Thread: Do you believe in an eye for an eye?

Originally Posted by Serkat

I was mostly posting that as a prelude to the second paragraph about the slut-stoning but since I kind of agree with my first paragraph as well I can write a little on that. However, I won't go into a long, probably rather unlettered essay about the ethics of punishment. Instead, I will use numbered lists.

Here is my incredible argument:
1. I support the whole legal thing rather than vigilantism.
2. The whole legal thing is done by governments.
3. Governments make mistakes - lots.
4. Mistakingly burning someone's eyes out sucks pretty hard for the rest of his life.
5. Mistakingly putting someone in jail for 3 years sucks less so.
6. Not putting someone dangerous in jail and having him do the same thing again equals number 4.
7. 5 is a compromise between 4 and 6.

8. Putting 5 between 4 and 6 is awesome because it visually represents the fact that it's a compromise BETWEEN 4 and 6. So it's like actually in between those 2 numbers.

Addendum:
A. Justice isn't about revenge.
B. Personal emotions don't justify acts of revenge.
C. If personal emotions were justifications for revenge, other types of emotions would be justifications for crime.
D. Hence B.
E. Burning someone's eyes out in revenge is pretty fucking stupid and pointless.
F. Criminals have human rights
G. Committing any crime preserves the right to life and to physical integrity
H. It isn't right to commit a violent act against a criminal.
I. Violence is justifiable in other cases such as self-defense and war.

I think the major error appears with numbers 3 and 4. Governments do make mistakes, I agree, but that does not mean that everything they do (including justice) is a mistake. That's what it appears you have implied by saying that their actions are done mistakenly. Don't forget that a mistake is also an action that can be later identified as having undesirable consequences by the one who committed the act. If the government puts someone in jail intentionally, and the outcome is desirable to that government, then they have not committed a mistake. That could have just been a semantics issue between us.

"A. Justice isn't about revenge".
But revenge can certainly result in justice

Example: A child is kidnapped, raped, and killed. The father, infuriated, seeks revenge by seeking out and killing other child rapists. The justice that occurs here is capital punishment for a rapist, who will no longer be able to inflict such severe degrees of harm onto another individual ever again. That justice came as a result of revenge. Do you not agree?

"C. If personal emotions were justifications for revenge, other types of emotions would be justifications for crime."
Here I'll have to disagree. Revenge is committed upon the criminal, whereas a crime is committed upon the innocent. Although the actions committed may be the same, the direction of the action is the opposite, and therefor makes each of the scenarios very different. If I spewed hateful messages at an innocent person and caused them severe emotional distress, they'd be in the right to smash me over the head with a particularly nasty object, and my lesson would be learned (hopefully). That doesn't mean that my own hate for them justified what I did. If you disagree, that's fine, as I imagine this would be a difference in opinion between the both of us. If you'd like to explain your reasoning for C further, be my guest.

"F. Criminals have human rights"
That's what I believe the source of our disagreement comes from. I believe that a criminal who violates the human rights of another person waives their own rights by doing so. If I got a kick out of torturing people, and then requested not to be tortured because I had rights.... Well, it comes off as being kind of ridiculous to me, and somewhat ironic if my own rights were upheld.

Thanks for sharing your opinion with me, though. Again, feel welcome to explain anything more in regards to what you said if you didn't feel you've expressed it clearly enough.

Wow....

That guy should have acid throw in his eyes as well.

That's completely fucked up

Originally Posted by Clairity

Ok..

If I narrow it down to just THIS story about the woman being blinded by a guy she wouldn't date.. do you think she is justified in asking that he be blinded as well? I personally think so.. what do you think?

.

yes, he should.but that's just in that circumstance.

*warning religious*
The bible says If someone slaps you turn the other cheek. Now. Back then it doesn't mean let them hit you again BUT if they are going to hit you. They would have to use their right hand and get hit respectfully. The left hand was a dirty hand or something.

