An Eye For An Eye leaves everybody blind?

Question

agree or disagree

Answer 1

No, probably not.

However, let me explain something. This is another example of misunderstanding the history of something causing bad results.

To us today, an eye for an eye sounds really vengeful.

However, at that time, it was a really civilized change in law. Before that, at any harmful or offensive act whatsoever, the offended person or family would KILL NOT ONLY THE OFFENDER, BUT ALSO ALL HIS FAMILY DOWN TO THE LAST BABY.

So, eye for an eye was a great limitation in comparison to the primitive laws before that. That is, you were only to respond to the degree of harm done, instead of mulitplying the damage.

My favorite eye for an eye tale was actually a Muslim tale. A worker fell off a large mosque under construction, and fell on a rich man, killing him.

The relatives of the deceased applied to the judges for permission to kill the worker responsible for the death, under the eye for an eye concept in Muslim law.


The judges ruled they could kill the worker, but ruled they had to do it by falling off the large mosque onto the worker, in other words do it the same exact way. After some consideration, they declined the honor.

Answer 2

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was written thousands of years ago in the Code of Hammurabi. For the time, it was a case of being reasonable, in that it forbade revenge or retribution out of proportion to the offense committed.

It is difficult to get people to leave punishment to a state, leaving off personal revenge. Even now, the death penalty is rife with revenge and personal retribution - what about the victim's survivors?, they ask. What about them? They want the state to do their revenge for them is what it is all about. So instead of one killing, there are two killings. State sponsored killing, especially at the behest of relatives, sends the message that killing people is nothing special...

Answer 3

Well the statement is obvioulsy true but if you are referring to the figurative meaning...Although I agree with the statement, i think we like to take natural forces and what god intends to happen into our own hands. We cant help it, its human nature and what weve all been taught. Someone punches you, stick up for yourself and punch them back. But can anyone honestly vlame someone for wanting to get revenge after the death of a loved one, most of the peoiple out there protesting have no idea what its like to lose someone that way. People on the outside looking in should not pass judgement to what is right or wrong for someone else to do.

Answer 4

This question has always botherd me because of the possible disrespect and definite misunderstanding of scripture. The verse establishes the principle of portional punishment for wrong doing. God sees what is done to the victim (his eye is damaged) and demands an equal punishment. The preceding verse (Genesis 21:22) concerns what happens if men are fighting, hit the mother and cause her to deliver early. The phrase, eye for and eye concerns what happens if their is damage done to the Baby. Rather than the image of a wrathful God, this is a God who cares for the unborn.

Answer 5

Disagree: if you are good, then you will have two eyes in a world full of blind people. The system of justice does not ultimately decide your fate: you do.

Answer 6

NO......This is another way of saying , "Do onto others as you would have done onto you" and if we all (the entire human race) were to follow this (law) then most people would not commit any (infractions) for fear of the punishment!

Answer 7

I agree

Answer 8

True, but they'll only take your eye if you take their's first.
Play it safe - leave other people's eyes alone.

Answer 9

I agree; no one wins with revenge.

Answer 10

If it's important enough to lose your eye over, atleast you have another one.. :-)