An eye for an eye doesn't make the whole world go blind. It would result in two people missing one eye and one asshole learning the consequences of taking someone's eye. amirite?

and this is why I get mad when people try to say "hurt people hurt people" is a bad saying. Its very true. People will just transfer their hurt to other people, it takes someone refusing to do it to others to break a link in the chain.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

The same people typically like the phrase "knock some sense into them." Sometimes knocking is how the sense left in the first place.

by vlarkin 4 weeks ago

Some people lack sense because they were never knocked

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Or maybe you're just a bad parent if the only way to teach sense is to knock it into people.

by Relative_Bathroom860 4 weeks ago

It's weird that you conflate consequences with physical violence. I hope you know that consequences exist that aren't 'knocking‘ someone, right? People can be and often are humbled without being punched in the face or otherwise physically assaulted. Very rarely violence is, in fact, the answer but I'd guesstimate that most of the time it's the wrong choice.

by Zestyclose-Night 4 weeks ago

I despise pointless violence, but parents with your attitude are typically the ones with most bratty children. One thing is kid not realizing or understanding something. The kid being spoiled bratty bully is another thing entirely.

by Iryan 4 weeks ago

Look, if you believe not using violence equals raising bullies, you're exactly the type of parent I was referring to.

by Relative_Bathroom860 4 weeks ago

No, I'm saying context matters. I don't think you should use violence to raise children. But if I find out my child was physically bullying someone who's let's say significantly weaker, I think showing him what it's like when someone physically stronger takes advantage of you would be appropriate.

by Iryan 4 weeks ago

Then you're not a good parent. Period.

by Relative_Bathroom860 4 weeks ago

But it's true that hurt ppl hurt ppl. That's not defending it, it's just how it is. Each generation has the opportunity to minimise intergenerational trauma and sometimes they succeed.

by Sage20 4 weeks ago

once more, and they definitely won't see it that way

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

doesn't see it that way ha. but yeah you're right. the guy whose eye you took will say "I didn't deserve that" and take your other eye to teach you a lesson. I guess in the end we'll have one guy with one eye

by antonettawillia 4 weeks ago

And they are forgetting about reprisals on family members.

by vlarkin 4 weeks ago

My question is why use the words of one of humanities oldest legal codes and arguably one of the most well known descriptive phrases of said legal code. It sounds less like it's speaking ill of Hatfield vs McCoy type revenge cycles and more like it's speaking ill of Judicial systems in general at a first glance.

by lula83 4 weeks ago

Yeah OP needs to watch Beef

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

This reads like a pretentious 15 year old's book report. A whole lot of nothing, said using the longest words they know, simply to fill up a page without having to actually make any point whatsoever. "The purpose of revenge is not the act of revenge itself, but the threat of revenge." What absolute nonsense. Revenge's only purpose is to inflict pain on someone when we feel when we've been wronged. That's literally the dictionary definition. Everything else you said after that first sentence was a masterclass in hyperbole to make a poor conclusion sound reasonable.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

I know you think you're smart, but arguing against the dictionary definition of something to try and sound smart is hilarious.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

"So what, I should just let him get away with it?" Is it really so difficult to understand the difference between violent action and punishmemt for said action? Like are there really people with at least half a brain who can't comprehend that me slapping someone is different from me slapping someone for slapping me first? Because those people shouldn't have full rights as adults, even kindergarten kids usually understand the distinction.

by Iryan 4 weeks ago

Too bad.

by Timely_Shock 4 weeks ago

old pithy sayings like this aren't meant to be taken literally dude

by Reynoldschristy 4 weeks ago

problem is, when a guy takes your eye, and you take his, his dad sees you take him, and doesnt care that he took yours, so he takes your dads eye, who then takes his dads back, but his mum isnt going to care that her husband took your dads eye, she will just see your dad take his, and then take your mums eye in revenge round and round it goes

by FaithlessnessDue 4 weeks ago

So the optimal solution is to take all the eyes the first time around.