But if someone punched me I would punch him back twice as hard. But when it comes to agonizing pain, I couldn't live myself to punish the person who did it to me with the same fate. I would like to but I couldn't.

Originally Posted by hellohihello

*warning religious*
The bible says If someone slaps you turn the other cheek.

And then you declare a crusade on them, right?

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

And then you declare a crusade on them, right?

First you need to bribe the Pope, only then you can declare a crusade.

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

And then you declare a crusade on them, right?

the crusaders were dumbasses, but this is irrelevant to my post.
--
I will never call anyone names that will cause emotional stress either.

It definitely depends on the circumstances for me...sometimes it's just not worth it. But other times...I would kill myself later if I didn't take an open shot at revenge o.o

No, this guy has some serious trouble.
It should be found out why he did this, and what the fuck is wrong with him


"I'm not doing it for revenge, but so it won't happen again."
Wat. You could do that in other ways too, such as:
- Kill him: Simple
- Throwing him in a hole: Why not?
- Chain him to a wall: Then we can laugh at him because he is weird
- Solve his (mental?) problems: WTF? NO!
- Pour acid in his eyes for the lulz: lulz

Seriously, I got the impression that the girl is a dumbfuck and the guy is.. Well.. I have no idea, we don't get any info about him at all. But he did something really wacky, and makes me think there's something wrong in his head.

Humans really do like their revenge and such.

[/rage]

Interesting topic. I think that this "eye for an eye concept" is moreso about logical, rational thinking versus decision making during flared emotions. We are (as human beings) going to make illogical and irrational decisions when we're "seeing red" and our emotions are flared.

Say for instance you're in high school and a bully walks up to you and pushes you down and pours milk all over you, laughs and walks away. You're surrounded by hundreds of hormone raging kids who are either dead quiet in awe, laughing, or telling you to get up and beat his ass. Since you're not Buddha, let's just assume your anger flared after this public embarrassment. You decide to get up, go after the bully and beat the ever loving shit out of him. Say you win. Result? Congratulations, you're expelled from high school but no worries...your classmates think highly of you because you showed that bully a thing or two. He deserved it though right? I mean who cares that he might have been physically abused by his father all his life and therefore that's all he knows. Nah that's not important at all.

My point is...the logical thing for a person to do when emotional situations arise that give us the option of going the "eye for an eye" route...is to respond, not react. Our ability to channel our emotions into more constructive conduits is what separates us from the piss drinking, poo flinging monkeys at the zoo.

And with all that being said, I'd probably have to go with the poll choice of "It depends on the circumstance."

I believe in protecting individuals from those who are dangerous. While the emotions may dictate that an eye for an eye is the rational form of justice, I think it's more positive to consider the path of rehabilitating criminals, not detering them. You gain nothing from making them fear you and your authority, except for a greater resistance to those fears, making them potentially more dangerous than before. To deal with the problem, I think it's best to remove dangerous individuals from society, rehabilitate them, put them in controlled environments that monitor their behavior, and once they are considered capable of living in society again without having a spontaneous outbreak of negative behavior, then they can be sent back. Aka prison.

Call it deprivation of human rights if you want, but I believe that if a person ignores the rights of others, then we can suspend their rights until they see what is wrong with their behavior in relation to the rights of others.

I totally believe in an eye for an eye. Also, I think pretty much everybody does. When somebody greatly wrongs you, no matter how much you talk about how you don't think revenge is "rational" and so forth, you want to fuck the person up big time. That craving stays with you and haunts you. The truth is that you will feel better if you get revenge. A rotten feeling is going to stay with you if you don't. That does not mean the evil deed is undone or a dead person is brought back to life. It just means that one of the many aches that was given to you against your will gets relieved.

