[lbo-talk] The lex talionis: senseless reason

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 12 12:06:38 PDT 2005


"An eye for an eye" is actually a very sensible principle -- not "a life for an eye," but punishment proportional to the wrong. I realize retributivism (the idea that bad things should be done to people who have done bad things because of the bad things they have done) is widely regarded here by people who, when pushed, don't really believe it, as a barbaric principle that licenses bloodthirsty revenge, Dirty Harry violence, and the cruelties of the inquisition. That's wrong, but I don't want to get into that here. However, it is worth pointing out that a principle of retributivism (unlike the more humane consequentialist view . . .) is that only the guilty should be punished. So what is wrong with invoking the "eye for an eye" principle in the context of terrorist attacks is not that there is revenge or senseless violence being done, but that those harmed are innocent. That is, unless you buy the Ward Churchill line, on which I guess we area ll guilty, except for Ward. jks

--- Jim Devine <jdevine03 at gmail.com> wrote:


> On 7/12/05, Charles Brown wrote:
> > Principle of senseless violence that Americans
> might be familiar with, a
> > version of which principle may have been a
> senseless motive of the recent
> > London bombers:
> >
> > an eye for an eye
>
> was it Gandhi who said that "an eye for an eye makes
> one blind"?
> JD
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list