-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reciprocity
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
To determine if something "works" one must first establish the goal or intent of said work. Otherwise, the answer is not particularly meaningful as it always becomes "yes" provided the dictum is carried out.
Does an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth result in positive reinforcement? love?
Thank you for buttering my bread.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
"An eye for an eye," was meant as a limitation, not an imperative. In other words, "only an eye for an eye," instead of "somebody takes your eye so you slaughter their whole village."
So, taking this into account, then the concept of "an eye for an eye," is a good idea for attempting to limit or contain violence and vengeance.
So, taking this into account, then the concept of "an eye for an eye," is a good idea for attempting to limit or contain violence and vengeance.
Last edited:
Per what I was taught in various psychology coursework back in the day...
- Positive Reinforcement - a mode of behavioral conditioning aimed at increasing frequency of a behavior by providing the organism with a reward when the desired behavior is practiced
As for "love" - such a vague and nebulous word means I could not say. Some would say yes, some would say no. "Tough love" is a thing some people practice or believe in.
Um... what?
containing doesn't require a reciprocal action. simply containing, or time out. change the mind, change the matter. correcting is not the same as punishing. one is a negative reinforcement.
no one graduates to the next grade; without grasping the material. rote memorization isn't going to function in real world change. it has to become adaptive to evolve.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Logically true, but not a realistic view of human beings.
an education, instruction, is evolution in consciousness; like life skills, career skills, social skills, et al.
Exodus 21:23-25 states God's Law to Israel: "But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow." This was done by judicial action by Israel's judges, not personal revenge. I believe it would be a powerful deterrent to know that if you willfully injured another person, you would be injured the same way. To me, this Law is far superior to modern laws that let criminals escape punishment for maiming and killing.
basically aversion type therapy.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
And yet if one believes in the Christian god, one must accept the fact that he supposedly forgives all the time instead of dispensing such exact justice
allfoak
Alchemist
It is an expression of the Law of Cause and Effect.
As is the entire OT.
justice isn't about exacting revenge. it's about creating balance. this is the reason the balance is held higher than the sword. the sword is also double-edged because it cuts both ways. defense is allowable, offense isn't.
Robert Vincelette
Member
If the threat deters an aggressor who would still commit aggression if he/she could get away with it it accomplished nothing more than temporary self-defense and its effect is dependent on who has the power to get what they want solely by force. Kant pointed this out in the difference between the categorical imperative, that is, to treat others as ends unto themselves according to their intrinsic dignity and this does not require threats or force to get people to live that way, and the hypothetical imperative which dictates that you do whatever you have to do to get along, paying attention to adventitious incentives which make everyone you deal with merely means to your desired ends.
Vancouversailor
Member
The answer depends on where you live.
In the United States, with its ultra-liberal gun laws, record setting murders every day, capital punishment, and unprecedented crime rates, I have the impression that most practicing Christians, particularly the so called evangelicals, never ever bother to look at the New Testament. It is too lovy lovy fuzzy wuzzy for them, so grab the old testament and get ready to shoot em up, chop off some heads, curse people forever, cut off various body parts, and/or put them in jail and throw away the keys, and it has made the day of that so-called Christian. In Europe on the other hand, it is common for Christians to define themselves as reading and following the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, not the old gory, eye for an eye head for a head graphic stuff of the Old Testament, the book of not the Christians but the Jews, who history teaches us had Jesus executed because they didn't like his messages of love they neighbour and turn the other cheek, which certainly is contrary to the eye for an eye thing..
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
True, but we wouldn't have very many good action movies like Taken or something.
"You took my wife/daughter. I will take yours. No one else will be harmed in this movie."
Vancouversailor
Member
And, typical;ly, that is old testament stuff, from the Jewish Torah, not the new testament which came to be allegedly because God realized that the old testament literal messages were not working and instead gave the message of love.
you aren't change peoples hearts; until you can change their minds. that is only going to happen via self-reflection. take away their freedom; if they aren't going to learn self-control. reduce their world to their psychological maturity.
Vancouversailor
Member
With all respect for Liam - a very good actor - Taken was never one of my favorites. Too much in the genre of Death Wish from the 1970s. I happen to believe that the main foundation of civilized society is a contract between people and their government where people pay taxes and abstain from vigilantism and government ensures that the streets are as safe as possible. As for movies, I much preferred Secondhand Lions, Big Fish or High Road to China over Taken and none of them are violent or about retribution though they are all entertaining and memorable.
Even though it's inherently hypocritical?
One of the main objectives of criminal law is to express which actions are considered unacceptable. It's hypocritical to try to say "this act is unacceptable" by committing the exact same act yourself.