3 ms·
> It made sense to make him compensate and protect the victim's family. I don’t think that’s a good idea/practice—mainly because it underestimates the darkness
by kindkang2024 1y ago
> It made sense to make him compensate and protect the victim's family.
I don’t think that’s a good idea/practice—mainly because it underestimates the darkness within human free will. Wrongdoers can game such systems and kill without hesitation, which ultimately weakens the tribe even more.
Humans have all kinds of ideas and wills, but in the long run, only the fittest wills survive and prevail. And I believe that "life for life" wasn’t invented to hate and kill, but to love and protect. I hope it triumphs.
- inglor_cz 1y agoThese systems aren't purely algorithmic and the tribal council / althing / whatever body judges the cases understands that people will try to game them. In old Iceland, murderers from wealthier families were often hit by massive weregild, precisely in order not to repeat their crimes. "Life for life" is, across the entire history and spectrum of cultures, a minority position, for all sorts of reasons. Including the one that you don't want anyone who kills in cold blood (the executioner) living next to you. Even societies which had the capital punishment usually tabooized executioners, or forced the job on slaves etc.
- kindkang2024 1y ago[dead]