Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 28, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 56

An Eye For An Eye?? Would It Make The Whole World Blind??

:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Im not much of a fan of the bible myself but I think this is a very big topic at the moment but I wnat to know what YOU think about the subject anyway your response matters alot to me :)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' Exodus

"An eye for an eye can make the whole world blind." Ghandi

Who is wrong? Who is right? YOU decide!!
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icontaylor17387:
taylor17387 Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
An eye for an eye. That's fair game. And if everybody ended up blind, it would be because everybody deserved it, right? (However, that would never happen: most persons aren't criminals, and less so if the law was so strict).

People find talion law barbaric nowadays, but think about our current system for a moment. In some Muslim country (I don't remember which one, exactly), some guy dropped acid to the face of his wife, and the punishment was burning half his face (because a woman is worth half than a man there). If that had happened in my country, they'd have put the man in jail for some years (not many, really), and after that, he would have gone out and live happily ever after (there's no life imprisonment here, and living conditions in jail are not so bad as in USA).
For me, that doesn't pay for having a burnt face during your whole life. Burning only half his face is also unfair, ok, but still better than the other option.
Or another example that was so much discussed in the media here: A group of young guys, some of them underaged, raped and brutally murdered a teenage girl. They hid the body and refused to tell the police where it was. Everybody knew that they were the murderers, but since there was no body, there was no case.
Now that girl is buried, and all those guys are free and happy. The mother of one of them even received money to talk in a TV show.
THAT'S barbaric.
Reply
:iconwhiskyomega:
WhiskyOmega Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2012  Professional General Artist
Well, the vast majority of the Bible is "do onto others as others do onto you",
where as Ghandi is more like "rise above what bad things others do onto you", be the better person, sort of speak.
At least, these are my interpretations, anyway.
I could be wrong.
:shrug:

Personally I believe stooping to the person's level who's done me wrong makes me just as bad as they are, which I don't want to do because then I can't condemn them for what they've done to me if I'm just as willing to do it to them also. Doesn't really solve anything, in my view.
Being the better person and not paying them back in kind doesn't mean I let them get away with it, however, as there are other ways of making them pay for the wrongs they committed against me.
Reply
:iconvanhir:
Vanhir Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Vengeance doesn't solve anything, so Ghandi.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2012
An eye for an eye implies revenge and that would make the whole world blind. However the concept of proportionate punshment for crimes through a legally accept judicial system is sound.
Reply
:iconzareste:
Zareste Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2012
If the whole world is guilty, yeah, it would make the whole world blind.
Reply
:iconjustmango:
justMANGO Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
An eye for an eye. Because Kant.
Reply
:icondutchconnaisseur:
DutchConnaisseur Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Neh, poke out my eye, and I will kill you.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Hhahah :L Fair enough
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
bible of course.
Reply
:iconredmarlin:
redmarlin Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
You still have one eye left... idiots.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
It's a qoute in the bible, have you ever heard of the bible MaskedGuardian? These people are not idiots you just dont understand the meaning.
Reply
:iconredmarlin:
redmarlin Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Wow, way to take what I said way too seriously. Of course I know where it's from. But since you don't seem to get it, allow me to explain the joke to you:

See, the phrase "eye for an eye", when taken literally, means that if you were to take out someone's eye, you lose your eye as punishment. Ghandi said that an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind. The joke is that no, it wouldn't, because humans happen to have two eyes, and so even if we lost an eye for an eye, we would still have one left.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Genius never before have I seen someone phrase such a joke with such complexity. Hmmmm actually I have in a nursery full of illiterate two year olds. Please tell me more you could recite the whole ABC's to me, oh wait do you even know how to do that?
Reply
:iconredmarlin:
redmarlin Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Look at you, so cute :pat: Just admit you didn't get the joke at first, and we can all move on.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Amusing are your taunts please carry on unless you want to apologise like mature people unless an like you wants to carry on a like a three year. I admit I have done a mistake on you and I apologise but really adding a statement like that is not appropiate, its not even funny. Look Im an atheist and I still dont appreciate that bad joke. Set things aside
Reply
:iconetheara:
etheara Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Hi! The verse from Exodus is taken out of context by some people. However, it applies only when "people are fighting, and hit a pregnant woman, and she gives birth prematurely, and there is serious injury".

Exodus 21 (NKJV)

[22] “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e]
but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. [23] But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The world will surely not go blind as it will require a lot of conditions for the law to apply.

Also, I think justice can stop violence. As our national hero in the Philippines wrote in his novel El Filibusterismo, "Ang pagpapaumanhin ay di laging kabaitan, ito'y kasalanan kung nagbibigaay-daan sa pang-aapi. Walang mang-aalipin kung walang paaalipin. (Absolution is not absolutely decent; it is a crime if it gives way to violence. There is no oppressor to the strong.)"
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
I am filipino aswell :)I think you are completely right you hold wisdom in your words
Reply
:iconetheara:
etheara Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
That's nice! Do you speak in Filipino? Because I'm quite worried my translation didn't do Dr. Rizal justice.

