The Golden rule or 'eye for an eye?'

[Kolibri]

Then there is the 'heaping coals' verse from Paul, which would turn all that into deceit. But I don't really believe Paul was the spokesman of Jesus since things like that pop up, and they seem so discordant with passages like the one who quoted above. Maybe something to analyze in another thread.

The "heaping coal" verse was not about doing someone harm. It was a smelting reference of bring out the good in people through our good acts. We in effect soften the person and melt his hardness.

"But 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.' Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good." - Romans 12:20,21

In this, Paul was quoting Proverbs 25:21,22. Not out of harmony with Jesus' words at all.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Well, 'eye for an eye' is a metaphor for an equal exchange, you see that right? It is not head for an eye, but eye for an eye. You steal my coat, you go to court and pay up for a new coat. Not a new coat, hat, boots, scarf, etc.

It doesn't have to be like that and you shouldn't pluck out their eye because they took your eye. That's the thing you end up being just as brutal and vicious as the criminal. We shouldn't do that because good people are supposed to be better than that. One who does that should be punished through the judicial system or at least try to.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It doesn't have to be like that and you shouldn't pluck out their eye because they took your eye. That's the thing you end up being just as brutal and vicious as the criminal. We shouldn't do that because good people are supposed to be better than that. One who does that should be punished through the judicial system or at least try to.

Except I'd argue that is a variation of eye for an eye, if you feel the judicial justice is proportionate. You put them in prison, they'll never see the sunset again. So long as punishment of any kind is inflicted or sought for the perpetrator, you are working away from the Golden rule I think, because that doesn't work to devise external punishment on the criminals. With the golden rule you'd pay back the bad action with love of some kind.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Except I'd argue that is a variation of eye for an eye, if you feel the judicial justice is proportionate. You put them in prison, they'll never see the sunset again. So long as punishment of any kind is inflicted or sought for the perpetrator, you are working away from the Golden rule I think, because that doesn't work to devise external punishment on the criminals. With the golden rule you'd pay back the bad action with love of some kind.

The Golden Rule shows that you should treat others on how you would want to be treated. If all you did was just forgive the criminal constantly over and over, they would continue to do what they want because no one is going to stop them. Self defense is natural and criminals should be in a position where they shouldn't hurt more innocents. Otherwise if you have the power to stop the criminal and let them continue, you're responsible because the lives they take are lives you could have saved. You never heard of community service? Not all criminals are stuck in a hole with no sunlight ever again. They even go outside but still within the prison.

Personally if it was me, I'd rather banish them from every society and they'd live on their own. I wouldn't want them dead, not even the most awful of people but I wouldn't want to imprison them either. Unfortunately it's not as practical to banish someone as it was back then. but one isn't being unfair be sending them to prison and they wouldn't stay in forever as it really depends on their crime. It's not like they didn't know what they were doing. They knew and didn't care.

 

[Nietzsche]

Not sure what you mean by that, but reciprocity is rewarding a positive action with positive action, but negative action wouldn't be rewarded as such. The Golden Rule would have one reward all actions positively, even if someone treats you poorly you must still treat them the way you'd wish they'd rather do unto you.

This guy.

 

[1137]

There seem to be two major complaints when it comes to "eye for an eye". A common one is that the "whole world would go blind", which is - as most common sayings - quite silly. I, for example, have never stabbed someone in the eye. I have never touched someone against their will. I have never stolen, broken, vandalized... my eyes are going to be just fine. Those who have, well, maybe they'll commit less crimes when they cannot see. The other common one is that it could be disastrous in the wrong hands. While true, the same can be said of almost anything, and really does not damage the ideology.

The problem with eye-vs-eye and the golden rule is that they are pretty much extremes, and I don't think they were meant to be. When you meet someone, give them a neutral respect, a fair chance. No matter what piercings, necklaces, tattoos, clothes, etc., they have on. However, respect can certainly (and easily be lost) and once that happens the golden rule does not work anymore. To always treat others as we wish to be treated causes a great imbalance and seems almost unnatural. It is a good baseline, but it ignores what to do to those who break the rule. Everyone follows the rule, then sure maybe it works - yet that is an impossibility. An eye for an eye is the punishment for those who break the rule.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

"Eye for an eye" may have been useful in preventing intertribal vendetta amongst bronze age goatherds, but in today's society it's problematic.
The craving for it, however, remains deeply ensconced in the human psyche.

I was reading the thread thinking 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' sound neither just nor vengeful; merely prescriptive. Then reading your post I think I agree. It is useless as justice and disgusting as vengeance. It seems it would serve perfectly to prescribe the price to be paid, no more no less, to prevent the every present threat of genocide.

What disgusting condescension.

And how does one NOT condescend to stone-age primates?

