The Golden rule or 'eye for an eye?'

[Nietzsche]

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.

Wikipedia has a pretty decent overview of the concept, honestly.

Ancient Germanic Law

The key differences between Hebrew/Judaic Law & the Germanic is in how the debt is repaid, which makes sense. If memory serves(I am just waking up, if I'm wrong call me out) there was not much in the way of liquid wealth in Judaic society. It was nigh-all in animals, slaves, grain, clothing and such. Therefore a 'Wergeld' system simply wouldn't work, it is after all very difficult to decide the price of a man in goats or in fabric.

On the flip side, liquid wealth was extremely common in Germanic societies. They were traders & merchants first and foremost, after all.

 

[Sees]

Wikipedia has a pretty decent overview of the concept, honestly.

Ancient Germanic Law

The key differences between Hebrew/Judaic Law & the Germanic is in how the debt is repaid, which makes sense. If memory serves(I am just waking up, if I'm wrong call me out) there was not much in the way of liquid wealth in Judaic society. It was nigh-all in animals, slaves, grain, clothing and such. Therefore a 'Wergeld' system simply wouldn't work, it is after all very difficult to decide the price of a man in goats or in fabric.

On the flip side, liquid wealth was extremely common in Germanic societies. They were traders & merchants first and foremost, after all.

It was in Celtic law also, pre-Roman influence.

 

[Nietzsche]

It was in Celtic law also, pre-Roman influence.

I think the Celt variant was based more on labour than liquid wealth. I may be wrong on that, but the Celts were surprisingly isolationist when compared to their neighbours.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The key differences between Hebrew/Judaic Law & the Germanic is in how the debt is repaid, which makes sense. If memory serves(I am just waking up, if I'm wrong call me out) there was not much in the way of liquid wealth in Judaic society.

It was in Celtic law also, pre-Roman influence.

According the lecturer around 11:30, the wergeld was like a 'sliding scale tariff.' He thinks, I think, that you paid the gold or silver if you could, but otherwise you couldn't squeeze anything out of a turnip. Plus you'd still have to depend on your tribe or closer kin to keep protecting you from vengeance.

As for the Celts, according to some source I'm now struggling to find, there was some very early Celtic figure turned Christian who rebelled against some kind of initiation right involving receiving their 1st sword and actually killing with it, I think. That's a far cry from 'eye for an eye' if that's true, and probably would reflect a tribal period where there is not so much peace. Don't quote me on that though, but I know I read about that in some legend or history somewhere a long time ago.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wikipedia has a pretty decent overview of the concept, honestly.

Ancient Germanic Law

That was interesting. Thanks.

I had originally said: "I'd be particularly interested in the extent to which its introduction was more a function of Roman influence than some organic development." How would you respond?

 

[Nietzsche]

That was interesting. Thanks.

I had originally said: "I'd be particularly interested in the extent to which its introduction was more a function of Roman influence than some organic development." How would you respond?

...

I completely missed that somehow, my bad. Sorry.

It is hard to tell, honestly. The problem was that while the Germanic peoples had written languages, they tended to be written on wood, which simply don't last very long, and because of that the first solid mentions of something like the Wergeld is indeed after the Romans started pushing in to Magna Germania. However, I would add that the earliest Roman documents mentioning it compare it to their own(Roman) system. Which would mean the two were developed independently, and due to similarities slowly melded into the basis for European law, period(the biggest individual one of course being Salic Law).

 

[Falvlun]

Yes you see, but I've never heard of the term 'reciprocal altruism.'

In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

From the Wiki on Reciprocal altruism. Now you've heard of it.

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.

What is "ordinary logic and reciprocity"? Reciprocity literally can't mean anything but "I'll do this for you if you do this for me". That is precisely what "reciprocal altruism" is, as seen in the animal kingdom.

