« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Flightless_Bird
Joined: Sep 28, 2003
Posts: 22 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female & 27
Country: United Kingdom
City: Lancaster
|
An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The World Blind.discuss
March 1, 2004 - 03:07 AM
|
|
If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the Whole world will be blind and toothless.
–Mahatma Gandhi
These words of Gandhi spoken years ago still influence people’s acts today and these words in a nut shell serve to call upon humans to forgive each other and understand that it does not pay if for every murder, we take a life in return. If you think about it, killing a person means loss of a taxpayer for the country. Retaliating will only lead to loosing another taxpayer and in the end; we loose two taxpayers and create unrest among the remaining citizens. Am of the view that an eye for an eye will only make the world blind because it does not pay practising tit for tat or revenge because it dos not make the world a better place to live but a place full of blind or toothless people and the latter is not so bad an alternative.
I dont think it is fair that people take revenge on others.isnt it high time we learned to say sorry and i forgive you? maybe we are all of different views.one could say that for every murderer,death row is the only alternative,but have you thought of it,one family is sad at loosing a member,and carrying out an execution will leave tow sad families on our hands.
please send in your views,i would like to hear them.thank you
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cicero
Joined: Feb 1, 2004
Posts: 1020 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The World Blind.discuss
March 1, 2004 - 05:43 AM
|
|
Exactly as i was saying a long time, but nobody listens to me, until its too late.
From economical perspective, it ruins several people down the line. And the economy at end.
Frogiveness & Forgetfullness sholud be applied to the maximum extent possible.
Ave Futuria
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
KarlS
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 17 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender: Male
Country: United States
Province/State: Michigan
|
Revenge
March 1, 2004 - 07:39 AM
|
|
Retaliation has never solved anything, and it never will. Just look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation.
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have the right to exist in Peace and harmony in their own independent homelands. All of the revenge violence there has brought nothing but more death and grief.
Diplomacy, compassion, respect, equality and understanding are keys to solving these types of situations. If these are practiced in the first place, chances are the outcomes will be vastly different, and something good might actually be accomplished.
The old Hammurabi Law code of Babylon ("Law 196-If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
Law 200-If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out." , inscribed on a stone stele (circa 1750 BCE) which was copied into their Bible by the Hebrews, was basically meant as a deterrent to primitive ancient peoples. I would like to think that we have advanced beyond that in the almost 4,000 years since that period...but in some cases, I'm not so sure we have....
Blessed Be,
Karl S.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Kurtis Luki-Wayne Sasagi
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 1 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 20
Country: Australia
Province/State: Queensland
City: Gold Coast
|
Revenge
March 1, 2004 - 09:18 AM
|
|
I believe that in a world so heavily led by religion, that it is as right to say that it is wrong to steal as it is to claim rights to the saying, "An eye for an eye" And in reference to your Palestine/Israel problems, don't you think that we have enough of our own issues?
Not to end this reply on a bad note, I do think that you are also partially right, but I also have my own opinion.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
KarlS
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 17 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender: Male
Country: United States
Province/State: Michigan
|
Law, Conflict & Revenge
March 2, 2004 - 04:40 AM
|
|
kurboboy:
I agree with your opinion that it is wrong to steal. I also agree with your opinion that the world is heavily led by religion. I think we need to place more emphasis on Spirituality,which Transcends Religion. My definition of Spirituality (an INTERNAL Process)is:
1. Submission to and Devotion to the Divine within
2. Dedication to Metaphysics
3. Respect for the Individual Rights of others
(of course, you may have a different definition of Spirituality, but this is mine)
I define Religion as an EXTERNAL framework (tradition, ritual, observances, dogma, etc.) in which Spirituality is supposed to Operate. One of the Individual Rights that a person has is to practice/have their Spirituality Operate in - whatever Religion he or she wishes to, in whatever manner/interpretation they wish to, without harassment or recrimination from anyone or...to practice no Religion at all, if that is their choice. This is why I believe in the separation of church and state. Regarding the issue of peace and conflict, which is the topic of this board, and since YOU brought up the topic of religion, some of the most abject barbarity in human history has been committed by religionists (my religion is the ONLY "correct" religion) "in the name of God" or of "religion". Are we to assume that these perpetrators possess(ed) even the slightest shred of Godliness? It is obvious from these observances, that Spirituality does not arise via religion, but by a Personal Commitment to the Divine and to Spiritual Values.
