GUYS IAM HAVING AN ONLINE DEBATE ON MONDAY
AND THE TOPIC IS ' AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND
AND I NEED TO SUPPORT THIS TOPIC
PLEASE HELP MY DEAR FRIENDS
Answers
Answer:
AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND
IN SUPPORT OF THE TOPIC
Explanation:
ITS QUITE LONG ENJOY READING
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?
The answer lies within the humanitarian morals. No one has any right to decide on someone else’s life. By killing someone, let be any innocent or a murderer, you are taking that sin (not in a religious sense) on you. You are free to decide on your actions and consequences but will never have the authority over others. Having the authority of other beings was a cruel connect of the past. Most common examples for this would be slavery and parenthood. We are more aware and evolved now. Parents do not expect any right on their children and even if they try, children revolt. Similarly, even when we are trying to do just to the victim, have no right to exert power over others.
A musician cannot make anyone lack the ability in music. A painter cannot make anyone unlearn how to pain. Then how can someone who ’s just, do unjustly to the culprit? That’s why many human rights supporters continuously fight against the death penalty. By deal penalty, we are not improving the condition of the sufferer in any manner. Neither we are contributing towards the well being of anyone. It just provides satisfaction to the sufferer for a very short amount of time.
The loss faced by the is no less. When it comes to an individual, he will always be on the side of getting proportional revenge. One can simply argue on other’s suffering but on one’s self, there is no point. By consensus, it makes it very obvious that the method of an eye for an eye is very much valid and should be followed by the society to ensure compensation for the sufferer and punishment for the guilty. And it won’t make you any cruel to kill someone who himself is a killer. This is the most appropriate step to be the just towards the sufferer, providing him with the surety that anyone who did wrong to them, have faced the same degree of suffering. Killing a killer can never reduce the number of killers in the world. On the other hand, Justice is to be served in the most appropriate manner. It is not on me to decide on, it is not on you as well. It is the matter of the society where we live in, which is handled by the law which we collectively decided. To rethink and to amend we are ones to come up and raise our voice. But we ourselves are in a dilemma on which side should we choose. Leaving you here on the question, ‘‘ Will an eye for an eye can really make the whole blind?’’