisdom of the ancients. The law that says “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” contains a depth of insight that many today overlook. In modern society, it’s often dismissed as outdated, cruel, or inhumane. But personally, I believe that rejecting this principle entirely is a serious—and dangerous—mistake. "Eye for an eye, life for a life" was never meant to destroy or harm, but to protect. This becomes clear when we examine it closely. If justice is reduced merely to financial compensation, then the wealthy can harm the poor and simply pay their way out. Is that truly justice? And what if someone takes a life—yet remains alive in prison, or even walks free years later? How is that fair to the victims? Just imagine yourself as the victim—your eye deliberately and seriously injured, or your life shattered by someone’s malice. Isn't the answer more obvious then? This principle has never brought chaos to humanity. It’s often misunderstood as promoting endless cycles of revenge, but that interpretation misses the point. In fact, the principle becomes clearer through the lens of individual responsibility. As the Bible puts it: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” In a just system built on individual accountability, those who seek justice are still free to forgive. If those in conflicts choose not to, and let endless hatred consume them, they both suffer. In this way, the principle actually has a natural tendency to limit conflict and promote resolution over time. In The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, this dynamic is explained scientifically: when bad actions are punished and good actions rewarded, cooperation thrives. (His findings, such as the “tit-for-tat” strategy starting with kindness fosters cooperation.) Human civilizations is possible with very truth. It may not always be written into law—but it lives through free will and moral instinct. Let those who dare to do evil face the consequences of their actions. Let their wrongdoing diminish their standing—their fitness, as some might say. Only those who intend to do evil fear the law “an eye for an eye, a life for a life.” For good people, it means the opposite: that kindness begets kindness to make all great again. Yet today, many focus only on blind forgiveness. In my view, this is misguided—especially when it leads to abolishing the death penalty. The dead cannot forgive. They are already gone. If we truly believe that all lives matter—worldwide—then this principle deserves far more respect and appreciation than it receives today.

adrian_b 1y ago
The main risk of “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” is the risk of wrong punishments that cannot be reversed. On the other hand, when someone has caused an irreparable damage, by causing death or permanent invalidity, or by destroying something that cannot be recreated, e.g. an ancient historical artifact, or an entire animal species, then being punished in a limited way, e.g. with a fine or some time in prison, does not seem equivalent with the punished deed. I believe that punishment by prison is extremely stupid and inefficient. In many places prisons are more like criminal academies than something that may educate the inmates to no longer do what they have been punished for. No wonder that in the ancient societies this kind of punishment was unknown. In many ancient societies the main method of punishment was a fine, but in order to be a true deterrent the value of the fine was always a multiple of the damage that had been caused. In more lenient societies a thief or someone who had caused property or body damage would have payed a sum equivalent with the double of the damage value, but in more severe societies the fine was quadruple and in some societies the fines were even ten times greater than the estimated value of the damage. Such a multiple-valued fine seems a much better punishment than any kind of prison, for any kind of damage that can be repaired. For the other damages, like death or permanent invalidity, the appropriate punishment would seem to be the obligation to periodically pay some amount for the rest of the life of the punished person, instead of paying a one-time fine. In the ancient societies, the cases when a punished person was unwilling or unable to pay the fine were solved simply, by converting that person into a slave. Such cases would be more difficult to solve in a modern society, but spending time in a prison cannot be considered as an improvement over slavery.
- kindkang2024 1y ago
  > The main risk of “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” is the risk of wrong punishments that cannot be reversed. If harm is caused by accident and without malicious intent, then yes—“life for life” shouldn’t apply. But we should never underestimate the darkness that exists in human nature. No matter how carefully a system is designed, there will always be those who can game it. That’s why I still believe the spirit of “life for life, eye for eye” should remain a guiding principle—not out of revenge, but out of love and protection. > Such a multiple-valued fine seems a much better punishment than any kind of prison, for any kind of damage that can be repaired. I completely agree with this. Wrongdoers typically commit harmful acts for personal gain, and if they’re only required to repay the exact value of what they took, they still come out ahead in the long run. We need systems that ensure the net profit from wrongdoing falls below zero—so that it’s absolutely clear: crime is silly. I’ve even heard news reports that in California, theft under a certain dollar amount often goes unpunished. The result? The exact opposite of justice. It acts like gravity, pulling people’s free will toward sin and crime.

adrian_b 1y ago

The main risk of “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” is the risk of wrong punishments that cannot be reversed. On the other hand, when someone has caused an irreparable damage, by causing death or permanent invalidity, or by destroying something that cannot be recreated, e.g. an ancient historical artifact, or an entire animal species, then being punished in a limited way, e.g. with a fine or some time in prison, does not seem equivalent with the punished deed. I believe that punishment by prison is extremely stupid and inefficient. In many places prisons are more like criminal academies than something that may educate the inmates to no longer do what they have been punished for. No wonder that in the ancient societies this kind of punishment was unknown. In many ancient societies the main method of punishment was a fine, but in order to be a true deterrent the value of the fine was always a multiple of the damage that had been caused. In more lenient societies a thief or someone who had caused property or body damage would have payed a sum equivalent with the double of the damage value, but in more severe societies the fine was quadruple and in some societies the fines were even ten times greater than the estimated value of the damage. Such a multiple-valued fine seems a much better punishment than any kind of prison, for any kind of damage that can be repaired. For the other damages, like death or permanent invalidity, the appropriate punishment would seem to be the obligation to periodically pay some amount for the rest of the life of the punished person, instead of paying a one-time fine. In the ancient societies, the cases when a punished person was unwilling or unable to pay the fine were solved simply, by converting that person into a slave. Such cases would be more difficult to solve in a modern society, but spending time in a prison cannot be considered as an improvement over slavery.

kindkang2024 1y ago
> The main risk of “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” is the risk of wrong punishments that cannot be reversed. If harm is caused by accident and without malicious intent, then yes—“life for life” shouldn’t apply. But we should never underestimate the darkness that exists in human nature. No matter how carefully a system is designed, there will always be those who can game it. That’s why I still believe the spirit of “life for life, eye for eye” should remain a guiding principle—not out of revenge, but out of love and protection. > Such a multiple-valued fine seems a much better punishment than any kind of prison, for any kind of damage that can be repaired. I completely agree with this. Wrongdoers typically commit harmful acts for personal gain, and if they’re only required to repay the exact value of what they took, they still come out ahead in the long run. We need systems that ensure the net profit from wrongdoing falls below zero—so that it’s absolutely clear: crime is silly. I’ve even heard news reports that in California, theft under a certain dollar amount often goes unpunished. The result? The exact opposite of justice. It acts like gravity, pulling people’s free will toward sin and crime.