by Javontejacobson 4 weeks ago

Brilliant use of backwards induction, if you're going to take someone's eye you might as well take your own eyes as well as everyone else on the planets eye.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

I was thinking the guys and his friends & family's eyes, but sure.

by Javontejacobson 4 weeks ago

Strike so fast and hard that the enemy is no longer capable of retaliation IS a legitimate strategy in war.

by Dillanjenkins 4 weeks ago

No, unless they don't see you before, at all. The optimal solution is annihilation

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

I do not think Putin was nice to everyone who didn't do him wrong.

by wilburn35 4 weeks ago

Well not in the traditional way no, but he does hand out a lot of business contracts and medals to people who serve him

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Strange definition of "works" when you are imprisonment and torture hundreds of people daily and millions hate you.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

He's in power with access to massive wealth. For an autocrat that is success

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

So destroy your enemies root and branch. Got it.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

You make a good point ☝️ next time I'll take everyone's eye that cares about the guy that took my eye. Preretribution! Can't be too careful!

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Bold of you to assume the retribution ends with only two people losing their eyes, or that the people close to the ones being harmed would care who was in the right or who was wrong. Take the storyline of The Last of Us part 2 for example: Joel Miller prevents a surgeon, Jerry Anderson, from taking the life of his adoptive daughter Ellie, in the process had to resort to taking his life. His daughter, Abby, doesn't care why Joel did what he did, only that he took her father's life away from her, and years later came back for revenge; Ellie doesn't care why Abby did what she did, only that she took Joel away from her; Ellie proceeded to hunt down and kill FIVE other friends of Abby in order to get to her, including an 8-month pregnant woman with a stillborn baby. The cycle of violence would have continued endlessly, until Ellie decided in a brief moment of empathy to let Abby go, and in the process saved herself from totally succumbing to darkness. By breaking out of the cycle, she allowed herself an opportunity to heal and move on, and that is what we should do. I assure you, going down that path does NOT bring you closure.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

yeesh! The cycle might still continue, mind you, when Abby decides to avenge her five friends, or any one of them has someone, etc... The entire reason we have a justice system is because the victims are the last people you want deciding what to do to deal with crime and violence. It just hands the decision-making to the most emotional people in the room.

by antonettawillia 4 weeks ago

Right... 5 friends... so we're just ignoring the dozens or hundreds of WLF members that Ellie killed right?

by riceclementine 4 weeks ago

In real life innocent people get caught in the crossfire of vengeance all the time. I can count the number of times I see a headline of a kid getting caught in gang related shootings.

by Jermainfarrell 4 weeks ago

Besides my belief that this is an irrelevant example, this isn't really an eye for an eye, is it? This is multiple-people-close-to-you's eye for my dad's eye

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

That's true. I guess "an eye for an eye" can only mean precisely that in a perfect world

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

lmao

by Weary_Growth 4 weeks ago

You take my left eye, so I take your left eye, so you take my right eye, so my brother takes your right eye, so your brother takes my brother's right eye, and so on. This is how retaliation works.

by Few-Active 4 weeks ago

Retribution solves nothing, and is ultimately just ego serving. The phrase exists to point people into actual productive ways to solve issues that don't simply result in mutually assured harm.

by Overall-Alps8287 4 weeks ago

You underestimate the zeal of man for vengeance when he sees anothers wrong, and overestimate his ability to see wisdom in restraint

by Dependent-Carob-2951 4 weeks ago

It would literally end with the second person (who is the assailant of the first) also losing an eye. No it wouldn't. It never ends that way. Who in their right mind that just lost an eye would think to them selves, "Well I did take his eye, so I really do deserve this." Not a single person. That's the whole point. Retribution begets retribution. Someone will always feel wronged regardless how fair the situation might actually be. ...you're just supposed to let them get away with it so they don't have to suffer the same pain and scarring consequences they inflicted on you. Letting go is not about them. This is about you. Too many people hold on to grudges or perceived slights. It makes them angry and destroys them selves. How many people do you know that are pissed off most of the day because someone cut them off in traffic or some other minor thing. You have a choice. Dwell on it all day making yourself miserable, or let it go and enjoy your day?