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.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

You are claiming that we can never make generalizations about people or behavior. This is manifestly false. We make assumptions about how people will behave all the time. We are not worried that random people will punch us when we walk by them, because we know that humans generally just don't punch people when they are unprovoked. I do not need to know Frank specifically to know that he is unlikely to punch me if I do not provoke him. Likewise, I do not need to know Frank personally, to know that humans generally will be nicer to you if you are nicer to them.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think the problem is in applying that rule. Someone gets their eye taken, their people know about the rule and go find who did it and take their eye just the way they personally think appropriate, the other side comes back for revenge... You can imagine how it would go then.

Rules aren't suppose to be applied by bystanders or anyone goes, there must be law keepers to look into them and apply them, investigation, referring to the victim (may be they would forgive or take other compensations), etc.

Also, eye for an eye does not mean real eyes, it means an equal compensation. In my beliefs, even killing can be compensated with money or even complete pardon.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In general, the "golden rule" is a good way to live. If you want to be respected, then treat others with respect. But that only goes so far. If someone goes out of their way to hurt you, it's okay to redress your grievance, but within bounds. So it's situational.

 

[psychoslice]

I always thought that the so called golden rule was, "do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Falvlun]

I always thought that the so called golden rule was, "do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

It is. The OP was about two different ethical methodologies: "Eye for an eye" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (the Golden Rule)".

 

[Nietzsche]

It is. The OP was about two different ethical methodologies: "Eye for an eye" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (the Golden Rule)".

Technically speaking, there's no real conflict there. One is passive(you doing unto others) the other is a response(eye for an eye). One is to try & prevent the latter, the other is to deal with those who ignore the former.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Also, eye for an eye does not mean real eyes, it means an equal compensation.

Right, that's how I look at that as well. It's a metaphor. A lot of people though don't really get it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What is "ordinary logic and reciprocity"? Reciprocity literally can't mean anything but "I'll do this for you if you do this for me". That is precisely what "reciprocal altruism" is, as seen in the animal kingdom.

Ok, in any case the Golden rule suggests that a violator of the reciprocity might not be charged with a full penalty. It is 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', with no matter what others you encounter as the leaning.

. I do not need to know Frank specifically to know that he is unlikely to punch me if I do not provoke him. Likewise, I do not need to know Frank personally, to know that humans generally will be nicer to you if you are nicer to them.

Listen, if you time warp me back to the time of the nazis and I am dressed like a hippie, all bets are off. Frank might see me and try to imprison me or call for backup no matter what I do. If you time warp me back to the time of the cavemen, all bets are also off. If I'm walking around somewhere 10,000 years ago, I have no idea how people are going to treat me or perceive my mannerisms. Frank might see me and try to club a fat 20th century American for a snack. Take Star Trek. Now how many times did they assume the anthropoid aliens were friendly and only landed to get in trouble?

 

[Kolibri]

Ok, in any case the Golden rule suggests that a violator of the reciprocity might not be charged with a full penalty. It is 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', with no matter what others you encounter as the leaning.

It seems to me that the Golden Rule is a rule for personal interactions. "Eye for and eye" is a rule for judicial actions- for those times when the offense makes it to the courts where there should be no room for partiality or bribes.

 

[Adramelek]

I always try to strive towards the "Golden Rule", however, there are always exceptions to the Rule and vengeance, sometimes, becomes necessary. It is the Way of the Warrior.

 

[Falvlun]

Technically speaking, there's no real conflict there. One is passive(you doing unto others) the other is a response(eye for an eye). One is to try & prevent the latter, the other is to deal with those who ignore the former.

You could combine them into a single ethical method, but I think they are usually presented as contrasting options.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I always try to strive towards the "Golden Rule", however, there are always exceptions to the Rule and vengeance, sometimes, becomes necessary. It is the Way of the Warrior.

Except that like Smart_Guy said, Eye for an Eye isn't about vengeance.

 

[Adramelek]

Except that like Smart_Guy said, Eye for an Eye isn't about vengeance.

"Eye for an Eye" is about justice, so to me, is revenge.