What do you think of "an eye for an eye" /his/?

>>2134439
If someone took out my eye I would kill them right away, what the fuck? They are ready to take out one of your eyes, they will be ready to take out the other too.

I saw this quote in Call of Duty too.

>>2134439
I think ghandi is a faggit.

>>2134439
Too blanket of an idea and Gandhi is right - punishments in a just society must consider details beyond "was the crime committed".

>>2134439
From a logical perspective it's usually pointless, but people will do it anyway to make themselves feel better.

>>2134439
Crime doesn't happen in a vacuum. If we don't consider the circumstances and just hand out trails equally to anyone, some people will get less than they deserve and some will be punished unjustly.

>>2134439
It is the most percent example of fair and just.

Someone commits something negative against you, you inflict the same upon him, no more no less.

Eye for an eye.

>>2134439
>What do you think of "an eye for an eye" /his/?
completely retarded, sandnigger tier savagery.

>>2134439
If a penniless hobo steals $100 from me and spends it on booze what do I take from him as vengeance? His life? Parts of his body? Taking his freedom with prison would improve his condition so we cant have that.

>>2135150
>implying a hobo will at some stage never again have $100

Pleb right there.

According to moral absolutism, all moral actions are absolute. Taking out an eye is always immoral.
I think modern society follows a similar ethical code.

"Parroting some bland proverb and acting like it's an inarguable truth because you attribute it to some famous person only serves to make you look like an unthinking waste of brain matter."

- Hammurabi

>>2135157
It's hypothetical. Plus how do I enforce a debt on a man with no home and likely no identification? Forced labor? Assume he has a week to live and steals from me in order to afford a final luxury. Frame it however you like.

>>2135174
It's simply not just to lock up a homeless man for a year or two for stealing $100 off of you.

Literally the only just thing you can do is forget about it, ore air until you can take back what is rightfully yours, you know, eye for an eye.

It's not up to for me to tell you how to go about getting it back, just because it's easier to punish more harshly doesn't mean it's 'correct' to do so.

>>2135177
>ore air until you can take back what is rightfully yours, you know, eye for an eye.

Or wait until you can take*

Fucking shitty macs.

An eye for an eye means a punish.ent should be just and appropriate to the crime, if someone poked your eye out you shouldn't kill him, if someone slaps you you shouldn't poke his eye out. The rule doesn't say you have to seek for revenge, but that the punishment should be fair

>>2135177The only reasonable thing that would meet the qualifications of eye for an eye would be bonded labor, but that amounts to slavery. I'm not arguing for a stricter punishment or even eye for an eye I was just posing a hypothetical. You seem to have misunderstood my purpose.

>>2135237
>I'm not arguing for a stricter punishment or even eye for an eye I was just posing a hypothetical. You seem to have misunderstood my purpose.
Not at all, are you implying punishments today fit the crime? Because most certainly in almost all cases they do not fit the crime and punishments are forced enslavement (prison) or a fine larger than the cost of the crime.

>but that amounts to slavery
What the fuck do you think prison is?

We simply do not enforce eye for an eye. We do not have punishments which fit the crime, the punishments are heaver to try to stop a criminal from committing a crime.

It's not about
>well how do I get justice if x does this blah blah blah
It about the fact that when a crime is committed the cop out of putting everyone in prison is taken.

It's not eye for an eye, it's worse. It's eye for life.

>>2135256
I wasn't trying to make any statement really apart from maybe that eye for an eye is stupid, which I think was the purpose of the thread and isn't really a bold opinion.

>>2135276
So what you are saying is fair restrictions justice is stupid.

Right, I follow you know, you're an idiot.