I believe in punishing the Hell out of rapists and murderers and so forth because they owe it to their victims and people who love the victims. The perpetrators have given those people the rotten craving for revenge, and those people deserve to have it and do not deserve to carry the unsatisfied craving with them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I totally believe in an eye for an eye. Also, I think pretty much everybody does. When somebody greatly wrongs you, no matter how much you talk about how you don't think revenge is "rational" and so forth, you want to fuck the person up big time. That craving stays with you and haunts you. The truth is that you will feel better if you get revenge. A rotten feeling is going to stay with you if you don't. That does not mean the evil deed is undone or a dead person is brought back to life. It just means that one of the many aches that was given to you against your will gets relieved.

I believe in punishing the Hell out of rapists and murderers and so forth because they owe it to their victims and people who love the victims. The perpetrators have given those people the rotten craving for revenge, and those people deserve to have it and do not deserve to carry the unsatisfied craving with them.

Well put.

I have some differences with your opinion on this, Universal Mind. I'd like some clarification.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I totally believe in an eye for an eye. Also, I think pretty much everybody does.

See the poll for a different answer. Unless you're talking about a lessened form of an eye for an eye. Maybe then you might be right. Are you?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When somebody greatly wrongs you, no matter how much you talk about how you don't think revenge is "rational" and so forth, you want to fuck the person up big time. That craving stays with you and haunts you.

But how are those feeling justified? How are they any better or worse than the feelings a murderer or pedophile gets before they commit their crimes?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The truth is that you will feel better if you get revenge. A rotten feeling is going to stay with you if you don't.

What about the feeling of guilt that some people feel after they've had their revenge? Is that any better than the rotten feeling of revenge?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That does not mean the evil deed is undone or a dead person is brought back to life. It just means that one of the many aches that was given to you against your will gets relieved.

You do realize you injured a person to relieve your negative emotions? Isn't the term for that sadism?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I believe in punishing the Hell out of rapists and murderers and so forth because they owe it to their victims and people who love the victims.

What if the victims feel otherwise? Do you believe that these people should still be punished with the standard of an eye for an eye, even if the victim says otherwise? Assuming they're still alive to give their opinion on the matter, of course.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The perpetrators have given those people the rotten craving for revenge, and those people deserve to have it and do not deserve to carry the unsatisfied craving with them.

So is it then morally correct to perform the unwanted act on the criminal that was done to the victim? Is there now a morally-acceptable situation to perform such heinous acts against another human being? If so, explain your justification.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well put.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

See the poll for a different answer. Unless you're talking about a lessened form of an eye for an eye. Maybe then you might be right. Are you?

It's easy to say right here in a discussion forum while enjoying the internet that you think revenge is not rational. That does not mean you aren't going to crave it when somebody in your family gets raped or murdered. I am not talking about a sudden heat of passion perspective either. I am talking about a feeling that eats away at you day after day, year after year. You can say now that you don't believe in revenge, but if you are ever in the wrong situation, you might find out that you actually do. There could be a few exceptions, but I don't think there are too many.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

But how are those feeling justified? How are they any better or worse than the feelings a murderer or pedophile gets before they commit their crimes?

The difference is innocence. Murderers and pedophiles deserve to suffer. Personally, I think they deserve to die. The innocent do not.

It is very much a part of human nature to have the craving for revenge when greatly wronged. The perpetrator gave them those feelings against their will, period. He therefore owes it to them to let the feeling be relieved. Does he not?

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

What about the feeling of guilt that some people feel after they've had their revenge? Is that any better than the rotten feeling of revenge?

Yes. Also, if they are prone to feeling guilt over hurting somebody who very muched deserved it and that guilt exceeds the pain caused by not getting revenge, they need to not get revenge. We have a justice system that usually handles it any way. I don't think people commonly feel guilty about what the justice system does to an evil maggot.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

You do realize you injured a person to relieve your negative emotions? Isn't the term for that sadism?

No, sadism involves enjoying hurting people for the sake of hurting people. Getting revenge against scum that deserves the worst does not qualify as sadism.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

What if the victims feel otherwise? Do you believe that these people should still be punished with the standard of an eye for an eye, even if the victim says otherwise? Assuming they're still alive to give their opinion on the matter, of course.

