"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
debate in against
quality content needed
best answer will get a brainliest
Answers
Explanation:
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind — as said by Gandhi. Should we go for the eye to equalize everything or just let it go for the sake of the world? But first, what does it actually mean?
Revenge is often regarded as brutal thought for human mindset but proper compensation and reimbursement for the loss is seen as justice. Christianity and many eastern philosophies believe in the concept of justice to the sufferer by giving the exact same suffering to the guilty i.e. ‘‘life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’’ Isn’t it just if the sufferer gets proportional revenge from the guilty on the grounds decided by the society?
The law also has a sense of equality which means that an eye of a peasant is equal to the eye of a king. There shouldn’t be any difference while following this law of retributive justice. Retributive Justice is the concept to take revenge for and on behalf of the sufferer, proportionally from the guilty or the unjust. When we talk about proportionality, many obvious rules come into the picture. For example, if a person kills someone’s daughter, then the father should go for the killer and not the killer’s daughter. Another reference would be, if two mischievous people hit in the eye of a person then the sufferer doesn’t have any right to hit the eyes of both. Rather more proportional mean should be looked up.
Many may argue that killing a murderer will make you a murderer as well. Is it same to kill an innocent and a murderer? Of course not. In order to avoid any further crime, we need to punish the guilty. The most appropriate punishment for an eye would be, an eye. Then why shouldn’t we go for it?