by Right_Armadillo 4 weeks ago

If you've eaten it, you don't have it for later. If you have it for later, you can't have eaten it. Pick one, that's the bloody point and its really simple.

by Beginning-Respond813 4 weeks ago

Later isn't in the saying.

by That-Specific 4 weeks ago

Almost all catchy sayings are shortened to make them catchy, which shouldn't obscure their rather obvious meaning, especially for a native speaker. to "have" something in this context means to keep it aside for later use. I.e. if I "have" £100 in my bank account that means that I am able to pay a future bill or expense up to that amount. If I've already placed an order somewhere and £50 is due to be deducted tomorrow, I don't really "have" £100 anymore, I've only really got £50 even if my actual bank balance hasn't yet dropped. If you want to get pedantic, "eat it" and "eaten" aren't exactly the same thing either, but again the meaning ought to be very clear from the context.

by Beginning-Respond813 4 weeks ago

It's using a less common understanding of the word "have". That is, to possess for an extended (or indefinite) period of time.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

but... well don't you still have it? It's just been moved.

by DesignerLocksmith848 4 weeks ago

What a long winded way to say you don't understand empathy and anger.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

It is about the competitive process. If you teach everyone to retaliate according to their perception of the harm you'll create a wave of violence. If you teach people to turn the other cheek you'll create a society that values resilience and fortitude. Eventually the harms will diminish into tiny scratches. Humans react emotionally, they do not react proportionately. One person's eye is another person's head.

by Accomplished-Skin 4 weeks ago

If there is a reliable and trustworthy police system, maybe. Otherwise you just create two tiers of people, helpless sheep that continually take abuse and predators that exploit and intimidate others into supporting them. Escalating isn't helpful, but some push back is necessary.

by Beginning-Respond813 4 weeks ago

Usually what this refers to is, someone did something wrong, you go for retribution that you believe is justified, it could be against them or anyone related or just something you find justifiable, the next person then doesn't feel that they've been done justice to and retaliate. I do agree that standing up for yourself is necessary and don't turn the other cheek but we don't always have the best perception of proportions so it's a good idea to not get carried away and a better choice is to ensure it doesn't happen again. Sometimes you do have to take an eye for an eye and at others you have to let it go.

by wardcorbin 4 weeks ago

The eye for an eye is talking about revenge and inflicting pain on someone else for making you feel pain. If you inflict pain on someone, then someone else will think it's ok to do the same until the whole world is inflicting pain on each other, making an endless cycle of pain. this is a terrible example to give someone as a reason to forgive others because 'an eye for an eye' wouldn't even be Choosing not to have revenge has nothing to do with forgiveness. You can still despise someone without doing the exact same thing they did, and there are other ways to get justice without being like them.

by lavada62 4 weeks ago

Think of it this way, I kill your sister, so you kill me in retaliation, then my brother kills you for killing me, so your uncle kills my brother for killing you, my dad kills your uncle for killing my brother and so on. If it continues to happen it would eventually effect everyone in some way

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Respectfully disagree, Dude. Someone takes Your Eye, so You take Theirs. Well, You just took an eye from them- They gotta take one from You! And now You got no eyes and THEY got no eyes. Sometimes, We gotta just walk away. Yeah, assholes exist but Life doesn't care. Sometimes, all we can do is just walk away. Yeah, they took an eye from ya but you still got the one. Take whatever ya can because you never know when it'll be all gone.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

So they take my eye, I do nothing. Now they know they can take the other without consequence. I'm no better off.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

First of All, That's a Good Point. Genuinely. I must admit that. What I will say is Self Worth/Defense and petty revenge is an important distinction. GENUINELY Defending Yourself and petty revenge are two different things. You gotta protect/ stick up for yourself? Absolutely. No one deserves to be a doormat.That said, if you ARE able to walk away, I always recommend that. But no, I do wanna give props for a good point. I should've been more distinct.😅