The Hammurabi Law code stele is a remnant of the distant past. Although some ancient precepts can certainly be used as good guides to personal conduct, and have in certain instances been adapted into modern civil law, are we to assume that ancient law can be applied in every situation in today's modern society? The answer is no. Gandhi's reference to the Hammurabi Law code was a statement made from his pacifist viewpoint of mutual respect, co-operation, forgiveness and tolerance, regarding the lunacy of retaliatory violence. If someone loses an eye in an auto accident that was the other driver's fault, we don't insist that the at-fault driver be blinded in one eye. We now refer to that as barbarism. If a homeless street orphan swipes a loaf of bread because he is starving to death, are we to supposed to apply the same law of "thou shalt not steal" to him as we do to corporate vermin who bilk millions from stockholders or who engage labor at slave-level working conditions and compensation?
With regard to your reference to my remarks about the Middle East situation, and your question "don't you think that we have enough of our own issues?" I will say this: the issues of poverty, discrimination, exploitation, human rights, intolerance, environment and injustice are issues that belong to the WHOLE OF HUMANITY, and we must work together to see that these issues are resolved. To quote the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Karl S.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Raja
Joined: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 19 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Virginia
City: Richmond
|
Eye for an eye
March 2, 2004 - 11:15 AM
|
|
Theoretically Laureene's (or Mahatma Gandhi's) idea is very good and has an appeal. But this really depends on the threshold of patience of human beings. And since the threshold is arbitrary, this idea will be limited to the content minds only.
Originally posted by laureene
If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the Whole world will be blind and toothless.
–Mahatma Gandhi
And, I want to remind you of the Christ's "Hate the sin, not the sinner." This sums it up in a better way. But, anyway, is that possible? Not hating the sinner?
Originally posted by laureene
If you think about it, killing a person means loss of a taxpayer for the country. Retaliating will only lead to loosing another taxpayer and in the end; ............... it dos not make the world a better place to live but a place full of blind or toothless people and the latter is not so bad an alternative.
.................... but have you thought of it,one family is sad at loosing a member,and carrying out an execution will leave tow sad families on our hands.
When law is made in the modern era, there are at least some wise men that shape them up (the laws). Wonder whether they take into account the tax-payers (well, not all murderers are tax-payers, and it's not a good rule that only non-tax-paying murderers will get death-sentence. So ........)!!
One retaliates or not, the world will become a place full of blinds. I feel it's better to retaliate, though. If you don't take the eyes off the offender (I mean, if you don't punish him, not necessarily by taking the eyes), he might take the eyes of another person. What do you thinks 'bout the serial killers? If you don't want two sad families, you'll have more than two.
Not all murderers are serial killers. Well, not all murderers get capital punishment, also.
Originally posted by laureene
one could say that for every murderer,death row is the only alternative
As I already said, it's not a universal rule. Human beings don't think binary. There can be several things in between acquittal and capital punishment. The problem arises when different people interpret the crime from different angles and suggest a range of different punishments!
Originally posted by laureene
I dont think it is fair that people take revenge on others.isnt it high time we learned to say sorry and i forgive you?
It's easier said than done. It's surely not fair to take revenge. But, is it fair getting raped? What if I commit a crime and say sorry, and commit the same crime again ..... ?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Raja
Joined: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 19 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Virginia
City: Richmond
|
Re: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The World Blind.discuss
March 3, 2004 - 10:33 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Gandhifan
............. becuase of the amount of suffering they dump on others will be pilled back onto them as the working out of the Law of Cause and Effect............ for they are storing up for themselves their own future torment in this life or their next life.
Only if everyone was scared 'bout this 'future torment' !!
Besides law, there has always been this virtual punishment/reward scheme in the name of God. This works for some people who really believe that being a good boy will be rewarded by God, and bad boys will be punished (just as Santa brings gifts only for the good kids). But, well, everything after death!! Who cares?
Now, if God gives back the amount of suffering they dump on others, isn't it necessarily 'an eye for an eye'? Just that, you are not taking the revenge yourself. You're allowing someone else to take it on your behalf.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Carita
Joined: Sep 13, 2003
Posts: 15 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 32
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Logic vs. Emotions
March 3, 2004 - 10:46 AM
|
|
One thing that seems to get overlooked is that revenge is often prompted by heat-of-the-moment passion rather than cool calculations of justice.