 

[Nietzsche]

What disgusting condescension.

Get off your high horse. 'Eye for an eye' and similar laws all tend to show up once a society reaches both a certain size & technological level. The Germanics had an extremely similar practice, albeit because of the general scarcity of them(that is, their numbers) it's "An eye for a gold". It was called "Wergeld", literally translating to "Man-Gold", though a more accurate translation(in the spirit of the law) would be "punitive damages".

 

[Falvlun]

Now for the Golden rule, this maxim is not bedded in logic, nor is it a method of reciprocity. It does however, find its sturdiest ground as an educational outreach, a bypass and claimant of higher civilization. Cold reciprocity can be bypassed it argues, if but the offender may be educated, incited to think or ruminate. Basically this incitement to ruminate is set to achieve two things, an ethical win-over of offending parties, and a societal turnover via the ancient reciprocal justice that can be done away with, cause and effect to broken down in a quadratic equation of brotherly love. So the argument is one of bypass, that learning can occur in conscious beings, in spite of wrongs but at the behest of greater consciousness, allowing for an expanded ability to circumvent natural reciprocity.

Not sure what you mean by that, but reciprocity is rewarding a positive action with positive action, but negative action wouldn't be rewarded as such. The Golden Rule would have one reward all actions positively, even if someone treats you poorly you must still treat them the way you'd wish they'd rather do unto you.

I disagree that the Golden Rule isn't embedded in logic or as a method of reciprocity.

Let's tackle logic first. How is it not logical to think "Hey, if I do bad things to Frank, then it's more likely that Frank will end up doing bad things to me? Maybe if I treat Frank how I'd like to be treated, then Frank will treat me that way too." Kantian ethics is essentially founded upon such a thought process: Kant's "categorical imperative" states that for any action to be permissible, it must also be permissible to all of humanity, without exception or contradiction. Essentially, lying is not permissible because if everyone lied then no one could ever expect the truth, and a society without trust would eventually collapse. You can agree or disagree with Kant, but you can't deny that there is logic to such an approach.

As for reciprocity, I see the Golden Rule as a natural extension of reciprocal altruism, which is natural behavior for various animals. Reciprocal altruism is "I will share my extra berries with you this time, because next time, I might not have enough and you will share yours with me." It is not a great leap of thinking "I will do this, so that you will do that" to "I will do this in hopes that my example will lead you to do this too."

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The Golden Rule shows that you should treat others on how you would want to be treated. If all you did was just forgive the criminal constantly over and over, they would continue to do what they want because no one is going to stop them. Self defense is natural and criminals should be in a position where they shouldn't hurt more innocents. Otherwise if you have the power to stop the criminal and let them continue, you're responsible because the lives they take are lives you could have saved. You never heard of community service? Not all criminals are stuck in a hole with no sunlight ever again. They even go outside but still within the prison.

Personally if it was me, I'd rather banish them from every society and they'd live on their own. I wouldn't want them dead, not even the most awful of people but I wouldn't want to imprison them either. Unfortunately it's not as practical to banish someone as it was back then. but one isn't being unfair be sending them to prison and they wouldn't stay in forever as it really depends on their crime. It's not like they didn't know what they were doing. They knew and didn't care.

Banishing the criminals was actually part of the Bible somewhere, I think in the OT there was a spot where they said to build 3 towns for criminals somewhere, which seems like an awful lot. But I digress, I think the basic reaction in what you are describing does treat the social violators less in a Golden rule kind of way, I will explain: because you are calling for society to impart a reaction in the form of punishment, on some level, as a reaction. Now the golden rule doesn't necessarily impart that kind of reaction to all violators of its own law. Unless you are saying that if you were hypothetically the criminal, you would want the punishment that incurs the full payment of the crime, like say if I hypothetically stole someone's package of gum, I'd hypothetically think it would be just if they were to take mine. Thus in that sense, a sentence is pronounced thought to be just out of abstract self-reflection, and the golden rule becomes eye for an eye.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The problem with eye-vs-eye and the golden rule is that they are pretty much extremes, and I don't think they were meant to be. When you meet someone, give them a neutral respect, a fair chance. No matter what piercings, necklaces, tattoos, clothes, etc., they have on. However, respect can certainly (and easily be lost) and once that happens the golden rule does not work anymore. To always treat others as we wish to be treated causes a great imbalance and seems almost unnatural. It is a good baseline, but it ignores what to do to those who break the rule. Everyone follows the rule, then sure maybe it works - yet that is an impossibility. An eye for an eye is the punishment for those who break the rule.

