Is an eye for an eye wrong?

Well, yet again, it depends. If you took a teddy bear that i had since i was 1 and it had more sentimental value than money could ever buy, then take "revenge" if that is what you call it. But the thing is is that there is no wrong to letting it go, but there is no right. If you let it go, you are letting them get away with it and sending a message you do not mind. But if you take revenge, there will be consequences for certain types of revenge. You cannot really decide whether or not is it better to let it go or take revenge. It comes down to the individuals stand-point on the issue.

 

But if you let it go, you wont go back and do something to them
which may lead to more and more problems, wouldn't that be considered a right?

 

But if you take revenge, it will lead to more problems for the both of you but you would have gotten your vengence on them, isn't that considered a right? I do not think so, but it is not about what is common belief, it is about who the two people are. It depends if it is a random guy and you, or your friend and you. Random guy... most likely revenge, either by calling police or your own personal way. Friend, you would just confront them and talk (hopefully). You cannot categorize an eye for an eye and hope that there is an answer. There never is one.

Closing point for post: If a country got bombed and they let it go, what would happen? They would get bombed again and more people will die.

If they attacked, SOLDIERS would die, but common people would live. Life is about sacrifices, and you have to decide which one is worth choosing.

 

No its not right because your attacking back harming that person which
makes it wrong, even though they should not have attacked you.
If a country was to be bombed they wouldnt fight back in revenge they would
fighting back in self defence making it right.

 

So if you take revenge out of self-defense it is ok? Self-defense is (technically) revenge. You are taking defensive vengence against the other being.

Also, you contradicted yourself. You said it is not right even though they attacked you. Although you clearly stated above that it is alright for a country to attack in self-defense, and as i have stated is a form of revenge.

 

Which is, speaking in these terms, an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye does not have to be malicious (or delicious, it rhymes just live with it ). So it is still an Eye for an Eye, but in a non-violent way. Nonetheless, it is still vengence.

 

Its not taking revenge out of self defence its just self defence, and I ment
to say that you should not attack someone back because they stabbed you in the leg or pushed you or tripped you etc. But if millions of people are dieing
then yes I think you should attack back but not out of revenge but self defence.

 

Ok, i'll say this one last time so i do not seem like i am repeating myself. Self-defense is revenge.

Dictionary entries (Dictionary.com):

Revenge: 1.to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit

Self-Defense: 2.a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack (Second Entry)

So see the similarity? Self-defense is killing or injuring in a defensive manner. Revenge is killing in a vengeful manner, but if you are/were attacked, you are attacking in a vengeful manner although it is defensive. You want vengence on that person BECAUSE they are attacking you. Which we call self-defense. But, nonetheless venegence.

 

Ok so what if your walking through the street and all of a sudden a gang
of three people come up to you and start pushing you around and beating you up, but you start fighting back and beating them up. Would you consider this self defence, vengance, or both?

 

Ok, i'm sorry for repeating myself.

Self-Defense is a form of vengence. You are taking revenge out of self-defense. You are being defensive so you are taking vengence upon them in a defensive manner. So, you may consider it both, but yet again, self-defense is a vengeful act.

 

I disagree, if your fighting off people that are beating you up that is self defence, if you would have let them beat you up then single them out or as a group and beat them up later, that would be vengance.

 

In some cases revenge can be a permanent sastifier, but usually temporary.

 

Please name a case where revenge would be a permanent satisfactory course of action.

 

Say someone kills your mother, so you frame them or work to proove
that they killed your mother. The person then gets sentenced to a life time
in prison or the death sentence.

 

well said my friend, well said.

 

That's a childish answer, If you do this it basically makes to stoop down to their level .. making you just like them.

I believe that "Eye for an Eye" is not always needed if necessary, but there is sometimes where people do use that theory or quote.

Ex. - Someone punches you for no apparent reason .. what will you do? Most likely punch him back causing it to be even, like the thread starter stated. Then again this causes more trouble, making the one little punch start a whole new fight.

Ex. - If someone accidentally runs into and shoves you out of the way in a hurry, will you go and shove him. No(answer may vary depending on person).

 

Vengeance is fun to act out.

My favorite "eye for an eye" activity has not been accomplished yet, but it may happen sooner or later.

1) Buy bucket loads of instant potato powder.
2) Poor all of it in to someone's pool.
3) Come back later and take a photo for lols.

 

^ Fail.

 

I believe in a saying "every dog will have his day" or "You did it before your going to do it again" or finally "You hit me once, im going to hit u twice as hard" so in my opinion yes it iss some what appropriate to shove some1 back if they first shoved you. Your a wimp in my mind if you dont, people must grow some balls lol.

 

An eye for an eye.... it all depends on the situation as Light said... with da Teddy Bear and stuff