Generally, I am a quite pacifistic, and very much in agreement with the ¨eye for an eye makes the whole world blind¨ logic. However, I have experienced tendencies towards the other side. For example, when someone I knew was kidnapped and violently raped by two men while walking home one night, the anti-revenge rationale suddenly went out the window for more basic emotions (anger, hurt, fear, etc.) and all my thoughts went to how to catch the perpetrators and make them pay.
I suppose the not whether it is better in some utilitarian sense that people generally not seek revenge (back to the ¨eye for an eye¨ logic), but how to address the fact that many conflicts have roots not in objective opinions but in emotional gut reactions. This goes from irrationally hating the person who is dating your ex to centuries-old ethnic conflicts... Also, where does justice for ¨wrong-doers¨ come in, and (how) should/could it be executed/ensured?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
KarlS
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 17 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender: Male
Country: United States
Province/State: Michigan
|
Logic vs. Emotions
March 3, 2004 - 11:11 AM
|
|
Carita:
Your anger at the severe abuse and trauma suffered by your friend was certainly justified. To want the evil-doers brought to justice was a normal reaction of outrage. Revenge in that instance would have been personal retaliatory action, outside of the law. You may have momentarily wanted to do it, but you didn't. I hope the authorities were able to catch the criminals.
As far as justice for wrong-doers goes, the people must determine what indeed will be the laws of the land, but we should not stoop to the barbarity of the perpetrators with punishment. Rape is one of the most vicious and brutal crimes there is, and should be treated as such, with long prison terms. I have said before that if a legally available, regulated brothel saves one person such as your friend from the fate she suffered, it will have been worth it. Prostitutes always seem to be out there anyway, whether it is legal or not. At least in that situation, consent is involved.
Heat-of-the-moment passion may be more prevalent in lives where poverty, lack of education or other related stress produces some of the anger and fear you mentioned. But revenge can also be carefully planned. It all boils down to Internal Discipline and the resulting control of emotions. If the Conflict between the choices of retaliation and restraint is lost within, Peace most certainly will not prevail without. To the centuries-old ethnic conflicts you mentioned, we can also add conflicts between religious sects. These are both perpetuated by the adults not taking the proper stand. Anyone who teaches a child to hate or does not teach them that hate or holding a grudge is wrong and destructive, has no right to be mentoring anyone. To quote Gandhi: "Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side." Gandhi's Inner Strength and Discipline came from Spirituality. He also said: "The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
Spiritual Strength, Love and Reason are things that separate us from the beasts....
RajaG: I would say that "hell" is the total absence of Love, and that "heaven" is Communion with the Divine.
These are Vibratory levels or states of being. The Law of Karmic Return is similar to the physical law stating that every action produces an equal and opposite RE-ACTION. The
Key here is HOW we deal with the natural tendency to re-act in kind. Our thoughts create, our deeds create. I would say that a person's "hell" is his own creation and no one else's.
Karl S.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Raja
Joined: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 19 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Virginia
City: Richmond
|
Re: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The World Blind.discuss
March 4, 2004 - 07:05 AM
|
|
Gandhifan, God or no God, if the ‘offenders’ are destined to get back the torment they dump on others, it necessarily means that the ‘Law of Cause and Effect’ (or whatever) is just a variant of ‘an eye for an eye’.
I must agree that “oneness and wholeness of the universal, feeling its love flowing through, realising that we are protected” – these are nice words. And just that much when your family gets massacred and your sister gets raped. And such things are not uncommon.
Laureene, you misunderstood the stuff. I said, whoever takes revenge (you yourself take it, or ‘God’ takes it on behalf of you), the underlying thing is revenge or ‘eye for an eye’. I just wanted to point out the limit of those nice words spoken. I don’t support taking revenge for everything.
We land in trouble when we try to generalize everything and try to find a common law. Laureene said “but i know revenging is not the right thing.” I wonder what a ‘right thing’ is!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Flightless_Bird
Joined: Sep 28, 2003
Posts: 22 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: United Kingdom
City: Lancaster
|
Re: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The World Blind.discuss
March 4, 2004 - 08:40 AM
|
|
Originally posted by RajaG
Now, if God gives back the amount of suffering they dump on others, isn't it necessarily 'an eye for an eye'? Just that, you are not taking the revenge yourself. You're allowing someone else to take it on your behalf.[/B]
did i hear someone mention God? yes,it was raja.you said that if God is gonna give back the ammount of suffering you have dumped on others,then surely there is no reason for us to take the revenge on others,even when God says 'i will curse those that curse you and bless those that bless you'.then why should you go on and revenge? in my culture,if someone does something to you,we just say,God will punish you too.i have known these same words since i was a kid,thats why i never knew revenge coz i knew God will take care of whoever hurts me.