That makes more sense. So in other words a person should start from the Golden rule, or better, and go from there depending on what happens. Unless of course, we'd want to be treated justly if we acted poorly.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Let's tackle logic first. How is it not logical to think "Hey, if I do bad things to Frank, then it's more likely that Frank will end up doing bad things to me? Maybe if I treat Frank how I'd like to be treated, then Frank will treat me that way too."

It has occurred to me that the 'logical' plane in regards to this might even be more neutral than that. There is a narrow way you could treat others that neither caters to them in trying to earn respect, or hurts them in any way. The world is such that you may be better being on the defensive in such a manner, since I don't really know Frank, he may be ready to walk on me, then again maybe not. You see, I'd have to know Frank before I could understand how he'd perceive and how I'd perceive our interactions in whatever situation that beset us.

 

[Nietzsche]

It has occurred to me that the 'logical' plane in regards to this might even be more neutral than that. There is a narrow way you could treat others that neither caters to them in trying to earn respect, or hurts them in any way. The world is such that you may be better being on the defensive in such a manner, since I don't really know Frank, he may be ready to walk on me, then again maybe not. You see, I'd have to know Frank before I could understand how he'd perceive and how I'd perceive our interactions in whatever situation that beset us.

I'm pretty sure you just described how 'manners' were invented in about three or so sentences.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As for reciprocity, I see the Golden Rule as a natural extension of reciprocal altruism, which is natural behavior for various animals. Reciprocal altruism is "I will share my extra berries with you this time, because next time, I might not have enough and you will share yours with me." It is not a great leap of thinking "I will do this, so that you will do that" to "I will do this in hopes that my example will lead you to do this too."

Yes you see, but I've never heard of the term 'reciprocal altruism.' That could be what it is, but if so, it escapes ordinary logic and reciprocity, which is all I was trying to outline in the OP. That creating this behavior that then signifies a locus of expectations out of other parties takes things a step farther in the realms of "building respect." I don't know how often animals really build respect with each other, or if all humans even respect respect.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm pretty sure you just described how 'manners' were invented in about three or so sentences.

I don't know, maybe. Actually I'm thinking it might be even more neutral than that, what I'm trying to describe. To have 'manners' is already stepping toward a realm wedded to a socio-ethical framework, like the Golden rule. What I'm talking about is the logic in being not anti-social but post-social. You're not trying to impress Frank in any way, in fact you are trying to give Frank no impression at all.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The "heaping coal" verse was not about doing someone harm. It was a smelting reference of bring out the good in people through our good acts. We in effect soften the person and melt his hardness.

It certainly seems unusual, but I had thought it was a reference to some kind of afterlife punishment instead of a metaphor about a guilt trip. Maybe I'll check the greek on that.

 

[1137]

That makes more sense. So in other words a person should start from the Golden rule, or better, and go from there depending on what happens. Unless of course, we'd want to be treated justly if we acted poorly.

Pretty much, though I am not sure I understand what you mean in that last sentence.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Pretty much, though I am not sure I understand what you mean in that last sentence.

I meant that upon reflection, and with the golden rule as one's standard, one would want a level of punishment if they did something to deserve it. And that level of punishment we might reflect, might be the full payment or greater for whatever it is that hypothetically reflecting person did.

 

[Kolibri]

It certainly seems unusual, but I had thought it was a reference to some kind of afterlife punishment instead of a metaphor about a guilt trip. Maybe I'll check the greek on that.

I realized I cited the wrong book and went back to my post and fixed it. Here is the passage Paul was quoting in Proverbs.

If your enemy (Lit., "the one hating you.") is hungry, give him bread to eat;
If he is thirsty, give him water to drink,
For you will be heaping burning coals on his head,
And Jehovah will reward you.
- Proverbs 25:21,22

This principle is highlighted in the command given in Ex 23:5 and Jesus' words at Mt 5:44.


I am not sure though if it is for the purpose of a 'guilt trip'. More that it pleases God and perhaps the hateful attitude will genuinely soften towards us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Eye for an eye" may have been useful in preventing intertribal vendetta amongst bronze age goatherds, ...

What disgusting condescension.

Get off your high horse.

Why would rise to the defense of such dismissive and condescending characterizations?

'Eye for an eye' and similar laws all tend to show up once a society reaches both a certain size & technological level.

As did the Romans. (In fact, I suspect that the Rabbinic interpretation of ayin tachat ayin was informed by Roman law.) Where have I ever suggested otherwise?

The Germanics had an extremely similar practice, albeit because of the general scarcity of them(that is, their numbers) it's "An eye for a gold". It was called "Wergeld", literally translating to "Man-Gold", though a more accurate translation(in the spirit of the law) would be "punitive damages".

Can you offer an English source on "Wergeld"? I'd be curious to know when and where it evolved. I'd be particularly interested in the extent to which its introduction was more a function of Roman influence than some organic development.