Carl Sagan used to talk about the Golden Rule, some more virtuous versions, and some less virtuous (but perhaps more practical) ones. There's the Brazen Rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you", and the Iron Rule: "Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you."
That sounds like a great way to turn people into passive slaves. "Just sit there and take it or god will wag his finger at you after you're dead and gone".
I never understood the "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" saying. It's pretending like there aren't selfish assholes (with both eyes) out there striking first and going for the eyes of others. Defending yourself and striking back is going to make everyone blind how exactly?
The only way for it to be possible to break the cycle of reciprocal violence is for people to abstain from participating in it, even at the cost of martyrdom.
Completely wrong. Both on a conceptual level and a practical one. On a conceptual level, there is no perpetual cycle of reciprocal violence. Reciprocal violence is a minor fraction of all violence in the world and is never 100% elastic (I.E. some proportion of people decline to reciprocate, so retaliation over time trends to zero), the much greater majority of violence is impulsive/uninstigated.
And on a practical level, advocating absolute pacifism in those disinclined to instigate violence only guarantees the egregious applications of violence only get worse, because that makes anyone inclined to instigate violence the automatic survivors, at which point they'll just keep doing what both came naturally and was successful ever more.
If you want overall violence to go down you want people unwilling to instigate violence over nothing but willing to punish instigating violence with even more overpowering violence, and for those people to be a greater force than the people willing to instigate violence for their own purposes
"An eye for an eye implies you've severely failed in your efforts to de-eye your opponent. How can someone with no eyes best you and remove your eyes?"
An eye for an eye leaves a one-eyed man and a blind man. And in the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
To be fair this is what I’m telling my daughter. They teach the golden rule at school. I tell her if that kid is going to be mean to her she can be mean back. You start out nice but if it’s not reciprocated, screw em. I don’t want her getting abused her whole life because of this mindset.
Someone really needs to update the golden rule: Treat others as they would treat you.
Carl Sagan used to talk about the Golden Rule, some more virtuous versions, and some less virtuous (but perhaps more practical) ones. There's the Brazen Rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you", and the Iron Rule: "Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you."
That sounds like a great way to turn people into passive slaves. "Just sit there and take it or god will wag his finger at you after you're dead and gone".
I never understood the "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" saying. It's pretending like there aren't selfish assholes (with both eyes) out there striking first and going for the eyes of others. Defending yourself and striking back is going to make everyone blind how exactly?
Because it perpetuates the cycle.
The only way for it to be possible to break the cycle of reciprocal violence is for people to abstain from participating in it, even at the cost of martyrdom.
Completely wrong. Both on a conceptual level and a practical one. On a conceptual level, there is no perpetual cycle of reciprocal violence. Reciprocal violence is a minor fraction of all violence in the world and is never 100% elastic (I.E. some proportion of people decline to reciprocate, so retaliation over time trends to zero), the much greater majority of violence is impulsive/uninstigated.
And on a practical level, advocating absolute pacifism in those disinclined to instigate violence only guarantees the egregious applications of violence only get worse, because that makes anyone inclined to instigate violence the automatic survivors, at which point they'll just keep doing what both came naturally and was successful ever more.
If you want overall violence to go down you want people unwilling to instigate violence over nothing but willing to punish instigating violence with even more overpowering violence, and for those people to be a greater force than the people willing to instigate violence for their own purposes
"An eye for an eye implies you've severely failed in your efforts to de-eye your opponent. How can someone with no eyes best you and remove your eyes?"
An eye for an eye leaves a one-eyed man and a blind man. And in the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Christ explicitly rejected Exodus 21 in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5).
You're not a Christian if you cling to Exodus 21. Period.
To be fair this is what I’m telling my daughter. They teach the golden rule at school. I tell her if that kid is going to be mean to her she can be mean back. You start out nice but if it’s not reciprocated, screw em. I don’t want her getting abused her whole life because of this mindset.