I wouldn't trust their word on it. They might feel some social pressure to act like they are above revenge or something and not be fully telling the truth. Also, how can anybody be sure that everybody who loved the victim has been asked? Plus, I believe in the deterrent effect, but that is for a different discussion.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

So is it then morally correct to perform the unwanted act on the criminal that was done to the victim? Is there now a morally-acceptable situation to perform such heinous acts against another human being? If so, explain your justification.

Again, the difference is innocence. I am talking from the perspective that a person who victimizes the innocent is on a lower level than somebody who doesn't. Good people are better than bad people. If you don't think so, then there is no way we are going to agree on this.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you don't think so, then there is no way we are going to agree on this.

I'll save you the trouble by saying I don't.

Thanks for the clarification of your opinions.

Your argument is pretty flawed. A personal emotion is not a lawful justification to commit an arbitrary act. You personally think that the desire for revenge is "human nature". There are lots of emotions that people would consider "human nature". Take anger, rage, fear, sadness. That doesn't mean that actions taken from those emotion are automatically just or moral. Even if these emotions were brought forth by an unjust action by another person, they shouldn't empower you to do whatever the hell you want to rid yourself of that emotion.

Simple example:
Guy gives you a wedgie..
You get angry. You crave blood. The perpetrator gave you that feeling against your will, period. He therefor owes it to you to let the feeling be relieved.
You kill Guy to release feeling of anger.

Doesn't work.

We have the justice system to let people release their emotions in a civilized and fair manner. Having someone punished through the legal system is a form of revenge. If that doesn't work for people then that's bad luck. It doesn't mean we can instigate that kind of monkey business.

Also, in the P&T:Bullshit episode on death penalty, there is a lady whose daughter got raped and killed who is against the revenge principle and death penalty.

For me it's more when you go after my friends and family that I would really make you pay for it. Go after me= I slap you senseless for a while. Go after friends and family of mine= I might kill you depending on what you did. Also you can't hold it against people who commit crimes out of necessity like if they're starving and stuff.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Your argument is pretty flawed. A personal emotion is not a lawful justification to commit an arbitrary act. You personally think that the desire for revenge is "human nature". There are lots of emotions that people would consider "human nature". Take anger, rage, fear, sadness. That doesn't mean that actions taken from those emotion are automatically just or moral. Even if these emotions were brought forth by an unjust action by another person, they shouldn't empower you to do whatever the hell you want to rid yourself of that emotion.

I am not saying that merely because the emotion is there, people should be able to act. I am saying that because the emotion was forced on them against their will, the person who gave it to them owes it to them to take it away by suffering.

Let's say that because of the way we are designed, action A causes somebody else's bones to break. If action B can cause some of those bones to be immediately healed, the doer of action A owes it to the people with broken bones to have action B performed.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Simple example:
Guy gives you a wedgie..
You get angry. You crave blood. The perpetrator gave you that feeling against your will, period. He therefor owes it to you to let the feeling be relieved.
You kill Guy to release feeling of anger.

Doesn't work.

The punishment needs to fit the crime. Capital punishment for a wedgie? Definitely not. A punch to the face or a grassed yard will do just fine (not that that should be legally allowed) if the wedgie victim doesn't want to press assault charges. The rare person who wants to murder over a wedgie is probably going to stop wanting to murder after a few minutes. If not, then that person is such an exception to the rule that we can't change the whole justice system because of his rare problem. He just needs to get therapy because he has issues that go worlds beyond a wedgie.

Originally Posted by Serkat

We have the justice system to let people release their emotions in a civilized and fair manner. Having someone punished through the legal system is a form of revenge. If that doesn't work for people then that's bad luck. It doesn't mean we can instigate that kind of monkey business.

