Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
6 comments
While this may sound like justice in theory, in practice it often turns in to a vicious cycle that doesn't end after the initial retaliation. It's especially impractical when most revenge does not exactly equal the first offense. In personal relationships, "an eye for an eye" just gives both individuals more to be upset about. I don't completely agree with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy either, as accountability is important, but I think surely we are evolved enough by now to handle our conflicts in more sophisticated and effective ways than primal revenge. As Ghandi says, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole word blind".
People often mix up justice for revenge.
Revenge is burning someone's house down because they burnt yours down.
Justice is instead making their responsibility to get you a new house.
I've always read the line as justification for 'mirror punishment' (you burn my house I'll burn yours), but apparently the law turns out to have been used a) to limit retribution (if i've burnt your house down, don't do any more than burn mine - don't kill me, eg) and b) at least in Jewish law, it was used to justify equivalent punishment not just mirror punishment.
If you want to go deep, check out Sefaria on Leviticus 24.20
Eye for an eye would in theory create a system of preventative justice where one would not commit a crime in the first place. Obviously this is theory not reality but if we all abided by it we would be good.
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!