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

You're taking a macroscopic saying and applying to just the micro lol.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Unpopular because you wildly misunderstood that phrase

by Sensitive_Driver_744 4 weeks ago

the whole world part is about making the behavior standard. person 1 hurts, person 2 reacts, then maybe person 1 lashes at someone else to deal so person 3 is now hurt... basically, hurt people the way you've been hurt, you continue the hurt. the saying doesnt mention forgiveness. its just about not doing what was done to you out of revenge/spite. Taking someone's eye randomly vs taking someone's eye when they ruined your eye are two totally different scenarios. but at the end of it, you still have two people who have lost sight and put themselves at risk for losing more. idk. as an abuse victim who healed specifically so I wouldnt be like my abuser, who only abused me because THEY never worked through THEIR trauma, I think painting sayings like this is broad negative strokes doesnt really help anything. Demanding the person who hurt you get worse than what they did to you SOMETIMES can lead to you becoming just like them but also the story its from is thousands of years old and doesnt take into account every scenario in humakind so. Its just a sayiing, it doesnt mean anything beyond the surface level

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

You make a good point that it doesn't mention forgiveness. The main issue I have with this saying is that people use it as a way to tell others that they need to forgive/ ignore horrible behaviour without exploring if that's even appropriate. Nowhere in this anecdote of cyclical abuse is there an implication that the purpotrater needs to be accountable, but it does heavily imply that at some point someone who has been wronged will have to learn to let it go. It demands this by making the victim responsible for the world going blind and at no point asks if they're even able to forgive/let it go. It's frustrating because people don't bring up this anecdote when it happens to them, but will happily bring it up if something happens to another. That's why I appreciate you shared your experience and your perspective; I'm sorry you went through that. I respect that what you said is grounded in reality and I will take your warning about becoming an abuser seriously. Your attitude makes me hopeful that there are good people in the world and that this anecdote may have value.

by Weary_Growth 4 weeks ago

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind assumes escalating conflict. So for instance, Person A pokes Person B's eye. Person B takes Person A's eye, but odds are high Person A will not be cooperative, so Person B will need to get Person C, D and E's help to take Person A's eye. So when Person A retaliates, its not Person B who loses his eye, but also person C, D and E. And this goes back and forth until everyone is blind. This typically dosent apply in the real world. If I punched you, and you call the cops on me, do I then retaliate later by punching the cops that arrested me too? That's dumb as hell. So an eye for an eye does work, assuming it is applied properly, and not with mob justice. The point of it is to enforce a lesson for society as a whole, that if you take someone's eye, you will lose yours. And anybody seeking to escalate that beyond the original two participants would be liable for worse punishments. The point is to make an example of the perpetrator.

by nienowaddie 4 weeks ago

Justice is about more than retribution. Why does everyone only care about retribution? Whatever the answer, it means they're not qualified to be judge or jury... which is why you're disqualified from jury if you have a personal connection to the victim of a crime or to the person being prosecuted.

by Sage20 4 weeks ago

This is exactly where I was coming from. An eye for an eye works if we're talking about consequences as a preventative measure in a society that upholds order and restraint. Even initial punishments in real life real life are often worse than "an eye for an eye". For example, going to prison for assault is much worse than getting punched back; you could get assaulted while you're in there, a criminal record will prevent you from traveling & getting jobs, and the social stigma will last longer than it took the guy's injuries to heal.

by Weary_Growth 4 weeks ago

TL:DR OP missing the entire point that revenge leads to further revenge and thereby misunderstand the entire saying.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

The point of this saying is if everyone takes an eye for an eye eventually the whole world would be blinded it's not based on just 2 individuals

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Dude just be cool. Be chill, like me.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

It's not like the innocent party gets their eye back if they don't retaliate. Why is that better?