That is exactly what I support. As for when the justice system doesn't work, I don't think vigilante justice should be legal. Chaos would result from that. However, when the justice system fails and victims/family/friends take the law into their own hands, I understand.

In regards to the intended question of the thread, it depends on the situation. If inflicting the same punishment on the perpetrator as was inflicted upon the victim offers recompense, and/or stops them from doing it again (either physically or by deterrence), then usually I would accept that as a logical solution. Otherwise, not really worth it. In this case, I think it would be justified, but it would not be one of the punishments the correctional system can legally apply.

And I'm under the impression that a lot of people are completely missing the point of the phrase "an eye for an eye." I was taught that it wasn't a call for vengeance, but rather for equality of punishment. You get a punishment of a similar level of severity to the crime. You don't get executed for punching out someone's eye, and you don't get a slap on the wrist and go home. I admit that I could be wrong, but I see it as referring to punishment, not vengeance. Once vengeance enters the equation, it starts escalating.

It would be impractical to ask for an eye for an eye in every case. Punishment is meant to fit the crime. However I don't think that an "eye for an eye" should be the means by which we decide that the punishment fits the crime.

If the story were that he had tortured this woman for three months in his basement my first response (although I know other people may see this differently) wouldn't be that I want him to be tortured for three months.

There are other ways of preventing a person from spewing acid on another person's face than blinding him.

Cases like these are bizarre. I think this man probably needs to seek counseling to change his personality because he is obviously not suited to function in society.

I'm not sure what the standards are for crimes like this there, but if this were to happen in America I would see no reason for us to deviate from the known standards of punishment.

As much as I honestly think people deserve to get their ass kicked, get shot, etc. it's still wrong and still being exactly the same as them; therefore I would be a hypocrite to do so. I would only hurt someone in self defense, otherwise no.

This whole 'revenge' thing.. I don't quite get it.
Ofcourse I have felt it myself, and I have acted on it before, and I understand why revenge is good. Except it's not.


In the 'perfect' world, (I know this example is silly, as a perfect world wouldn't have prisons at all 8D) criminals would go to jail and spend the time thinking about what they have done, and whne they come out, they will be better persons because they realized what they did was wrong.
That, and keeping them away from society untill they better up is what prisons are supposed to do.

However it seems they just keep them away for a silly amount of time (atleast in Denmark. 2 years for molesting a child? Wat the hell?)
How often do you hear interviews with people who came out of jail as better persons? I don't think we're going to see Josef Fritzl coming out and doing that.

The only reason we seem to put people in jail is like a pseudo-revenge. We know we can't physically harm them. So we just suppose jail is good enough. But we certainly won't mind if they get hurt by other inmates...

Nobody ever pays a thought to where things went wrong, as CryoDragoon describes.

We need to step a little back and think about what are we actually trying to do? Every time we punish somebody, is it only eye-for-an-eye?
I thought punishment was something you did to teach people what to do and what not to do. But yeah, blinding this guy so he can't do it again will surely teach him what he did was wrong.

That's sorta like going "Well, Timmy, I'm going to cut off your hands so you can't ever steal cookies again." Yeah, it works, but even if Timmy finds out what he did was wrong, he can't ever get his hands back.
To be honest, these people who think revenge is justified disgusts me. Sometimes more than criminals, because criminals usually went fucked somewhere. The revenge-people are just angry.

If somebody kills my family, ofcourse I'm going to want him to die a horrible death. But that doesn't neseccarilly make it right to do.
The only difference between revenge and, well, let's pick rape, is that when it's revenge, you can point at the other guy and say "He did it too!"
With rape, you could say that the girl looked good, so you just had to.

None of them does the trick, they are both equally silly as hell. This is something we learn in our childhood. Or so I thought.

I think I might just be ranting right now..
Other than this, I pretty much agree 100% with CryoDragoon.

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

There's a saying, eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind.

Dammit I knew someone was going to say this clichéd saying. I knew it.