Or ...turn the other cheek?
(Reflect on the two opposites.... which one appeals to you instinctively)?
2006-11-12 07:54:32 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Leave criminals aside. Look at it from your daily life point.
2006-11-12 08:05:59 · update #1
Eye for an eye was always instinctive.
Now, I dunno.. Guess I'll find out...
2006-11-12 09:52:03 · answer #1 · answered by jonas_tripps_79 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
An Eye For An Eye, Tooth For A Tooth.
2006-11-12 18:21:22 · answer #2 · answered by ~Twisted Sister~ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Revenge takes up too much time and results in a never ending cycle of useless violence. Turning the other cheek, ignoring the person is easier and allows you to move forward. Want to end an arguement with someone you dont care about, who lives for drama and argument? say " You are right" and walk away. It drives them nuts. The colonial people used to shun people who broke the moral or social code ( they had no prisons and or law system) It was effective, everyone turned the other cheek to the person. It ended that persons power to affect the town.
2006-11-12 16:49:07 · answer #3 · answered by fancyname 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Turn the other cheek. What is there to prove for "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?" Revenge? Satisfaction? Justice? Nah, that won't do it for me, I would be just as bad as them. I prefer to let them stir in their own mess and smile when it comes back to them.
2006-11-12 16:18:16 · answer #4 · answered by Smahteepanties 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whenever I reflect on two polar opposites, my mind is flung to the middle. The midterm elections reflect our American ideal of moderation. We are centrists. When injured, we should not seek revenge (eye gouging), nor should we let the injury go unremarked (cheek turning). We should seek rather justice. Does it help me cover my medical bills or heal if I gouge out the eye of the guy who gouged mine? No. Should I ignore the eye gouging? No. I should find a way, a way approved of by my culture or subculture, to collect recompense from the gouger. He should have to pay my medical bills. And perhaps he should spend some time ostracized from society in order to prevent him gouging out any one else's eyes.
2006-11-12 16:10:02 · answer #5 · answered by Rico Toasterman JPA 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now that we, as a country, have stated that we will break the Geneva Convention that states that we will treat prisoners of war with dignity, and the rights afforded between two human beings, we have made it not only possible, but political valid for other countries to torture our soldiers as well. An eye for an eye indeed...as long as it serves our political purposes.
2006-11-12 19:46:36 · answer #6 · answered by kittylitter 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we practice the Old Testament "justice" of "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", we end with with a blind, toothless world.
I prefer the New Testament dictum: Turn the other cheek and forgive your enemies (which, by the way, will drive them absolutely bonkers,)
2006-11-12 16:32:17 · answer #7 · answered by johnslat 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Such vengence can only escalate. A good example would be the cold war - 'I've got a gun.' 'Well, I do too!' 'Well, now I've got *two* guns.' Pursuing an equal revenge at every offense will only provoke further ill will.
2006-11-12 16:08:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Instinctively, Eye for an eye. That's just what I came up with first. I think that's as instinctive as you can get.
2006-11-12 16:02:34 · answer #9 · answered by baabaababy77 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An eye for an eye..now if we can only get the guilty to feel that way...start taking responsibility for themselves...maybe they won't be willing to give up that eye...
2006-11-12 17:06:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I lose my eye. I take your eye. Now you have only one eye but I don't feel any better cause I am still missing my eye. Instinctively you take my eye I take out both your eyes.
2006-11-12 16:58:04 · answer #11 · answered by BluLizard 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