The Coolness Of My Eyes Lies In Salah? Top 99 Best Answers

Expression supporting appropriate punishment; no more and no less

“An eye for an eye” (Biblical Hebrew: עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן‎, Ain takhat ain) [a] is a commandment from the book of Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of mutual justice, measure for measure. In Roman civilization, the law of vengeance (Latin: lex talionis) carries the same principle that a person who has injured another person is to be punished by the injured party to the same extent. In softer interpretations, this means that the victim receives the [estimated] value of the injury as compensation. The intention behind the principle was to limit compensation to the value of the damage.

Definition and methods[ edit ]

The term lex talionis does not always and only refer to literal eye-for-an-eye legal codes (see rather mirror punishment), but refers to the broader class of legal systems that specifically formulate punishments for specific crimes they are believed to have committed they are fitting in their severity. Some suggest that this was intended, at least in part, to prevent undue punishment by an avenging private party or the state.[3] The most common expression of lex talionis is “an eye for an eye”, but other interpretations have also been given. Codes that follow the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common: they prescribe an “appropriate” counter-punishment for a crime. In the famous law of Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is used very clearly. For example, if one person caused the death of another person, the killer will be executed.

The simplest example is the “eye for an eye” principle. In this case, the rule was that the punishment must match the crime exactly. Conversely, the Twelve Tables of Rome merely prescribed specific punishments for specific crimes. Anglo-Saxon law replaced the payment of wergeld with direct retribution: a given person’s life had a fixed value derived from his social position; Every murder, regardless of the intention, was compensated by paying the appropriate wergeld. Under English common law, successful claimants were entitled to a refund equal to their (monetary) loss. In the modern tort law system, this has been extended to also convert non-economic losses into money. The principle of an eye for an eye means that a person who has been injured by another person returns the criminal act to the originator as compensation, or that an authority does so on behalf of the injured person. The exact Latin (lex talionis) English translation of this phrase is “The Law of Vengeance.” The basic principle of this law is just retribution.

In Babylonian and Roman Law

There are various ideas about the origins of lex talionis, but one common one is that it developed as early civilizations grew and a less well-established system of retribution for injustice, feuds, and revenge threatened the social fabric. Though superseded by newer forms of legal theory, lex talionis systems served a crucial purpose in the development of social systems—the establishment of a body whose job it was to exact retaliation and ensure that that was the only punishment. This body was the state in one of its earliest forms. The earliest known use of the principle appears in the Codex of Hammurabi, which predates the Hebrew Bible.

The principle is found in Babylonian law.[6] When, in societies not bound by the rule of law, it is presumed that if a person was injured, the injured person (or their loved one) would take revenge on the person who caused the injury. Retribution could be worse than crime, maybe even death. Babylonian law placed a limit on such acts, limiting retribution to no worse than the crime so long as victim and perpetrator enjoyed equal status in society. As with blasphemy or lese-majesté (crimes against a god or monarch), crimes against those in authority were punished more severely.

Roman law moved toward monetary compensation as a substitute for revenge. In the case of assault, fixed penalties were set for various injuries, although talio was still allowed if one person fractured another’s limb.[7]

In the Torah Law[edit]

In Hebrew law, the “eye for an eye” was to limit compensation to the value of the loss. Therefore, it might be better read “just an eye for an eye”. The idiomatic biblical expression “an eye for an eye” in Exodus and Leviticus (עין תחת עין, ayin tachat ayin) literally means “an eye under/(instead of) an eye”, while a slightly different expression (עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּש, lit. An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth”) is used elsewhere (Deuteronomy) in connection with possible mutual court judgments for failed false witnesses.[8][9][10] The passage in Leviticus says: “And a man who injures his countryman – as he has done, so shall it be done to him [namely] fracture under/for fracture, eye under/for eye, tooth under/for tooth . Just as another has suffered harm from him, so shall it be his” (Lev. 24:19-21).[8] For an example of how תחת is used in its usual meaning of under, see Lev. 22:27 “A bull, a sheep, or a goat shall remain with its mother after it is born, and from the eighth day…”

Tooth for tooth

The Bible allows kofer (a monetary payment) in lieu of corporal punishment for any crime except murder.[11] It is not stated whether the victim, the defendant, or the judge had the power to choose kofer in lieu of corporal punishment.

