Which philosophy best suits your thinking? I personally generally think that an Eye for an Eye makes the whole world go blind. Not every aggression against us needs to be acknowledge and addressed, and I believe that engaging in vengeance only leads to escalating cycles of violence.
Great question. As I see it, responding in kind settles nothing. If someone calls me stupid, and I respond with the same, where does it end? I'm not always for turning the other cheek, and we do have a legal system that's intended to take those eyes so I don't have to. But some people do get carried away. Road rage is a good example. In the choices offered, I'd have to say you may not need them in that eye for an eye world, but put your safety glasses on anyway.
None. An eye-for-an-eye does not make make the whole world blind due to the deterrent effect. Even if we accept your nonsense as true, then we must accept that everyone is willing to lose an eye, and then we must ask who are you to tell them their decision to risk losing an eye is wrong? If they wanna go around looking like a pirate, that's their business.
The whole "eye for an eye" phrase is a prime example of barbaric thinking, more so when governments adopt it.
He who seeks vengeance must first dig two graves. Living well is the best revenge. Forgive your enemies, it drives them crazy.
Yeah, there should be an eye for an eye, I lean right category. I think that would get more votes seeing how conservatives are less empathetic to outside groups.
It's a METAPHOR, people. There are no opticians in the diplomatic corps. Tit-for-Tat would be better but then you'd be saying it was a porno.
The threat of "an eye for an eye" is a useful deterrent, but that means it has to be exercised. In the days of the Cold War, Soviet surveillance teams used to rough up American officials whom the Soviets believed were making the surveillants' job more difficult. As response, the FBI created a special squad in Washington. When one of ours was roughed up in Moscow, one of theirs would be pulled into an alley and worked over in Washington. Message sent and received.
I have no problem with eye-for-an-eye. Some people have not earned the right to walk among us. Earning the right to walk among us is so simple....Do no harm....whether it's economic or physical harm or both matters not. Personally, I prefer quid pro quo.
If the initial act (let's say murder) is illegal, then killing the perpetrator only breaks the same law. Just because a government makes killing (by the state) legal doesn't make it right or just. Like others here, I believe that living your best life in spite of enemies or those who have done us wrong is the best way forward.
And eye for an eye because the whole world ain't trying to take out other peoples eye's just the criminals.