Take it for granted that action A is a morally reprehensible

No, D should mind his own business and C should turn the other cheek. B will get his in the afterlife.

File: 1414790185638.jpg (25KB, 387x290px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 387x290px

>>8054407
>using sequential letter representations of different categories of designation

>>8054407
No, but I will sacrifice my morals for my loved ones.

>morals
shiggy

But more seriously, 'eye-for-an-eye' punishment doesn't make the world nicer to live in. It just multiplies suffering without actually preventing future instances.

>>8055496
Life for an eye is much better at preventing future misdemeanors

>>8055496

How wrong can one man be?

File: 1st cuck.jpg (101KB, 454x397px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 454x397px

This should answer that for ya.

>>8056024

Evil does not justify evil

Depends. Does person B have a soul to be saved?

>>8057278

There is a belief system that holds not human beings have souls?

>>8056189
It's only evil when done without provoking

>>8055296
This. I got a little triggered.

>>8054407
>condemned by the majority of human cultures
If you take for granted A is morally reprehensible you presuppose well-defined morality and this piece is entirely irrelevant.

>Is it now morally acceptable now for person D to conduct action A upon person B in revenge?
No, you have taken for granted that A is morally reprehensible independent of context. You need to relax your hypothesis on A to depend on context if you want the possibility a context exists which justifies it.
If A has a built-in context (context is embedded in what we mean by "A") is is of course impossible for D to A on B as the context has changed.