Exodus 21:22-24 says: If men quarrel and injure a pregnant woman so that her fruit departs from her and yet no disaster follows, he will certainly be punished according as the woman’s husband inflicts on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any calamity follows, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Judaism [edit]

Isaac Kalimi said that the lex talionis was “humanized” by the rabbis, who interpreted “an eye for an eye” as adequate monetary compensation. As in the case of the Babylonian “lex talionis,” ethical Judaism and humane Jewish jurisprudence replace the peschat (literal meaning) of the written Torah.[12] Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of Pharisaic Judaism’s ability to “adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas”.[13]

Talmud[ edit ]

The Talmud[14] interprets the verses referring to “an eye for an eye” and similar expressions as a demand for monetary compensation in cases of crime and argues against the Sadducee interpretations that the verses refer to physical retribution in kind , arguing that such an interpretation would not apply to blind or eyeless offenders. Since the Torah requires punishments to be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this way.

The Oral Law, based on biblical verses, explains that the Bible prescribes an elaborate five-part monetary form of compensation consisting of the payment of “damages, pain, medical expenses, disability, and mental anguish” – which underlies many modern codes of law. Some rabbinic literature further states that the phrase “an eye for an eye, etc.” suggests that the offender deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently. − Paraphrased by the Union of Orthodox Congregations.[15]

However, the Torah also discusses a form of direct mutual justice, where the phrase ayin tachat ayin appears once more.[16] Here the Torah discusses false witnesses conspiring to testify against another person. The Torah requires the court “to do to him what he had conspired to do to his brother.”[17] Subject to the fulfillment of certain technical criteria (such as the conviction of the accused whose sentence has not yet been served), the court shall, wherever possible, punish the conspirators with exactly the same sentence by which they intended theirs harming fellow human beings, the court this direct mutual justice (even if the punishment is the death penalty). Otherwise, the perpetrators will be whipped.[18][19]

Since there is no form of punishment in the Torah that provides for the mutilation of an offender (punitive amputation), there is no case in which a conspiratorial false witness could possibly be punished by the court by having his eye, tooth, hand, or injured his foot. There is a case where the Torah says, “…and you shall cut off her hand…”[20] The Talmudic sages understood the literal meaning of this verse as referring to a case in which the woman attacked a man potentially deadly way attacks . This verse teaches that although one must intervene to save the victim, one must not kill a deadly attacker if it is possible to neutralize that attacker with nonmortal injuries.[21][22][23] Regardless, there is no verse that seems to dictate even one injury to the eye, tooth, or foot.

Numbers 35:9-30 discusses the only form of remote mutual justice not administered directly by the court, where under very limited circumstances someone found guilty of involuntary manslaughter may be killed by a relative of the deceased who the role of the deceased is taken over by “Savior of Blood”. In such cases, the court will order the guilty party to flee to a designated place of refuge. As long as the culprit is there, the “Blood Redeemer” must not kill him. However, if the culprit illegally renounces his banishment, the “Blood Redeemer” may kill the culprit as an accomplice of the court.

According to traditional Jewish law, the application of these laws requires the existence and maintenance of the biblically designated cities of refuge and trial by an appropriate court of 23 judges as described in the Torah and Talmud. The latter condition also applies to any death penalty. These circumstances have not existed for about 2,000 years.

Goal of mutual justice in Judaism

The Talmud discusses the concept of justice as bespoke retribution (middah k’neged middah) in the context of divinely implemented justice. However, in relation to mutual justice in court, the Torah states that punishments serve to remove dangerous elements from society (“…and you shall remove evil from among you”[17]) and discourage would-be criminals from breaking the law (“And the quiet ones shall hear it and be terrified, and they will no longer commit anything like this evil deed in your midst”[24]). In addition, mutual justice in crime cases serves to compensate the victim (see above).