when i grew up,gone was my innocence too,and i discovered 'an eye for an eye',i have been made to forget,'leave everything to God'.dont know what to do now.
but i know revenging is not the right thing
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
KarlS
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 17 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender: Male
Country: United States
Province/State: Michigan
|
Living in Liberty
March 4, 2004 - 09:00 AM
|
|
Cara G.:
Good points, and well said. There is no excuse in the commission of the heinous crime of rape. Likewise, a priest also has no excuse in being a pedophile. My take is that what two consenting (I do understand that non-consensual sex is rape) adults do behind closed doors, for money or not, is their own business. A legal sex trade can be zoned, regulated, state health inspected, and staffed with private armed security, thus decreasing the chances for violence and sexually transmitted disease in that area, not to mention the fact that public police can concentrate more on preventing other types of street crime, such as...kidnapping, car-jacking, etc. Tax revenues are generated instead of incarceration expenses. It works in Nevada. Unfortunately, the sexual thrill-seeker may not be in Nevada, and may possibly instead attempt to criminally force himself on an innocent victim, and worse yet, murder her. I am most certainly NOT saying that this type of crime happens exclusively "because of" a lack of a legal brothel as you seemed to suggest (in fact, I believe I used the word "one" in that post) or "just horny", but a scenario where the perpetrator was drunk, or on drugs with the resulting loss of self-discipline/judgement IS a possibility. The Point pertaining to this in the Gandhi discussion, is that a person having his type of True Inner Spirituality would not even think of committing these types of crimes. If the Change-Effecting Light is within at the start, there will not have to be any concern about what happens at "some later time"....that's how the Process of Life with Peace is supposed to Work....
So what exactly IS "evil"?..... I'll give you my definition: Evil is the unjust deprivation of a person's life, liberty, persuit of happines, property, reputation or covenant of trust.
(it just so happens that these are ALSO the....INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of "we the people"...["us"]...) There are three groups that are mainly responsible for many of the conflicts and much of the misery in human history. They are:
1. The statist (the STATE is god and you may NOT question the state - Hitler, Stalin, etc.)
2. The religionist (you MUST follow MY religion and dogma in exactly MY way)
3. The feudal lord (or occasionally in today's modern society, the central banker with their self-seeking corporate affiliates)
These may possibly be among the "so-called authorities" acting either individually or in concert. In many cases, the "agendas they are serving" are...THEIR OWN SPECIAL INTERESTS (dark back-room secret deals. etc.), for their own benefit. "Good and evil" of course, are then re-defined BY THEM as.... what promotes or hinders the "agendas". These groups have one thing in common: the desire for CONTROL. These groups use a common tactic: FEAR. I would define the word "beast" as an evil-doer as per the above definition of evil.
Your concern regarding the "law of the land" is well founded. One can most certainly NOT assume that "those entrusted" with "protecting and serving" the populace are immune to any corruption. It is up to the individual to as much as possible be aware of what kind of people candidates are, what their positions are, are they truly committed to representing their constituents or are they towing only the collective party line, etc. Do they have web sites or other means of communicating with their constituents? Are they influenced by the above three groups or other special interests? Some people don't even vote, and then will sit there and yap about how bad things are. Do people KNOW what is in new law bills? (I got a chuckle out of your use of the word "lovely" in reference to PA and C-bills...we know YOU'RE doing your homework!). I would submit to you that the majority do not and ....that some don't care about even bothering to check. If they are restricted from access to the process, then that is a BIG problem. Some voter conflicts revolve around only one issue because some wish to foist their views regarding personal decisions on the entire populace. The sad part is that they may not even look at any other issues. Another question that needs to be asked is: 'are judges interpreting existing law, like they are supposed to be doing, or are political parties using them to MAKE NEW "LAW", as per the whims of the people that appoint them?' If systems are "biased and corrupt", how did they get that way? Who put them in office? We have RESPONSIBILITIES (there's that nasty old word again!) to ourselves as citizens to be pro-active and stay informed, and then use that knowledge to make an intelligent decision when we cast our vote.
In the case of your friend, if there is that much hassle for a victim of a crime in reporting the incident, then the process needs to be fixed and made less painful and more efficient. (although efficiency has never been a real big strong point in most governments) With regard to your comment: "...reliance on authorities to make justice for us may not always work", are you suggesting retaliatory vigilantism?
