Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
That's a compelling aphorism, except that it is riddled with logical fallacy. Especially in your application of it here.
In its general sense it can only be reasonable, logical, if there were some retribution for or prevention of the first eye being taken. Any retribution by those whose eyes have been taken would be a form of an eye for an eye, if not specifically so, generically so, as in taking something other than an eye. Passing the responsibility for retribution or prevention to a collective authority rather than on the specific victim, again, in the case of punishment would be meting out some generic eye for an eye retribution--jail sentence, fine, etc. Perhaps, the most logical concept, one you would not accept, to punish and prevent the first taking of an eye without having the reciprocal taking of the second eye, would be a supernatural being who would punish the eye taker rather than the human victims, or their collective enforcement taking vengeance. This would leave the victim or his collective police force free from eye taking, or some generic form of it. This would absolve humanity from vengeance--a sort of God's saying vengeance is mine.
So, if God is not your cup of tea, it either leaves it up to man to prevent or punish (take a metaphorical eye). Or for men to just let it go, unpunished, and hope that turning the other cheek will prevent further eye takings--which would be a logical fallacy, for if not taking an eye prevents taking an eye then the first eye could not possibly be taken since there would be no precedent for it.
The logical fallacy of your response to Jim in this instance also ignores the possible preventive aspect of retributive eye taking. If the fear of retribution for your taking an eye is the taking of yours, you might logically refrain from taking. That was the game theory logic of MAD. Nuclear attack by one party would guarantee mutually assured destruction. And if, as Jim says, Lincoln's vow to revenge assassinations of black prisoners by killing confederate prisoners actually deterred the former, then the threat of an eye for an eye actually was a deterrent. And, therefor, would not lead to the whole world going blind.