The ideal of vengeance to alleviate the victim’s distress plays no role in the Torah’s judgment as victims are warned not to harbor even hatred or resentment toward those who have harmed them. The Torah makes no difference whether or not the potential object of hatred or resentment has been brought to justice, and all people are taught to love their fellow Israelites.[25]

Social hierarchy and mutual justice[ edit ]

In Exodus 21, as in the Code of Hammurabi, the concept of mutual justice appears to apply to social equals; The statement of mutual justice “life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a stripe for a stripe”[26] is followed by an example of another law: If a slave owner blinds the eye or knocks out a slave’s tooth, the slave is freed, but the owner pays no further consequences. On the other hand, the slave would likely be killed for injuring the slave owner’s eye.[27]

However, mutual justice applies across social boundaries: the “eye-for-an-eye” principle is directly followed by the proclamation “You shall have a right for foreigners and citizens.”[28] This shows a much more meaningful principle for social justice in that the marginalized in society were granted the same rights within the framework of the social structure. In this context, mutual justice within a framework that works ideally, according to Michael Coogan, [who?] “to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands and exacting disproportionate revenge for crimes committed against them.”[27]

Christianity [edit]

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells his followers to turn the other cheek:

You have heard it said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I tell you: do not resist evil. But if someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer them the other as well. – Matthew 5:38–39 Standard English Version

According to Israeli scholar David Flusser, Jesus did not intend this statement to deny Exod. 21:24, rather, his instruction to “turn the other cheek” was a daring reinterpretation of that verse.[29] Some interpret this as a warning not to pursue legal action for compensation commensurate with the nature and extent of the violation. Others interpret it as Jesus simply teaching his followers not to seek personal vengeance, rather than commenting on a particular legal practice. [Citation needed] However, Romans suggests that neither interpretation is correct, suggesting that vengeance is to be left to God’s wrath.[30]

The Christian interpretation of the Bible passage was strongly influenced by the church father Augustine of Hippo. Already in his Contra Faustum, Book XIX, he discussed the points of “fulfilment or destruction” of the Jewish law.[31] George Robinson characterizes the passage of Exodus (“an eye for an eye”) as one of the “most controversial in the Bible”. According to Robinson, some have pointed to this passage as evidence of the vengeful nature of justice in the Hebrew Bible.[32] Similarly, Abraham Bloch speculates that “the lex talionis was singled out as a classic example of biblical harshness.”[33] Harry S. Lewis points to Lamech, Gideon, and Samson as biblical heroes known for “their valor in the execution of blood revenge on their enemies, public and private.” Lewis asserts that this “right to ‘wild’ justice was gradually curtailed.”[34] Stephen Wylen asserts that the lex talionis is “a testament to the unique worth of each individual.” and that it teaches “the equality of all men unto the law.”[35]

Islam [edit]

The Qur’an (Q5:45) mentions the “eye for an eye” concept as intended for the children of Israel.[36] The principle of Lex talionis in Islam is Qiṣāṣ (Arabic: قصاص‎), as mentioned in Qur’an, 2:178: “O you who believe, you are prescribed the legal retribution (qisas) for those who have been murdered – the free for the free, the slave for the slave and the woman for the woman. But whoever overlooks something from his brother shall have appropriate follow-up and payment with good conduct. This is a relief from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses afterwards will have a painful punishment.” Muslim countries that apply Islamic Sharia law, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, apply the rule of “an eye for an eye” literally.[37][38]

In the Torah We prescribed them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone renounces alms, it will serve as expiation for his evil deeds . Those who do not judge by what God has revealed commit grave wrongs. — Al-Ma’ida Qur’an, 5:45

Applications[ edit ]

In some jurisdictions, the death penalty is applied to murderers.

The Nakam group wanted to kill six million Germans in revenge for the six million Jews killed during the Holocaust. [39]

In 2017, an Iranian woman wounded in an acid attack was given the opportunity to blind her attacker with acid under Sharia law.[40]

Notable criticism[edit]

Coretta Scott King used this phrase in connection with racial violence: “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”[41]

Notes [edit]

^ 22 If men quarrel and hurt a pregnant woman, so that her fruit departs from her, and yet no calamity follows, he will certainly be punished as the woman’s husband shall inflict on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any calamity follows, you shall give life for life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a mark for a mark.

See also: Leviticus 24:19 And if anyone blemishes his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he blemished a man, so shall it be done to him again.

And if anyone blemishes his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him; Break after break, as he blemished a man, so shall it be done to him again. Deuteronomy 19:21: And your eye will not pity; but life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. From Exodus 21: If men quarrel and injure a pregnant woman, so that her fruit departs from her, and yet no calamity ensues: He will surely be punished according as the woman’s husband will charge him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. And if any calamity follows, then you shall give life for life, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, streak for streak. See also:

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Hammurabi, Codex of 1780 B.C.

. Plaut (1981) The Torah — A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

In Surah Al-Ahqaf verse 15:

“And We commanded good treatment to man, his parents. His mother bore him with hardship and gave birth to him with hardship, and his gestation and weaning lasts thirty months. [He grows] until, when he reaches maturity and reaches [the age of] forty, he says:

RabbiawziAAnee an ashkura niAAmataka allatee anAAamta AAalayya waAAalawalidayya waan AAAmala salihan tardahuwaaslih lee fee thurriyyatee innee tubtuilayka wa-innee mina almuslimeen

The translation or meaning of this Dua: “My Lord, enable me to be thankful for Your favors bestowed on me and my parents and to do justice which You will approve and make just for me, my descendants. Verily I have repented to you, and verily I am of the Muslims.”

This dua asks forgiveness not only for your parents but also for yourself and your own children.

Dua for the health and long life of parents

Watching your loved ones get sick can be very difficult. The most you can do is be there for support and let them know they’re not going through it alone.

The Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) as narrated in Sahih Muslim Hadith #2202:

Utman b. Abu al-‘As Al-Thaqafi narrated that he complained to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) about pain he felt in his body when he became a Muslim. Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Put your hand on the spot where you feel pain in your body and say Bismillah (in the name of Allah) three times and seven times A’udhu billahi wa qudratihi min sharri ma ajidu wa uhadhiru (I seek refuge by Allah and by His power from the evil that I find and fear).

In another hadith narrated by ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her):

that when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to a sick person or a sick person was brought to him, he said:

“Adhhib al-ba’s Rabb an-naas, wa’shfi anta al-Shaafi, laa shifaa’a illa shifaa’uka shifaa’an laa yughaadir saqaman”

(Take away the pain, O Lord of mankind, and bestow healing, for You are the healer, and there is no healing except Your healing, which leaves no trace of disease). Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5351, Muslim, 2191 .

After a hard day at work or college, most of us are too tired to think beyond our warm, warm beds. Exhaustion overwhelms you, you barely manage to undress, remove your make-up and treat your face to stroking at night. Sleeping well made up can lead to far worse results than just panda eyes in the morning. A recent survey in India found that about two-thirds of women sleep without makeup on an average of two nights a week. If you fall under this category, you are moving fast toward the destruction of your skin, eyes, and lips. Here’s a breakdown of the problems sleeping with makeup can cause for your skin.

Wrinkles: Not removing your makeup at night results in free radicals in the environment damaging your skin. They stick to your skin because of makeup, and overnight exposure can cause collagen in the skin to break down, resulting in fine lines. Hence wrinkles.

Acne: Makeup clogs pores when you sleep, leading to acne.

Dullness: Sleeping without removing foundation can do a ton of damage to your skin. Most foundations are thick, oil-based foundations that prevent skin from renewing itself overnight. This can lead to blackheads and fatigue.

Chapped and Dry Lips: Sleeping with lipstick on can lead to chapped and dry lips. Highly pigmented lipsticks can also darken your lips a shade if you leave them on for a long time.

Blepharitis: Leaving your eyeliner or kohl on at night can lead to many eye problems. Starting from eye irritation, this can clog your follicles and even irritate your skin. Skin irritation can also lead to blepharitis, a condition that causes swelling.

Eyelash fall: Wearing mascara gives our eyelashes a lot of volume, but at the same time it can also be extremely damaging. If mascara is not removed at night, it can lead to eyelash fall.

So the best solution is to scrub your face clean every night before you go to sleep. If you find yourself feeling too tired at the end of the day, keep a container of wet wipes handy to wipe your face clean with.

Image courtesy: Shutterstock

More about >> Make-up

Eye makeup used to protect children can poison them instead

Enlarge image Toggle caption Rajesh Kumar Singh/AP Rajesh Kumar Singh/AP

Placing black makeup around a baby’s eyes is a common tradition in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some parents think that the eyeliner protects the eyes or improves vision.

But two recent lead poisoning cases in New Mexico offer parents another reminder to be extra careful with cosmetics on children’s faces.

Two Afghan children now living in Albuquerque developed very high levels of lead in their blood due to eye makeup, health workers reported Thursday in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

The family had just emigrated from Afghanistan as refugees. And they brought with them the traditional eyeliner called Kajal.

When the family’s toddler was tested for lead at a preschool, the child’s blood contained 27 micrograms of lead per deciliter, or more than five times the level considered dangerous by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The toddler’s younger brother, a 4-month-old baby, had even higher levels of lead in his blood.

New Mexico Department of Health officials immediately suspected the eye makeup as the source of the metal. Scientists have known for decades that kajal can contain lead. And the metal can easily enter a child’s blood through the skin or eyes.

The parents said they use the kajal to promote eye health.

When health workers tested the kohl at the family home, it turned out that the eyeliner was 54 percent lead. That’s 540,000 parts per million, or 27,000 times the upper limit for color additives in makeup set by the Food and Drug Administration.

Lead is a neurotoxin. And it is especially harmful to babies and young children. Even small amounts can damage the developing brain and cause permanent problems.

The two children in Albuquerque have shown no adverse symptoms. And their blood lead levels began to drop a month after the parents stopped using the makeup, the authors said in the report.

Also known as kohl and surma, kajal is illegal in the US because of its very high concentration of lead. But cosmetics are generally not regulated for metals.

A study published in June found that 24 out of 36 American lipsticks tested had traces of lead. The greatest concentration, however, was only about 1.3 parts per million — or 0.00013 percent.

In this week’s passage, the Torah proclaims the famous dictum “an eye for an eye.” (Leviticus 24:20) The message seems clear. If you take out a neighbor’s eye, his punishment is to have his eye taken out.

However, the Oral Law explains by logic that an eye for an eye is monetary compensation, since it may be impossible to achieve equal justice through physical punishment. For example, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai said if a blind man damages the sight of another – how could he give an eye for an eye? The school of Hezekiah added that it can sometimes happen that more than one eye can be taken from the perpetrator if the attacker dies in the process. (Baba Kamma 84a)

advertisement

The Talmud also uses a textual proof for its thesis. The Torah says, “Thou shalt not take ransom for the life of one condemned to death.” (Numbers 35:31) This implies that you may not take ransom for the life of a murderer, but you may ransom the vital organs of the human body that don’t grow back. (Baba Kamma 83b)

One wonders, however, if “an eye for an eye” is monetary, why doesn’t the Torah spell it out clearly? Perhaps it can be implied that the written law sets the tone, sets the direction, and presents the doctrine. As the Torah is read, the listener hears the words “an eye for an eye” and concludes that if I remove another’s eye, the crime is so heinous that it deserves my eye removed. In the words of Ha-ketav Ve-ha-Kabalah, “The Torah here only mentions what punishment the perpetrator of assault deserves.”

advertisement

However, the Oral Law, which is the interpretation of the Torah, tells us how these rules are actually practiced. While someone who removes another’s eye deserves corporal punishment, in effect they receive a fine.

My Rebbe in Tanakh, Nechama Leibowitz, points out that in the phrase “an eye for an eye” (ayin tahat ayin), the term tahat is used. While tahat is usually translated “for,” it actually means “instead.” Something else takes the place of the eye – money.

This concept can explain what appears to be a difference between written and oral law regarding the death penalty. On many occasions, such as cursing one’s parents, the Torah says, “He shall die.” (Exodus 21:17) Yet the Oral Law cites opinion that the death penalty was rarely, if ever, applied. (Mishna Makkot 1:10)

The Torah once again tells us what the offender deserves. Cursing a parent and other such offenses are so terrible that they deserve death. Oral tradition, however, proclaims through the practical halakhic court process that the death penalty rarely, if ever, actually takes place.

Written law cannot be understood without oral law. Together they form a unit. The Zohar asserts that the written law is the “hard law” while the oral tradition is the “soft law.” The two combine into what we call the Torah, the ways of which are “ways of kindness.” (Proverbs 3:17)

This is part of a series entitled Ten Principles of Moral Discipline. They should form the basis for a morally effective school bullying policy. These ideas are thousands of years old. I apply them only for use in today’s schools.

Author’s Note: Please note that when I refer to religious texts in this series, I am not religiously referring to them. I strictly refer to their wisdom.

The eye-for-an-eye principle, which appears three times in the Old Testament, is often misunderstood. It is generally viewed as a barbaric recipe for personal vengeance and is often contrasted with the more enlightened New Testament principle of turning the other cheek.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, life for a life…” says the passages in the Bible that instruct judges to punish criminals. It is an instruction for courts only, not for personal revenge. In fact, the Bible instructs people not to take revenge. When we feel that someone has treated us unfairly and we cannot resolve the issue with them directly, we are instructed to turn to the courts and not seek justice into our own hands.

An eye for an eye means the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. If not, it is immoral and therefore likely to do more harm than good. Turning the other cheek cannot be a policy in dealing with crime. Suppose someone robbed or raped you. Would you want to go to a court where the judge would have you robbed or raped again? That’s not justice.

Punishment has multiple purposes. The following are three of the most important:

Deterrence. If crime goes unpunished, there is likely to be rampant crime, because crime pays. Restitution. Criminals should compensate their victims for the damage they cause. Reform. Punishment should guide criminals to become better people by feeling remorse for what they did wrong so they don’t want to do it again.

If a punishment is less severe than the crime, it does not fulfill any of the above objectives.

It won’t deter crime because crime pays. For example, you steal $100 but only have to pay back $50. It’s a good deal for you. Why not steal again? It’s an easy way to make a living. You won’t make amends enough because you’re only giving back half of what you withheld from your victim. You won’t understand the gravity of what you did wrong because you’ll think you just caused someone a $50 loss. Also, you’ll find that stealing isn’t such a terrible crime because you get to keep half of what you take.

On the other hand, if the punishment is far more severe than the crime, it might deter crime but is unfair to the criminal because we harm him far more than he harms his victim. Rather than feeling remorse, the lawbreaker sees himself as a victim of the legal system and wants revenge.

Let’s say you were hungry so you stole a loaf of bread. As punishment, the court ordered that your hand be cut off.

Such punishment, if consistently administered and made known throughout society, will be very effective in deterring theft. Who would want to steal when they know they’d lose their hand if caught? However, such cruel punishment will deter theft even in cases where theft is morally justifiable or even ordered. Suppose you are trying to save the life of a starving person and the only option is to steal a loaf of bread. You can choose to let the person die instead of stealing the loaf because you don’t want to risk losing your hand. This punishment does not make amends to the victim. Aside from giving the victim the satisfaction of revenge, it does not give back the lost loaf of bread. It only results in two people suffering casualties. It will not reform the criminal. He will hardly appreciate the fairness of the company that chopped off his hand. He will hate the legal system for punishing him so cruelly and disproportionately. He can even take revenge on the judge or the person who punished him.

Lawmakers must be very careful when deciding to impose overly harsh penalties to deter crime, as they are likely to do more harm than good.

That’s what happened with anti-marijuana laws, for example. It is widely accepted that the penalties were far more severe than the crime and thus did more harm than good. Anti-marijuana laws are currently (2013) being relaxed or even repealed in much of the world.

Only when a punishment fits the crime does it meet the three criteria of morality and effectiveness.

How to use Eye for an Eye

A common argument against an eye for an eye is that it does not make amends for the victim. Suppose I remove your eye and now the court removes mine. You get a temporary vengeance frenzy, but soon we’re down to two embittered visually impaired.

The Talmud rabbis who interpreted the Bible worked out this problem at least two thousand years ago. They found that an eye for an eye means financial compensation. Instead of having my eye knocked out, I have to pay you for your medical bills, your lost wages, and your physical and mental suffering.

Monetary compensation will deter crime because the amount will be quite substantial. People will be careful not to hurt each other. It will compensate by paying you for your loss. You have the money you need to maintain your standard of living. It will reform me because I will understand the true seriousness of the damage I have done to you. Besides, if I have a conscience, I will have assuaged it by compensating you for the loss I have caused you.

The immorality of some modern punishments

As explained in principle number seven, we should do our utmost to avoid judging the disputes of others. Judging is a complex and momentous activity that few of us are truly qualified to do. However, sometimes we have no choice. Society – including schools – has laws and rules, and violators must be punished.