To get back to Gandhi again, what did he have that some men do not? He obviously had Something. I am going to stick with Spiritual Strength, Love and Reason. His statement "That service is the noblest which is rendered for its own sake." once again illustrates his Base. Any candidate demonstrating this in terms of a Philosophy regarding holding representative public office (as opposed to serving special interests, or themselves, etc.) would certainly get my vote.
Karl S.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Carita
Joined: Sep 13, 2003
Posts: 15 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 32
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Logic vs. Emotions
March 4, 2004 - 12:19 PM
|
|
Karl S.:
First of all, people don't get raped because of a lack of brothels. Putting aside the question of legalising the sex trade, as you mentioned, "prostitutes seem to be out there anyway, whether it is legal or not." In the instance of Vancouver's downtown east side, where the attack to which I am referring occurred, there is no shortage of sex trade workers. However, this did not stop two men from kidnapping my friend at knife-point and terrorizing her. Besides, even if she were a (legal) sex trade worker, this would not justify what happened to her, which would still very much be rape; non-consensual sex is rape, period. Men who do this sort of thing are not just horny and looking to get laid.
Also, most rapes (including the one to which I am referring) go unreported to "the authorities" because the victims decide for whatever reason (and, if you speak to women who have gone through the experience of reporting a rape, you may agree that their reasons are justified) that going through the tedious and painful process of making the attack "official" would not be worth it. That is just one of the reasons that reliance on authorities to make justice for us may not always work. In my worldview, reliance on deities to serve this function at some later time is not a sufficient answer. As for the question of achieving this-world justice, I think it is important to clarify: Who are these so-called authorities making and applying the laws, and whose agendas they are serving?
In a clear-cut case like rape, I think most people would reach consensus that rapists are, in fact, "evil-doers." However, what happens to justice when powerful world leaders (I won't mention names for fear of being put on some black list ) are defining the world strictly in terms of good and evil, and through media control and fear-mongering are inciting such terror in their own people that those who would protest are practically immobilised, not to mention impotent to effect any real change in governance? Then combine that with the lovely new undemocratically-devised post-9/11 laws appearing in many countries (for instance, the Patriot Act in the US and Bills C-35, C-36, and C-42 in Canada...) that restrict civil liberties in the name of security and define almost anybody who decides to practice such threatening activities as free speech and group organising (especially if the themes touched upon run contrary to government and corporate interests) as terrorists, at the whim of “the authorities.” Hence my concern with preaching that everybody simply obey "laws of the land," whatever they may be, without considering who made them, whether they do indeed reflect the volition of the people, who is restricted from access to these processes, and how discrimination occurs in the practice of those laws that are otherwise theoretically sound...
I think it is more complex than saying that " Spiritual Strength, Love and Reason are things that separate us from the beasts.... " - Who is us? Can we assume that those entrusted with the powers of protecting and serving "the people" are immune to the biased and corrupt (justice) systems that form today’s reality? Who is “the people” that gets to decide, in the Star Wars-like terminology that seems to be predominating political speech-writer and news reporter lingo these days, who is good and evil, light or dark, “us” or beast…?
~Cara G.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cicero
Joined: Feb 1, 2004
Posts: 1020 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The World Blind.discuss
March 6, 2004 - 12:51 PM
|
|
I would not hesistate to kill anybody which would harm my loved ones. And i would not have any different approach if he had different culture or whatever. Since i did not asked him to harm him , he was not obliged to do it. And i never attack anybody, why sohlud somebody attack me?
If he attacks me, he agrees to accept any sort of defense i will put out. Either we will love eachother or we will have eternal conflict. I go for the first. ALWAYS. Those which want the second, they are to have problems.
Ave Futuria
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
KLainstaaR
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 1 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Ghana
Province/State: Greater Accra
City: Accra
|
EYE FOR AN EYE,IS OFF THE OLD TESTAMENT
March 9, 2004 - 05:21 AM
|
|
Well my veiw eye for an eye and tooth for tooth,is of the old testament,it it infact made many people committed alot of errors in their ways and life which caused alot of calamities later for them according to the bible.We living on the new testament which the saviour JESUS Christ preached about forgiveness,it best to forgive others ,then to take revenge,EYE for An Eye,Tooth for tooth will truely make the world blind and toothless,to make a peaceful and better world we must learn to forgive.Which is the key to Sucess.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
