That's justice. An equivalent evil upon the wrongdoer as punishment for his wrongdoing. It balances the equation.
Because there's too many idiots in the world that think they can get away with it, or are better than other people.
There is no 'equation' floating in the sky or underneath the earth somewhere. It doesn't make anything 'better'. Its just adds more pain to the earth. You think people who are born prone to violence and cruelty will be dissauded because of threat of punishment?? This man was a stalker, they are obsessive and single minded, they do not (generally) think rationally enough to consider the consequences. All punishing somebody 'exactly' in return does is make you take on the ugliness of the person you are punishing. Why would you let them lessen you further? The world becomes better when people become better. If the perpetrator cannot do this then it is up to the victim.
The equation referred to is particular to the situation. Blindness by acid = blindness by acid. Like a=a. There's no baser logic. Everyone's born prone to violence. Even though all events happen unalterably, indeterminable by our imaginary catalysts, we perceive only parts and must live as if choice exists. if evil should not be rewarded with evil but treated with indifference then likewise good. But you do not and can not do as you advise. You act as if your actions are important, like I do, like we all do.
Are you saying everybody is EQUALLY prone to violence? Because that simply isn't true. People are born with different intensities of instinct, different psychologies. Morally justying eye for eye punishment based on dissuasion is wrong because it doesn't work. Justifying it based on an abstraction of an 'equation', even if its 'localized' is still an abstraction. Your'e right though, there is no 'baser logic', dealing with these issues in this way is precisely 'base'. Why does the equation have to be equal anyway? This is still an appeal to some metaphysical realm. Why do we consider equations in moral events more important than what is actual and effectual? Pain is not an abstraction, in simply 'doubles' with this kind of punishment. While I agree with what you say about choice, I find the rest confusing: I am not advocating being indifferent to 'evil'. I am advocating honouring yourself before honouring some impersonal abstraction, or worse yet, before the person who has wronged you.
Wow, that sucks for the lady. I would hate to lose one of my senses, most of all sight. I would rather lose hearing than sight. I agree though, that the man should also be blinded by acid. I prefer countries that go by the "eye for an eye" rule instead of just throwing the criminal in jail for a few years with no change. That man has to feel the pain that he gave to someone else. Also, to the above arguments: stop arguing... it gets nowhere.... trust me... just search up a topic of "What color is your blood?" And if someone commits evil and is sentenced to the same act. It isn't evil, it's justice. He pays the exact same price as the person he stole from.
Smoothbore, I don't advocate equal punishment as an end in itself. If someone doesn't want to harm who has harmed him so be it. I was writing everyone's equally capable of violence, not prone. A cripple might struggle to inflict injury but it's the attitude regarding violence I reference. In explanation of the bit you quoted, it'd be an irrational double-standard to say "It is good to feed the homeless and evil to beat them with a cane. We should reward charitable people who feed the homeless and do nothing to brutes who beat the homeless." If good should be met with good then the reverse must also be true: evil should be met with evil.
'Ameneh Bahrami refused to accept "blood money." She insisted instead that her attacker suffer a fate similar to her own "so people like him would realize they do not have the right to throw acid in girls' faces," she told the Tehran Provincial Court.' AMEN to this woman. Sometimes I think this thing should be returned, would give people a reason not to do things. Oh noes i lost money, shoot : ( This might give people a reason not to do things. People are prone to violence depending on what their surroundings are. When people are around violent people, they become more violent. That is why people raised in slums or ghettos, known for violence, are often more violent. not always, though. idk. i sure as hell wouldn't throw acid in someone's face if i thought the same thing would happen to me. because things are based of equal principals. If someone stole all your money, wouldn't you want to be recompensated by obtaining all your money back? Would you find it fair if they stole ten grand and you only got five grand back? The problem comes when we start putting value to things that have no value.How valuable are eyes? Can you really put a monetary value on something like eyesight? So in that way, yes, it is hard to give equality without the eye for eye system, which is crude and outdated in today's society.
Nor am I advocating that any action you do as retribution, (or any action for that matter) is inherently immoral or wrong. I just find the conceptual satisfaction 'eye for an eye' as justified by some metaphysical balance to be 'incorrect' or at least illusory. I disagree here. There is even physiological evidence that shows some people have very little self control when it comes to violent acts. But the argument here isn't even a moral one necessarily, I simply make the point that most likely the people that perform brutal violent acts are probably the least likely to be influenced by dissuassive structures or precedents of punishment. Capital punishment in states where it is employed generally do not show any reduction in violent crime. If KuraiKozo says he wouldn't throw acid if that was the punishment its because he's not the kind of person who would throw acid in someone's face in the first place. Would you Kurai? What's stopping you? Can't find any acid? I never said good or charitable acts are worthy, or need reward. What is good is worthy in itself. I have no prescriptions of how to judge or react to evil or good acts. Again I simply warn against this mechanical moralizing of reverses and opposites and false equivalencies. Why must good be met with good? Why must the reverse be true? Why not false or simply irrelevant? Might we try something like "evil should be met with good, and good should be met with evil" because it is balanced and equivalent? You might call it a double standard and irrational to say, "It is wrong to throw acid in someones face, lets throw acid in people's faces that do." But you justify it with an appeal to an abstract equivalency. The problem is that not only is this illusory, but contradictory. The right you take when you assume the role of punisher is one of moral superiority. Superiority in this sense destroys anything to do with equivalency with the person you are punishing. You are not equals any more, but supposedly better than your potential victim. When you punish in the same fashion as your transgressor- cruelly- you relinquish any moral 'right' you ever had to punish them in the first place. If you show a modicum of mercy, compassion, or restrainst -even the slightest, you will have proven yourself worthy of your condescension. The problem is I think we will still think highly of the women and terribly of the stalker after the punishment has been followed through. If everything is supposed to be 'equalized' after this act, shouldn't we think equally of these two people as well?
