An eye for an eye may leave the whole world blind, but I don't want to live in a world where only the wicked can see.
Poll: Eye for an eye, what do you think?
- Thread starter StonkThis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When it comes down to islamic nutjobs wanting to kill anyone who is not Islamic..then let the bodies hit the floor..theirs,not ours..because we double tap.
I once saw an interesting writeup of that.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development [http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Kohlberg%27s%20Stages%20of%20Moral%20Development.htm].
He outlines that "Eye for an Eye" is basically a very low and immature type of justice.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development [http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Kohlberg%27s%20Stages%20of%20Moral%20Development.htm].
He outlines that "Eye for an Eye" is basically a very low and immature type of justice.
The insurmountable problem with "an eye for an eye" is that it is a simple solution to what are usually very complex situations.
Example: someone steals from another man. Employing this philosophy means that the thief should have something stolen from him. But what if the thief had stolen a loaf of bread to feed his starving family because he is unemployed? (Les Miserables)
It is perhaps a very viscerally gratifying principle, but I just don't see it as being feasible in any but the most black-and-white of scenarios... which anyone who has worked in any justice system anywhere can tell you happen very, very rarely.
Example: someone steals from another man. Employing this philosophy means that the thief should have something stolen from him. But what if the thief had stolen a loaf of bread to feed his starving family because he is unemployed? (Les Miserables)
It is perhaps a very viscerally gratifying principle, but I just don't see it as being feasible in any but the most black-and-white of scenarios... which anyone who has worked in any justice system anywhere can tell you happen very, very rarely.
If you believe in the eye makes the world blind theory; Why would you want to live in a world where only evil can see?
I am in all support for an eye for an eye system. The problem with this theory is that people will protect even the guilty if they are a loved one. If I had a son or daughter and they committed a terrible crime, I would ask to be the one to kill them. We need to send a message that all human action has consequences, not if you love someone its your duty to blindly protect them from the consequences of their actions.
The problem isnt fairness it emotional attachment. If we as a people could finally get over this primitive response, we could drastically change for the better. Over all more emotion bad logic good.
I am in all support for an eye for an eye system. The problem with this theory is that people will protect even the guilty if they are a loved one. If I had a son or daughter and they committed a terrible crime, I would ask to be the one to kill them. We need to send a message that all human action has consequences, not if you love someone its your duty to blindly protect them from the consequences of their actions.
The problem isnt fairness it emotional attachment. If we as a people could finally get over this primitive response, we could drastically change for the better. Over all more emotion bad logic good.
Usually when someone uses the term "rot in jail" it's not meant to the word, I know there is no real way for them to rot. And I've heard it's just as expensive, or even more so just to give them a lethal injection. Spend money just to kill one man or spend money to make them live the remainder of their life without proper freedom?...I know which one I'm choosing. And without good teeth and health care there would be an even greater chance of disease in jail, meaning those people guarding the inmates are even more at risk.cantdoright said:
It's a lose/lose situation, but I still wouldn't want to spend a considerable amount of money on killing one man rather than keeping several alive, it's a waste of money regardless of what they did.
Even with smaller cases of eye for an eye I've never seen it end well, for anyone. I can imagine what a world living by this theory would turn out like. As one person said, it's basically how gangsters live and another pointed:Oldmanwillow said:
Guy kills police officer
Police officers torture him
He's released and goes on to kill 4 more because of it.
I don't want to live in a world that lives by that type of justice. 2 wrongs DO NOT make a right and anyone that belives this is a fool.
What do I think? I think it's 2000-fukkin'-nine. The ancient Egyptians did not survive, and neither did this notion (feel free to excoriate me if I'm being ignorant and it was actually the Sumerians or Mesopotamians).StonkThis said:
The reason the idea is no longer a part of law in developed countries is because the people leading these nations, as well as the people who vote for them, think that we are better than that. It's the same reason we don't condone torture. So the question is really, would you betray all that you stood for, for more security? The answer is a 2-parter. 1. No, I would not. 2. Safety is an illusion. A degree of safety can be acquired, but life is a random cauldron of chaos and none of us is guaranteed to make it to the nanosecond in which this response posts.
Prisons are also stuffed because carrying enough illegal (though in many cases much safer than alcohol) drugs on you will get you a "stiffer" sentence than a child molester.Acrisius said:
