We've all heard of this, "an eye for an eye".
Where did this originate from?
The principle is found in Babylonian Law. In societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. Sometime the retribution was worse than the crime, perhaps even death. So Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society.
The modern state has constituted the law of equivalency in an attempt to limit the extent of a punishment and to discourage cruelty. The principle of this legislation is one of equivalency; that is to say, the punishment should correspond to the crime and should be limited to the one involved in the injury.
But individuals do not have to follow this law in cases where they have been slighted or insulted (as perceived by them). Since they are not seeking relief from the law, and the equivalency is only as much as they decide it is.
If a person has felt slighted or insulted in public, they might do one or more of the following:
a) ignore the slight and forgive the other person and even forget the slight
b) accept the slight but willing to forgive the person immediately or in a bit
c) vows to take revenge and seek retribution for the slight.
The first category does not care about the eye for an eye credo and has brushed the slight aside. Healthy and wise.
The second category has decided to move on and not let the slight affect their life. Healthy response.
The third category believe that it is ok to insult or slight the other person in public as well as insult them again in every opportunity that they can get. Only then do they feel they have restored the balance in their life and gained some significance in their own eyes.
It is no more an eye for an eye. They want as many eyes as they can lay their hands on. Why?
I believe that the person who was been slighted once or twice, plays this incident over and over again in their head, till they believe that they are being constantly hounded and slighted by the other person.
So insulting the other person once or twice does not adequately compensate for the injury they have undergone and they go after them again and again even to the point of completely destroying the other person and the relationship that they might have had if they were a little more forgiving.
Isn't this sad? If each of us had to go after and punish every single person who has ever slighted us or insulted us, our life will be one of vengeance all the time.
Imagine running after every dog that barks at us on the road?
We will never be able to lead our life normally again. Is this what we want?
When to let go, when to hold on?
If we get this answer right, we will be able to lead a life of happiness and joy.
These posts are meant for us to introspect and see what triggers control us and what are the drivers that makes us do what we do.
Where did this originate from?
The principle is found in Babylonian Law. In societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. Sometime the retribution was worse than the crime, perhaps even death. So Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society.
The modern state has constituted the law of equivalency in an attempt to limit the extent of a punishment and to discourage cruelty. The principle of this legislation is one of equivalency; that is to say, the punishment should correspond to the crime and should be limited to the one involved in the injury.
But individuals do not have to follow this law in cases where they have been slighted or insulted (as perceived by them). Since they are not seeking relief from the law, and the equivalency is only as much as they decide it is.
If a person has felt slighted or insulted in public, they might do one or more of the following:
a) ignore the slight and forgive the other person and even forget the slight
b) accept the slight but willing to forgive the person immediately or in a bit
c) vows to take revenge and seek retribution for the slight.
The first category does not care about the eye for an eye credo and has brushed the slight aside. Healthy and wise.
The second category has decided to move on and not let the slight affect their life. Healthy response.
The third category believe that it is ok to insult or slight the other person in public as well as insult them again in every opportunity that they can get. Only then do they feel they have restored the balance in their life and gained some significance in their own eyes.
It is no more an eye for an eye. They want as many eyes as they can lay their hands on. Why?
I believe that the person who was been slighted once or twice, plays this incident over and over again in their head, till they believe that they are being constantly hounded and slighted by the other person.
So insulting the other person once or twice does not adequately compensate for the injury they have undergone and they go after them again and again even to the point of completely destroying the other person and the relationship that they might have had if they were a little more forgiving.
Isn't this sad? If each of us had to go after and punish every single person who has ever slighted us or insulted us, our life will be one of vengeance all the time.
Imagine running after every dog that barks at us on the road?
When to let go, when to hold on?
If we get this answer right, we will be able to lead a life of happiness and joy.
These posts are meant for us to introspect and see what triggers control us and what are the drivers that makes us do what we do.
No comments:
Post a Comment