An Eye for an Eye?

[VioletVortex]

What do you think of the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy? I used to strongly embrace it and practically worship it, however, my views on it have gradually reversed themselves. I think that it is applicable in social instances. For example, if someone hits me, I hit them back. However, I don't think that it should ever be applied by authority (for example, the death penalty). If a friend were to hit me, I probably would not hit them back due to the positive relationship I had built with them in the past. However, I would treat an enemy in a manner even more vindictive than the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy. I don't think that there is any one universally applicable philosophy for justice, it's all fluid depending on the situation.

What do you think?

 

[Aštra’el]

Obviously it depends on the person and the circumstances.

Still, I often find myself in agreement with "blood must have blood".

 

[Onyx]

What do you think of the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy?

Many Satanists push the idea of Lex Talionis, but I believe keeping the crime rate low in this manner would have a direct impact on freedom of religion and philosophy. Whose book do you use to decide what's fair?

 

[VioletVortex]

Many Satanists push the idea of Lex Talionis, but I believe keeping the crime rate low in this manner would have a direct impact on freedom of religion and philosophy. Whose book do you use to decide what's fair?

I decide on my own what is and is not fair.

 

[Adramelek]

What do you think of the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy?

For me it depends on the severity of the wrongdoing. I prefer to forgive, but I never forget. Some things though are unforgivable and do require employment of the Lex Talionis principle, such as if someone were to physically harm or murder a close friend or loved one. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Satanist!"

 

[Adramelek]

The original context of "an eye for an eye" wasn't "you must (or should) take an eye for an eye," but rather, "retaliation (justice) should be limited to any eye for an eye." Or, "only an eye for an eye."

Just something to consider.

As I stated I usually prefer to forgive, but I never forget a wrong doing or its perpetrator. However, the Setian/Satanist is not one to simply turn the other cheek; there are some instances where the LaVeyan principle "If a man smites you on one cheek, smash him on the other" is quite appropriate and justified, at least in my book.

 

[Iti oj]

I gain nothing of value by taking an eye. I find that approach weak and short sighted.


Gosh I think I missed a possible pun

 

[Adramelek]

I gain nothing of value by taking an eye. I find that approach weak and short sighted.


Gosh I think I missed a possible pun

Perhaps the taking of an eye is a short sighted, one eyed approach?

 

[Iti oj]

Perhaps the taking of an eye is a short sighted, one eyed approach?

The results might blind side you

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is a LHP DIR. If you aren't LHP, this isn't your place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I really don't agree with eye for an eye. If we lived by such hard rules of vengeance, we would have no time for enjoying life if we saw to it that we punished everyone who offends us. And when the offense is severe enough to pursue, the severity of vengeance is also very circumstantial. An impoverished mother stealing food to feed her children is obviously a very different scenario than a bored rich kid stealing novelties for amusement, even though it is still the same crime of theft. But when the time for vengeance is appropriate, I do believe in first a "warning shot," and then destruction after that. But, even that is still circumstantial - such as, it doesn't matter how much someone wronged you, breaking up a family and harming children is not a worthwhile goal.

 

[Quintessence]

*** MOD POST ***

A number of posts in this thread have been removed as per Rule 10. Please remember this is a DIR area.​

 

[Willamena]

What do you think of the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy? I used to strongly embrace it and practically worship it, however, my views on it have gradually reversed themselves. I think that it is applicable in social instances. For example, if someone hits me, I hit them back. However, I don't think that it should ever be applied by authority (for example, the death penalty). If a friend were to hit me, I probably would not hit them back due to the positive relationship I had built with them in the past. However, I would treat an enemy in a manner even more vindictive than the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy. I don't think that there is any one universally applicable philosophy for justice, it's all fluid depending on the situation.

What do you think?

I think it's childish.

Why did you used to embrace it?

 

[Parchment]

This is a LHP DIR. If you aren't LHP, this isn't your place.

Interesting, I am LHP

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Interesting, I am LHP

Many of the posts on this thread were from members who aren't.

 

[Parchment]

Many of the posts on this thread were from members who aren't.

My post was deleted as well, no prob- took it up with Q.

 

[Sutekh]

What do you think of the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy? I used to strongly embrace it and practically worship it, however, my views on it have gradually reversed themselves. I think that it is applicable in social instances. For example, if someone hits me, I hit them back. However, I don't think that it should ever be applied by authority (for example, the death penalty). If a friend were to hit me, I probably would not hit them back due to the positive relationship I had built with them in the past. However, I would treat an enemy in a manner even more vindictive than the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy. I don't think that there is any one universally applicable philosophy for justice, it's all fluid depending on the situation.

What do you think?

I've always adhered and agreed to the Church of Satan's standpoint of an "eye for an eye." However I wouldn't necessarily strike a person literally, I would simply do a destruction ritual against that person. Magick may not quite work within the OU to be precise. But it all depends on ones responsibility the way they handle things. In my opinion I wouldn't necessarily care if for example you choose to strike or destroy a person literally. You are simply responsible for your actions and you simply accept the consequences. I don't necessarily believe in morals. I believe that it is ones choice they way he or she acts.

 

[Sutekh]

Obviously it depends on the person and the circumstances.

Still, I often find myself in agreement with "blood must have blood".

Agreed.

 

[ScottySatan]

I say do what suits ya'

 

[Parchment]

I say it depends on the circumstances and what you are prepared to handle legally if it came down to some type of charges against you, that being said there are many people sitting in prisons that thought they were going to "get away with it" so be smart and choose/ implement your revenges wisely. If someone literally took your eye I think it would be logical to take their head to prevent further retaliation and you would be justified in my eyes but that isn't how the real world works in most places.