Unfortunately, modern societies have abandoned some of the old wisdom regarding moral punishment. In our own country, for example, punishment often means ‘time in prison’ and this is seen as ‘paying my debt to society’. The period of imprisonment is usually unrelated to the crime.

Suppose I rape you and I am sentenced to several years in prison. Maybe you feel you’ve gotten your revenge and you feel safe from me while I’m locked up. But not only have I not compensated you, the taxpayers have to pay a small fortune to keep me locked up. Additionally, prison is often a crime university, so maybe I’ll come out a smarter, and therefore more dangerous, criminal.

In many cases, prison time is far, far worse than the crime. For example, you were caught possessing a few ounces of marijuana and jailed for several months or even years. Are you going to come out and be like, “Oh, I realize now how awful marijuana is. I better tell everyone I know it’s wrong to use? Not very likely. They will think, “This corrupt, evil country! I just smoked something that makes me feel good and look what they did to me! ” You will come out of prison hating your country and being cynical about its government.

Punishments imposed by schools, particularly for acts labeled “bullying,” are usually no more moral or effective than jail time. The vast majority of acts of bullying are things that hurt people’s feelings, such as insults, gossip, social exclusion and hitting/bumping that does not cause physical harm. The damage they do is largely subjective, meaning it’s up to me if they hurt me.

In most schools today, the prescribed punishment for bullying is suspension and, in some cases, expulsion. Suspension and expulsion are usually unrelated to the “crime”. They do not make amends to the victim and are usually much harsher than the crime.

If you’re not sure about this, consider this: Would you rather I insult you or have you suspended from school? Instead of making the convicted bullies feel remorse for upsetting their victims, the punishments make them bigger victims, and the victims feel no remorse. Victims want revenge – against both the children who punished them and the school that punished them.

What is the moral penalty for bullying?

Although we should avoid playing judges, sometimes we have no choice. But when judging child bullying, we should match the punishment to the crime. This requires the refusal of suspension and expulsion.

Theft and destruction of property are real crimes and the moral punishment is obvious. One must pay to have property repaired or replaced, with an additional reasonable fine as a deterrent. Anyone who causes physical harm to a person’s body must pay for medical expenses, personal injury compensation, and loss of productivity.

It is much more difficult to determine the punishment for actions that hurt people’s feelings. This is because our feelings are under our own control. If you’ve done something I don’t like and my feelings are hurt, I’ve really hurt myself.

For example, let’s say you called me a bitch. When I think being called a slut is awful, I feel hurt. On the other hand, if I think you’re trying to help me by letting me know I’m being too promiscuous, I’ll be grateful. Should you be punished if I hurt myself?

That’s why we have freedom of speech – to avoid being punished for saying things that others might not like to hear. (We will discuss freedom of expression in more detail in the next part.) We should deal directly with one another on such matters. Imagine what life would be like if we took each other to court when we hurt each other’s feelings!

But what should schools do when they have to punish a child for hurting another’s feelings – the most common form of bullying?

The following is one method the school can use to establish a moral punishment—one appropriate to the crime—while also building children’s resilience and self-regulation.

Let’s say I’m the principal and Johnny complains that you insulted him in front of the whole class. Johnny’s parents insist I punish you.

I’ll call you and Johnny to my office for a court hearing. (It might also be a good idea to have both sets of parents present.) We note the fact that you have publicly insulted Johnny. I will have the following dialogue.

Me (Principal) to you: Are you aware that you insulted Johnny in front of the whole class?

You yes.

Me: Were you taught how terribly hurtful it is to insult people?

You yes.

I well. You actually committed a really terrible act against Johnny and you need to be punished for it. We don’t mean to be cruel to you. We want to treat you fairly, so we will give you a punishment commensurate with the crime. Since you insulted Johnny in front of the class, Johnny will insult you in front of the class. But since we also want to make sure you never offend anyone again, we’re going to make the punishment a little more severe than what you did to them. Last but not least, Johnny will insult you not once but twice.

I understand that being insulted is incredibly painful. So we give you an alternative to experience this terrible pain. Instead of letting Johnny insult you, we’ll make you pay money instead. He’ll either insult you twice or you’ll pay him a hundred dollars. Which one do you choose?

Her: The insults.

