“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” -Gandhi
Comment on Finally an explanation
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 12 hours ago
Everyone deserves to be treated exactly the way they treat others.
So be racist to racists. Exploit the rich. And kill all Nazis.
Folstar@lemmus.org 3 hours ago
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 2 hours ago
So should we just tolerate the intolerant? Cause that’s going to end well. We’d still have half a planet with stabbed eyes while they go scot free.
Folstar@lemmus.org 1 hour ago
It turns out there are more than zero options between “do nothing” and “become what you hate”. Many in fact.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 hours ago
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
A system of fair rules does not always lead to fair outcomes, if the rules don’t accommodate the asymmetry in capacity, motivation, resources, etc.
blarghly@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Edgy 14 year old logic
wpb@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Blatant flaw in this: I don’t want to murder anyone. I don’t want to rape anyone. I don’t want to be racist to anyone (though I acknowledge I am). And the moment I would do something like that to anyone, I would be a murderer or a rapist, and that’s a shitty thing to be. So no thanks.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
It’s just an endless line of good intentioned rapists.
ghen@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
plyth@feddit.org 6 hours ago
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Exactly not. An eye for an eye ended the custom of escalating feuds. If only one eye can be taken in revenge, then all other eyes stay healthy.
It only continues if a taken eye is seen as unjust which leads to a chain of mutually unjustly taken eyes. But that’s a slow process so the elders may figure something out while it happens.
MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 7 hours ago
I understand what that is supposed to mean, but it makes no sense. I have never taken anybody’s eyeball so if that was the law of the land, I would feel pretty safe. Eventually, everyone going around taking eyeballs would have no eyes and they would be much less likely to be able to take more, at least without some assistance I imagine.
Plenty of places have a “death for a death” law where if you kill someone you can be put to death. I’m against the death penalty personally, but that has never really been of personal concern to me since I don’t go around murdering.
If you take something from someone, should they not be able to take it back from you? If you steal $1000, do I just have to sit there? I should be entitled to take $1000 back. If anything, I should also potentially be entitled to more.
While for an eye is not my preference, it was used to make people as whole as possible and was considered an improvement at the time.
Ajen@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
I understand what that is supposed to mean
It seems like your understanding is different from other people’s.
NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Yeah, also, I’d like my moral reasoning to have evolved past Hammurabi.
jamesrandysghost@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
Tolerance paradox in action!
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 2 hours ago
The tolerance paradox does not exist. See BeardedSquidwards comment.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
I remember being told it makes more sense when you realize it’s a part of the social contract. Breaching it prevents you from taking part in it.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 2 hours ago
Indeed. If one side breaks the contract, the other isn’t bound by it anymore.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
There’s a line in The Republic that states something to the effect of “You cannot persuade someone who doesn’t want to listen” at that point firing their own venom back at them is justified.