Thank you. :)
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Darn, Lytrigian and ZCochrane beat me to what I was going to post. They're right, while in the current day the concept seems barbaric, at the time of the Bible the idea was actually extremely fair and just compared to the typical standard of disproportionate retribution.
Reply
:icondodobirdsong:
dodobirdsong Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
In my opinion Ghandi is more right than the other because "an eye for an eye" allows the idea that a person should be able to do the same wrong that has been done to them to the person who has done them this wrong. Unfortunately, this "eye for a eye" idea can make the whole world blind because sometimes there is no way to measure the wrong done, so the same wrong can be done again. If the wrongs are repeatedly overestimated, perhaps we might have a escalation of the Butter Wars (Dr Seuss) or just a certain taste that if karma will not work immediately it shall happen now and that might not be good for life.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Yes I would agree with you there. As we know violence leads to more violence
Reply
:icondefaultking:
defaultking Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
"Would It Make The Whole World Blind??"

Only if everyone was poked in both eyes.
Reply
:iconetheara:
etheara Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
HAHA! smart ass.
Reply
:icondefaultking:
defaultking Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
It's true.
Reply
:iconelyssea:
Elyssea Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
:iconthisplz:
Reply
:iconarosyks:
arosyks Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Digital Artist
I believe the punishment should fit the crime.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
What if a terrorist detonated a nuke in a major city? What would be his punishment?
Reply
:iconarosyks:
arosyks Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2012  Student Digital Artist
I guess whatever the worst legal punishment possible in whatever country he was being punished in. Can't get much worst than killing thousands of innocent people.
Reply
:iconknightster:
Knightster Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Nothing?
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
To paraphrase Seneca: If you spare the wicked, you injury the good. To me, justice can only come through violence, and there are many forms of violence.
Reply
:iconmondu:
mondu Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Eye for an eye doesn't just mean "if someone blinds you, you get to blind them."

It also means "if someone blinds you, you don't get to kill them."
Reply
:iconkemcar:
kemcar Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
I don't believe in violence but then again in some circumstances keeping quiet after a certain time is mistaken for weakness and affects your personality, I think this decision should be completely situation based.
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
Kalinka-Shadows Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
There is the legal president in civil court of making one 'whole'. Normally this applies to civil litigation. If you ever watched Judge Judy, you'd see that Judge Judy tries to setup a situation where the exact monetary amount you wronged some one is what you pay. Normally this deals with car accidents and such where the Defendant has to pay for the other person's insurance co-pay or medical bills.

This has the benefit of actually making things better.

Think of it this way, if you are in a car accident, and someone totals your car, does that entitle you to deliberately total theirs? Of course not. Does that get you your original car back? No.

A better way of saying this is: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Retributive justice does nothing more than satisfy bloodlust and vengeance. It perpetuates the cycle of violence.
Reply
:iconkimihro:
Kimihro Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Reply
:iconzcochrane:
ZCochrane Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Photographer
It has to be seen in the historic context. "An eye for an eye" is actually a limitation on damage claims. It was meant to stop escalating feuds. I.e. if someone from family A killed someone from family B, then the members of family B were only allowed to kill that murderer, not everyone in family A.

Similar considerations go for a lot of religious laws that seem odd today, by the way. For example, most restrictions on food made a lot of sense given the hygienic standards at the time.

The problem with the "an eye for an eye" statement is that it can be understood both ways, since we've now generally become much less aggressive when demanding punishment. Many people believe it sets a minimum or a general standard, and that leads to atrocities like the death penalty.

In my opinion, "An eye for an eye" can only ever be an upper limit, and it's not a very good one at that.
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
I think it would have been better if they'd written "the equivalent value of an eye in compensation for an eye, the equivalent value of a tooth in compensation for a tooth." It gets the same meaning that we are told by "sophisticated" theologians it means. It's not nearly as poetically satisfying, but doesn't leave the door open for theological justification for brutal retribution, at least not in this passage.

And if a little less overrated poetry is the price for a lot less brutality... it's a pretty good deal.
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
How much do eyes cost? That would have to be like no less than $175,000.
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
That does depend, doesn't it? I imagine that the eyes of a famous artist would rate rather more valuably than those of, say, a singer.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Unless they're Blind Mag.
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Ah, but they were really her eyes, were they?
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
True, true...
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Both are right. Exodus 21:22 et seq (to put the quote in context you need to read a few paragraphs) is usually interpreted as *limiting* the recompense you might take for an injury. If someone causes you to lose an eye, you may demand nothing more from him than his own eye. Also, the punishment was to be determined by judges, not exacted by the victim personally, and it's implied in the discussion that follows involving damage caused by and to livestock that financial compensation might be ordered instead.

But nothing more. So you cannot chop off a hand for theft; you cannot chop off a head for assault; you cannot burn someone at the stake if they've only wounded someone else.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Yes there is a lot of wisdom in your words. Violence just leads to more violence really
Reply
:iconeuterpe-the-egret:
Euterpe-The-Egret Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
That law was only in effect until Jesus came and gave the people a higher law. He Taught "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Still "An eye for an eye" has gained considerably more fame so to people like to base their actions towards it but yes you are totally right :)
Reply
:iconeuterpe-the-egret:
Euterpe-The-Egret Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
:shrug: If they claim to follow the bible, they should know it better than knowing only what is popular.
Reply
:iconmharkneilcudal:
MharkNeilCudal Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Yes but many hold limited loyalties to any religion really because sometimes religion's laws is something some cannot follow.
Reply
:iconeuterpe-the-egret:
Euterpe-The-Egret Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Cannot or don't want/choose to?
Reply
:iconlyteside:
lyteside Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Both?
Reply
Add a Comment: