If you punch someone back after they punch you? Are you any better than them? — Benj96

You usually don't do it in order to be 'better'; you do it either because you're angry (automatic emotional response) or in order to let them know they can't punch you with impunity. (practical prevention).

There is a lot more of interest here, but I have an errand that can't wait.

But if you're really a good person, would you seek revenge on bad people for being bad? Or allow the judiciary system to do it for you either through monetary compensation or prison time etc. — Benj96

This from Wikipedia:

The principle is found in Babylonian Law.[6][7] If it is surmised that in societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. The retribution might be worse than the crime, perhaps even death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society. — Wikipedia

As this indicates, the eye for an eye standard was developed not as endorsement for revenge but as a limit to retribution. Punishment should be proportionate to the offense.

If you punch someone back after they punch you? Are you any better than them?

The primary justification for retribution is that someone deserves it. On these grounds, if the initial punch was an act of cruelty or bullying or random act of violence, and your retribution was proportional rather than cruel, yes you are better than them. You are just; your attacker is unjust. You don’t deserve to get punched; your attacker does.

All of this is mostly intuitive, but the implications of no one standing up to evil and cruelty are quite dire indeed. Retribution might not only deter evil, but helps it understand the pains and sufferings it causes, so much so that evil might change its ways.

If you don't punch them back, and think of yourself as superior or elite because you can practice self restraint, this looking down on them, if you believe you are no longer equals, are you any better than them? — Benj96

No, but if that gives you satisfaction, you are better off than they are. Restraint may have other motivations than a feeling of moral superiority. It may be enjoined by your creed or ideology or strategy. (Our NYE entertainment was both reels of Gandhi Add to your quotes: "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.")

And then in society at large we call it justice, and it's represented by a balance of weights, like an equilibrium. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. — Benj96

It's rarely even close to equal. Formal justice systems are a feature of stratified, specialized, civilized societies, where people are far from equal - as are the punishments meted out to those who transgress the law. Of course, the law itself is neither fair nor practical, in most civilized societies.
How justice/retribution/response to personal injury is organized in a society depends on it economic structure and world-view: in one society, crime against property is taken very seriously, while wife- and child- and servant-beating are quite legal and fights between men of equal rank, the norm; in another, personal injury is the most punished crime.

We accept this form of justice because "good people" or at least "law abiding citizens" can be sure that if they are harmed by bad or unlawful people, bad things will happen to those people on your behalf. — Benj96

It's because we are a society of strangers. We are distrustful and afraid of our fellow citizens. We are told, and want to believe, that punishing criminals deters them from committing more crimes. This is not really the case - even less so, if we criminalize natural and harmless activities - but having armed police and robed judges and bars on the prison windows affords us a sense of security.
Some law-abiding citizens do feel very strongly about retribution, but I think for most people, it's enough to know that a felon behind bars is one felon from whom they are safe. That's why so many oppose lighter sentences and early parole.

would the best citizens not be those who endure punishment despite having done nothing wrong, and then "forgive and forget". — Benj96

Well, there was that one guy with cheeks to spare, and he started a fad in martyrdom, but most people can't really carry it out.

The strange thing there is that if someone forgives and forgets when they get stolen from - say a few hundred bucks, it's admirable to a lot of people. — Benj96

You can forgive - either in gesture or sincerely - but you can never forget. It's a lot easier to forgive if you understand their motivation as compelling enough that you, too, might be tempted to steal in their situation. It's harder to forgive a strong person stealing from you than a weaker one, not just because we despise cowardice even more than theft, but because there is an element of fear - the bully will return for more - and shame - that you were unable to defend yourself. It's harder to forgive an able-bodied adult than a sickly one or a child. It's too difficult to forgive a rich man stealing from a poor one - so we call that something other stealing.

All the legal system can offer you in return for you being harmed by another, is revenge of some form. — Benj96

There are different legal systems. Ours could use improvement. In civil court, restitution and punitive damages to the plaintiff are the standard forms of resolution. Restitution and damages might also applied in many criminal cases. In minor offenses, we could resort to arbitration, such as the peer-mediation in some schools. And we could start with that approach earlier in life: parents, rather than reprimand the child, could ask: How can you make it up to your brother?

Ours could use improvement. In civil court, restitution and punitive damages to the plaintiff are the standard forms of resolution — Vera Mont

Can it now? Money and damages can be revoked/returned by man upon introduction of knowledge forthcoming/a larger picture. Life cannot.

Money and damages can be revoked/returned by man upon introduction of knowledge forthcoming/a larger picture. Life cannot. — Outlander

It was in Leviticus - a whole list of compensations to the victim's family for manslaughter, plus guilt offerings to God. Farming and herding societies were more pragmatic than are industrial/clerical societies in the valuation of life and limb.
Murder charges constitute a fairly small percentage of criminal justice proceedings; those and perhaps grievous bodily harm, might be handled as a separate category. Even so, the killer would be more useful to society performing the work of his or her victim than sitting in a vastly overpriced room for 25 years. And, of course, the question of revenge killing arises. Should the state carry it out? Or a member of the victim's family? Or the public, say by stoning or firing squad? Each approach has its advocates and detractors.

"Two wrongs don't make things right", they just make doing wrong costly and self-defeating. If not 'win-win' (sustainable justice), then 'lose-lose' (un-sustainable justice): otherwise, 'win-lose cycles' (sustainable in-justice). An ethic of reciprocity contra servility. :fire:

If you punch someone back after they punch you? Are you any better than them? — Benj96

Rather than arguing whether one is better or worse than somebody else, it might be better to look at the assault pragmatically. Maybe you had it coming. Maybe responding in-kind risks escalation to a more severe assault. Maybe somebody just boiled over and you happened to be the closest target.

Restorative justice attempts to deal with crime by helping the bad actor restore trust from the community by paying back the wrong with good. This requires the cooperation of the victim. Restorative justice on a neighborhood level is designed to deter young people from developing a habit of criminal behavior. Restorative justice for serious crime requires the involvement of the state.

Real community is the key to dealing with petty crime. If a group of people are characterized by anomie, alienation, oppression, lack of opportunity, transience, and so on (in other words, a failed community), then punishment is likely to be impersonal, ineffective, and coarse, at least.

You seem to me to be confusing two different issues - the issue of what is just, with the issue of what is right.

The eye-for-an-eye principle - the lex talionis - is a principle of justice. That is, it is a claim about what people deserve. if you take someone else's eye, then you deserve to have one of yours taken.

It's open to a variety of interpretations, but the basic idea is simple: what a wrongdoer deserves in terms of harm is proportionate to the gravity of the wrong they did. The graver the wrong, the more harm one deserves.

I stress: that's a principle of justice. It is not a moral norm. That is, it is not the claim that we ought to take the eyes of those who have taken the eyes of others. That doing x will bring about a just state of affairs does not entail that we ought to do it.

Jane 'deserves' X, does not mean the same as "we ought to give Jane X".

A rapist deserves to be raped (according to the lex talionis). That does not mean we are morally obliged to rape rapists. Indeed, it is consistent with someone deserving something that it might also be extremely wrong to give it to them. A rapist deserves to be raped. But it'd be wrong, surely, to rape a rapist?

So anyway, it seems to me that you are criticizing the lex talionis on the mistaken grounds that it implies we ought to give people the harms they deserve. Yet that's not what it implies. There's what is just and there's what is right, and these are not the same.

Here is a different perspective.
ABORIGINAL CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE

At the most basic level of understanding, justice is understood differently by Aboriginal people. The dominant society tries to control actions it considers potentially or actually harmful to society as a whole, to individuals or to the wrongdoers themselves by interdiction, enforcement or apprehension, in order to prevent or punish harmful or deviant behaviour. The emphasis is on the punishment of the deviant as a means of making that person conform, or as a means of protecting other members of society.

The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged. This is a primary difference. It is a difference that significantly challenges the appropriateness of the present legal and justice system for Aboriginal people in the resolution of conflict, the reconciliation and the maintenance of community harmony and good order.

There is a huge gap between tribal justice and city-state law-enforcement, because they serve different purposes in very different kinds of society.

There can be no such thing as an 'aboriginal' concept of justice (or any other 'insert group's name' concept of justice).

For example, let's say my concept - so, my idea - of cheese is the idea of something made of bricks that one can live in. Whereas your concept of cheese is the idea of some congealed milk. Well, we do not actually have different concepts. Rather, we have this one word - cheese - that I am using to denote things made of bricks that one can live in and that you are using to denote congealed milk. Same word, two different concepts.

So, if I say "My cheese is worth over $1m' and you think "blimey! it must taste great to be worth that much" we are simply talking past each other. I'm talking about my house and you think I'm talking about congealed milk.

There is one concept of justice. There is disagreement about precisely what answers to it. But it is not possible for two people or two groups to have different concepts of the same thing, for 'the thing' - whatever it may be - is 'that which answers to the concept'.

So it's good to hate? To hold grudges? To fantasise about all the types of revenge and punishment? — Benj96

That is not a Christian virtue, but it is a Jewish one.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/the-virtue-of-hate

"Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: mitzvah lisnoso—one is obligated to hate him."

The term "mitzvah" means commandment, indicating it is sinful not to hate the wicked. Love is a sin in such circumstances.

There is one concept of justice. There is disagreement about precisely what answers to it. — Bartricks

Okay. Unfortunately, the Manitoba Implementation of justice Committee submitted this report in 1999. Perhaps they should have called the report First Nations Approach to Crime and Misconduct, but it's too late to set them straight.

Jane 'deserves' X, does not mean the same as "we ought to give Jane X". — Bartricks

What does deserving something entail then?

A rapist deserves to be raped (according to the lex talionis). — Bartricks

Not necessarily. They deserve a punishment comparable to being raped. Like multiple years in prison (whether or not that is actually comparable I am not sure). Which they get.

An eye for an eye approach just seems the most practical. If there was no deterrent to crime, we could not have a safe society.

But what I find most interesting is the virtue people see in forgiveness. Personally, I think forgiveness is only virtuous if the criminal has changed. If you have the opportunity to catch someone that attacked and have them answer for their crimes, but you instead choose to forgive and let them go for no reason, you have just greatly increased the chances they go and attack someone else. Not good.

If said attacker gets away without you being able to catch them, but then they change their ways out of remorse and start leading an honest life, then you stumble upon them years later, it would be virtuous to forgive them. Because punishing them at this point does not prevent any more harm. The main point of eye for an eye is deterrence, if it doesn't do that, then what's the point?

What I'm not so sure of though is that an eye for an eye approach is just, as opposed to just practical. Would it be wrong of you to report them years later? On paper, doing so would cause harm for no practical reason. They no longer need deterring. But I am not sure it would be wrong, still.

What if you saw the assault, as opposed to being assaulted yourself, and you know that the victim still holds a grudge when you stuble upon the changed criminal. Would it be "better" to report them then since you're not doing it for yourself? Would you be obligated to tell the victim what you saw and leave the choice up to them?

Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: mitzvah lisnoso—one is obligated to hate him."

The term "mitzvah" means commandment, indicating it is sinful not to hate the wicked. Love is a sin in such circumstances. — Hanover

Makes sense. I guess in Christianity its analogous to loving the devil himself.

"Eye for an eye morality" is an oxymoron.

Morality is a set of rules we bind ourselves by - a limit we voluntarily impose upon our actions and behaviors.

"An eye for an eye" implies no such limit exists (and thus it doesn't convey a meaningful definition of morality), since any action can be "justified" (but not really). It literally states that if one has their eye carved out, thus is physically tortured / maimed, one may "justly" physically torture and maim their assailant.

It is essentially a debasement of one's own values - to stoop down to the level of whatever one recognizes as deplorable and thus becoming that which one detests.

If one believes physical torture and maiming is immoral, one should not allow themselves to participate in such acts under any circumstance, period.


Forgiveness is of course the real virtue, but it is a much more complicated concept than it is often given credit for.

True and genuine forgiveness requires a deep understanding of human psychology. Most importantly it requires one to understand that unethical behavior always comes from a place of suffering. Once we recognize the suffering in the wrongdoer, and their actions were a foolhardy attempt at alleviating their suffering, we take a step towards humanity rather than away from it.


Whether it is possible to create a system of crime and punishment that does not contain retributive "justice" is another question altogether, and not a moral one, since systems are not moral agents.

If there was no deterrent to crime, we could not have a safe society. — khaled

And with all the deterrents, we do not have a safe society. When drawing and quartering was on the books; when people had their hands chopped off for theft; where people are beheaded for drug trafficking; when people were burned at the stake for professing other than the party line - none of those were or are safe societies. Punishment, and severity of punishment have never stopped people breaking the law.

Personally, I think forgiveness is only virtuous if the criminal has changed. — khaled

That's what parole boards usually assume. Those who are charge with the administration of justice want to hear confession and contrition from the prisoner they consider releasing. But, oddly enough, some priests, who are in the confession and contrition business, forgive a transgression, in order to help the offender see the error of his ways. Punishment and rejection further alienate an already disaffected member of society; severe punishment can turn him into an active enemy of the existing structure. To imprison large numbers of disaffected men in harsh conditions for years on end is to build a hostile army in the very heart of one's nation.

The main point of eye for an eye is deterrence, if it doesn't do that, then what's the point? — khaled

The point is for the state to express the anger of the victims through formal procedures, rather than have them express it privately, which can lead to even worse outcomes.
But the law and law-enforcement agents do not confine themselves to stopping physical conflict among the population. It spends a good deal of its effort and resources on protecting property, safeguarding privilege and upholding social norms standards. The vast majority of law, both on the books and in the courts, concerns itself with matters unrelated to physical harm done by one person to another.

How bystanders and witnesses react is entirely personal - dependent on things like whether they are more afraid of the criminal or the police; whether they themselves have grudges and sympathies.

Forgiveness is of course the real virtue, but it is a much more complicated concept than it is often given credit for. — Tzeentch

It is also a very important part of recovery and rehabilitation - in the treatment of addiction, despair, depression, harms that stem from deeply held festering anger and resentment, in changing attitude and behaviour.
That doesn't mean it's simple or easy to achieve.

What does deserving something entail then? — khaled

To be clear: you do accept, do you, that 'Jane deserves X' does not mean the same as "We ought to give Jane X"? I mean, if you think those are synonymous claims, there's not much hope for us, as I take it to be self-evident that they are different. Wherein the difference lies is another matter. But if you think they're synonymous, then I think I can't debate with you as you're too far gone to be capable of help.

Not necessarily. They deserve a punishment comparable to being raped. Like multiple years in prison (whether or not that is actually comparable I am not sure). Which they get. — khaled

Er, I didn't say otherwise, did I?!?

Punishment, and severity of punishment have never stopped people breaking the law. — Vera Mont

I didn't say that having punishment guarantees a safe society, but it is a prerequisite. If you really believed this, then would you be fine with your state/country employing a "free crime zone" in your city specifically?

Punishment and rejection further alienate an already disaffected member of society; severe punishment can turn him into an active enemy of the existing structure. — Vera Mont

Sure, but the alternative is them running rampant. I'll take the punishment and rejection.

To imprison large numbers of disaffected men in harsh conditions for years on end is to build a hostile army in the very heart of one's nation. — Vera Mont

Better that army be behind walls than roaming around.

Huh, we got to the point of "I'm right you're wrong because it's self evident" quicker than usual this time...

Guess that's that then.

Most importantly it requires one to understand that unethical behavior always comes from a place of suffering — Tzeentch

Always? I'm curious where you got this. Not saying it's wrong, I don't know.

Always is a big word I probably shouldn't have used. I've never come across an instance where unethical behavior couldn't be explained through the suffering of the perpetrator.

There is "unethical" behavior that results from ignorance, but the nature of ignorance is such that, in my opinion, it requires a different label, different from unethical or immoral.

I've found (parts of) these ideas in Jungian psychology, Buddhism, Hermetic philosophy, Platonism, and probably a slew of other sources.

Unethical, criminal and unlawful are not interchangeable words. Much unethical activity is perfectly legal; in fact, it's sometimes committed by the very people who make, enforce and administer laws, and they are rarely punished. 'Criminal' is generally used to denote any act for which a person in convicted in a court of law, but I distinguish criminal behaviour from unlawful by the value of the law that's being enforced. Some laws are unnecessary; breaking them does no harm to society or other individuals, and some laws are just plain wrong; breaking them is the ethical thing to do.

I do not believe that humans - or any other social animal - would run around destroying their communities if not restrained by police truncheons and prison bars. I believe people are quite capable of forming social contracts that work with minimal coercion. Unless, of course, the contract so heavily favours one party that the other or others feel they cannot get what they need unless they take it by force.

And then, of course, human introduce a wild card that other animals don't have to contend with: the crazy-making factor. While other parents teach their young how to find food and avoid predators, human start lying to their young as soon as their eyes open - and the lies never stop. The width of the gap between perceived reality and internalized social fictions tends to determine the craziness of the individual, and the craziness, coupled with environmental circumstances, determines the type of unethical, criminal or illegal activity in which individual expresses his or her malaise.

Good points.

I wonder whether as societies grow larger, they are less able to take into consideration the needs of their individual members, because it seems as though the gap between reality and societal norms increases.

I wonder whether as societies grow larger, they are less able to take into consideration the needs of their individual members, because it seems as though the gap between reality and societal norms increases. — Tzeentch

The factors for increased policing seem (from historical evidence) to be: population numbers, social stratification, complexity and diversity.
Say a small tribe of nomadic herdsmen, in a time of drought, joins a larger tribe of settled agrarian people. They each had the code of law appropriate to their respective lifestyle, world-view, marital and social relations, concept of property, conflict resolution, etc. Now, they all have to live under agrarian law, with its emphasis on land ownership and inheritance, long-term planning, stability and security - which is far more restrictive than herding people are used to. There will be interpersonal conflicts and law-breaking and that will prompt the anxious farmers to demand more punitive enforcement, which engenders resentment in the minority, who feel they are treated unfairly, which prompts the young hot-heads among them to commit deliberate acts of defiance... and so it escalates.

'If' - my response contained the word 'if'. 'If' you think that "Jane deserves X" is synonymous with "we ought to give Jane X" then - then - you are clearly too confused to be worth debating.

I wonder whether as societies grow larger, they are less able to take into consideration the needs of their individual members, because it seems as though the gap between reality and societal norms increases. — Tzeentch

I think this has some truth in it. The larger a society gets the more potential for numerous various factions of minorities to develop. All with individual needs differing from those of the majority.
In a small close knit community, these are usually addressed and not that variable, everyone has a voice and knows eachother.

In a town there's likely to be some new emergent sects of society. In a city these are enhanced. On a global scale the variety of beliefs, cultures, lifestyles etc get more and more varied all the while the recognition of them, their voice, gets ever more drowned out.

I think societal norms are in competition with one another, they shift with popularity, trends, etc. The "mutation" of societal norms increases in a more volatile population and I reckon the volatility of that depends on sheer size and speed of communication.