Me: Is $100 too much to spare yourself the pain of an insult?

You yes.

Me: Well, maybe a hundred dollars is too much. How about fifty dollars? Pay Johnny fifty bucks or he’ll insult you twice. Which one do you choose?

Her: The insults.

Me: Maybe fifty dollars is too much. How about twenty? Pay Johnny twenty bucks or he’ll insult you. Which one do you choose?

Her: The insults.

Me: How about ten?

You: No?

Me: You mean you’re not even willing to pay Johnny ten bucks to avoid the pain of being insulted by him twice?

You: No.

Me: How about five dollars?

You: No.

Me: How about a dollar?

You: No.

Me: Not even a dollar? How about ten cents?

You: No.

Me: You mean you’d rather let Johnny insult you twice than pay him ten cents?

You yes.

Me: ok. you leave me no choice I’ll make Johnny insult you twice in front of the class.

And that’s exactly what I will continue to do. When Johnny and the rest of the class see that you are not upset by the insults, they too will realize how foolish it is to get upset about insults. And they will also realize that their feelings are in their own control.

This process can be used to determine the objective monetary value of a “bullying crime”. This value will normally be zero!

And when you consider that schools have been forced to pay out tens – and even hundreds of thousands – of dollars to individual students who have been insulted by another student! Boy I wish I could get compensation like this for the insults inflicted on me by anti-bullying advocates!

Read the next part of this series:

Principle number nine: freedom of expression

Read previous episodes of this series:

We have also prepared a proposal for a morally effective school bullying policy based on the Golden Rule. We appreciate you using it and if you like it please recommend it to your school administration.

Author’s guidelines regarding comments: 1. I rarely reply to comments because I just don’t have the time. If I don’t reply to your comment, please don’t take it personally. 2. Psychology Today has a strict policy on nasty comments. I believe in free speech and rarely censor comments, no matter how nasty. Every nasty comment from adults — especially ardent anti-bullying advocates — illustrates how irrational it is to expect children to stop bullying.

Subject: Contributions by moral thinkers and philosophers from India and the world.

9) “An eye for an eye only makes the whole world go blind” – Mahatma Gandhiji.

Do you think the meaning and message of this famous quote from Gandhiji is relevant today? Comment. (150 words)

General

How important is it to keep your cool?

Staying cool can actually save your life. It is what checks whether you are in a normal nature or in a stressful or angry nature. It lets others know it’s you now when you weren’t ready. Also, a cool attitude can make difficult situations go much more smoothly for you and the person or problem.

Keeping a cool head is very important and many people should try it.

smoother

Keeping your cool is important because it makes situations go better. For example, if you are mad at someone, you might do things that you will later regret. To find your calm, think about what might happen after the bad thing, and then you realize you need to calm down. It might help find your cool, you could change yourself and tell them to just back off. That’s why you only avoided an accident, but also stayed away from the person who made you angry.

stop stress

Another reason why keeping your cool is important is that it avoids unwanted stress. For example, if you’re trying to do your best at drawing but it just doesn’t come out the way you want, you’ll get angry, but you might be able to stop it. By finding your cool, you can just stop, breathe, and get back to work. By simply breathing and taking a break, you will avoid stress and white hair.

defend yourself

The final reason that proves it’s important to keep your cool is that it can make you look intimidating and come off as self-defense. For example, if someone big is walking towards you, you will be intimidated because a bigger person is walking towards you. At this point you begin to worry and feel fear set in. If you remember to keep your cool and breathe, you can gauge the person. If you are cool and people can see on your face that you are not afraid. The fear is gone and the person who tried to scare you knows it.

Some of the people might tell you that you don’t have to think you’re really cool and just follow your instincts. They believe that what happens will happen. But on the contrary, you should hold back, it might be difficult at first, but once you get used to it, it’s pretty easy. When you get to the point where you get used to it, other people realize it might not be hard. It motivates others to calm down. It’s most helpful when you’re about to die. This is because if you follow your first nature, you will panic and do stupid things. But if you keep your cool and calm down, you can come up with a plan of action and save your life.

This has happened to me many times and it comes from experience. I calmed down and saw that it was the best choice for anything that could be done. Calming myself down showed me other people’s thoughts and not just mine.

That’s why I say it’s very important to keep your cool.