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

I think you're misinterpreting the moral of that story but ok

by Sage20 4 weeks ago

And when it ends up being used to justify genocide in Gaza?

by Ddietrich 4 weeks ago

…and then they come for your other eye. Then someone you know goes for their other eye, back and forth ad nauseum.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

It does not mean what you think it means but I'm too lazy to explain why you're wrong.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Retribution is a zero sum game. Getting revenge will not eradicate the hurt you've endured and the elation of having gotten someone back is very short lived. If you've been hurt in an irreparable way, the damage is literally done. Revenge won't change that. The point of the saying is also in part to encourage forgiveness and to encourage critical thinking as it pertains to justice.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

And then the other guy takes your other eye and your friend takes his remaining eye and his friend then takes your friends eye and on and on and on

by okunevalilly 4 weeks ago

It's raining cats and dogs is technically incorrect, because it never actually rains cats and dogs, just rain! /s

by Hmayert 4 weeks ago

No. An eye for an eye gives you fueds that last for thousands of years. Like with Israel and Palestinians. Etc

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

You understand expressions are not supposed to be taken 100% literally right? "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" UmMM AhcTualLy just because he can see doesn't mean he is part of the royal family and probably won't be king

by Dillanjenkins 4 weeks ago

"If it was intentional the first person who took the eye deserves to lose more than just an eye" What was that bit at the start about two people with one eye? You're answering your own questions

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Tell me you don't get the lesson by telling me you don't get the lesson.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

You clearly never heard of blood oath. One eye for an eye can span for generations, centuries even and can involve many deaths Blood oath is the reason for police, law and such systems, because without it it's a never ending cycle of hatred

by Proud-Paramedic-8632 4 weeks ago

I hope you understand that the turn of phrase serves largely as a metaphor. An eye for an eye doesn't give the victim their eye back and puts their avenger on similar ground as the original assailant. There is no implication that the initial aggressor shouldn't face justice or even relatively harsh punishment, but history has taught us that a blind mechanical approach to justice eventually leads to greater injustice.

by Comfortable-Rule8416 4 weeks ago

This isn't even an opinion. It's a lack of understanding an expression.

by Free-Preparation6936 4 weeks ago

I think eye for an eye really just means the punishment should fit the crime

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

This has got to be a joke or you have to be 12

by Purdytamara 4 weeks ago

A person wishes, but it never ends like this, does it? Oh no, lots of eyes go missing.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

You've missed the point. Just because someone took your eye, doesn't mean you have "permission" to take theirs. If you retaliate, that is purely your choice to enact the same injustice they committed back on to them. Two wrongs don't make a right. The way you treat others is entirely up to you. It doenst matter what they did to you. You can choose to forgive or you can't choose to hurt. No one deserves anything. Deserve is a made up concept.

by FineArachnid 4 weeks ago

And then the brother comes and wants revenge for the eye and we go on. Father, mother, family, town, countryside and .... World.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Rehabilitation is way better than retribution in most cases imo.

by Curious-Chard 4 weeks ago

You are right. It's another narrative pushed by the ruling classes to make poor people think that justice is wrong and that there is nobility in being a docile victim. You'd never find a rich successful person who doesn't spend a lot of time scheming on how to punish people who even slightly challenge or disrespect them.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

You've missed the point If i go around hitting people and being spiteful every time i am wronged then the world is gonna be a miserable place for me and everyone around me. If everyone adopted the same philosophy then this world would be even worse. It would leave us all in pain If we forgive then we allow space for healing and kindness. It has nothing to do with eyes and blindness in the traditional sense except to act as an analogy

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

Also i think not doing anything is worse. Who cares if all the world goes blind, they deserve it.

by Xcole 4 weeks ago

I get the metaphoricL significance and what it's trying to say etc but assuming it is not about escalating violence: I'm not gonna stand there and do nothing while some asshole takes my eye??

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

, the first person who took the eye deserves something worse than just losing an eye. yup

by LockExpress5677 4 weeks ago

Sure seem to be a lot of troll accounts.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago

The point if the 'whole world' going blind is that if EVERYONE started doing it, no one would have eyes left because all of us, at some point, have wronged someone too.

by Thorarutherford 4 weeks ago

Yup, more people need to take vengeance into their own hands and prove that you can't just hurt others and expect to walk away unharmed.

by Anonymous 4 weeks ago