Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think there's one answer to your question, but as a school teacher and principal for 30 years, I never saw a bully who stopped being a bully because his (or her) victim was nice to them. They took it as weakness, and all the more reason to bully the other student.
And I might add that it seems like some people (not all, of course) are more likely to turn the other cheek when the other person is like them, but more likely to seek retribution when the other person is different than them (take race-based lynchings, for example).
I agree with most of this, but when you look at what the two arguments are for, I think one makes more sense than the other.
The first record of an eye for an eye, the code of Hammurabi, was a communal rule, and set the equal penalty as a final judgement to prevent feuds from developing and disrupting society. While it has it's flaws, especially the literal use, it is better than a cycle of revenge. And we use a non-literal version of compensation or jail time because it (usually) works.
Turning the other cheek is a personal act, and as you point out, it often does not solve the problem, it makes it worse. The whole idea (which includes going an extra mile (cough, death march, cough), or giving things away to anyone who asks) makes sense in Matthew because it is used in an end of the world scenario, where retaliation could lead you to sinning, but non-retaliation will lead to a reward in an afterlife, but in an everyday world, it rarely makes sense. Aggression is not a rational act, and simply giving in to aggression may not lead to the results one expects.
Both 'turn the other cheek' and 'an eye for an eye' are reactionary responses to when some feels they or someone else has been wronged.
The first one basically means ignore the situation and be a pacifist, and the second one means retaliate.
Neither address the problem.
So I'm going to say neither is best. Instead, get to the heart of how the situation occurred in the first place and teach everyone to find a way to accept each others differences and live with one another.
Otherwise it's just an endless cycle.
Except an eye for an eye is meant to stop a cycle of retribution. That is why we use a non-literal form today in our justice system, one does not literally take an eye, but either pays compensation or goes to jail.
I think people are confusing an eye for an eye with taking revenge, revenge is rarely taking an eye for an eye.
yes. that is how "either or thinking" is described by medical professionals, as thinking in extremes. It is a cognitive distortion, also called "black and white thinking."
"Black and white thinking doesn’t allow you to find the middle ground, which can be hard to sustain in life at those extremes. Becoming less rigid in our thinking lets us stop using “all or nothing” statements to depress ourselves without examining whether or not they’re true."
"Either or thinking creates a false dilemma. It presents only two choices, often two extremes. Yet there are almost always more options."
Regarding the cognitive distortion of either-or thinking, "This distortion occurs when people habitually think in extremes without considering all the possible facts in a given situation. For example, people are either angelic or evil. This kind of distortion is unrealistic and often unhelpful because reality often exists between the two extremes."
resources on the problem with "either or thinking" here and here and here.
True but irrelevant. Just because the OP compared two positions does not mean they "habituallythink in extremeswithout considering all the possible facts in a given situation". I could ask which is the largest religion, Christianity or Islam, that does not mean I am doing "either or" thinking.
And sometimes there are only two options, only one of my two daughters is the oldest. True dichotomies do exist.
We often think in Bayesian terms, where all the other options are the second option. A is either true or it is false, where false includes all the alternative competing hypotheses.
(2) If I misinterpreted the meanings of both turn the other cheek and eye for an eye
(3) if I came off "smug," which I did not mean to
I did not intend to "slant" the original post. In fact I found an interesting video with scientific data proving my philosophy to be less effective, gave a real world example where I didn't so well with my philosophy, and admitted I struggle to logically defend my philosophy...so I am surprised if I came off as slanted for my philosophy.
I stink.
I get an F for this thread. I am sorry.
I just wanted to hear different thoughts in different directions.
Quatsch, you provided a chance to discuss the actual interesting topics, especially with regard to your religious beliefs, and you should not blame yourself because other people wanted to attack rather than discuss the two positions.
You also provided an interesting video that is relevant to the real world, unlike the usual simplistic mantras and the irrelevant remote medical diagnosis.
I agree with most of this, but when you look at what the two arguments are for, I think one makes more sense than the other.
The first record of an eye for an eye, the code of Hammurabi, was a communal rule, and set the equal penalty as a final judgement to prevent feuds from developing and disrupting society. While it has it's flaws, especially the literal use, it is better than a cycle of revenge. And we use a non-literal version of compensation or jail time because it (usually) works.
Turning the other cheek is a personal act, and as you point out, it often does not solve the problem, it makes it worse. The whole idea (which includes going an extra mile (cough, death march, cough), or giving things away to anyone who asks) makes sense in Matthew because it is used in an end of the world scenario, where retaliation could lead you to sinning, but non-retaliation will lead to a reward in an afterlife, but in an everyday world, it rarely makes sense. Aggression is not a rational act, and simply giving in to aggression may not lead to the results one expects.
Good post.
I might just add to your last paragraph, this is similar to what I have said about the Beatitudes -- at least in some cases, great in preparing for the next life, not so great for living successfully in this life.
(2) If I misinterpreted the meanings of both turn the other cheek and eye for an eye
(3) if I came off "smug," which I did not mean to
I did not intend to "slant" the original post. In fact I found an interesting video with scientific data proving my philosophy to be less effective, gave a real world example where I didn't so well with my philosophy, and admitted I struggle to logically defend my philosophy...so I am surprised if I came off as slanted for my philosophy.
I stink.
I get an F for this thread. I am sorry.
I just wanted to hear different thoughts in different directions.
No need to apologize. The attacks are from people who do not know you. Your pacifism is deeply held and sincere. You do not "stink." No one should think you are slanting anything or have ulterior motives. Listen to Harry Diogenes. This is a good thread and the topic deserves better than the attacks it has received.
Some people here also start threads in the Politics area, that at first glance look innocent and open, but are pushing a side. If you're going to root for one side, just be open about it and not try to conceal it.
Some people here also start threads in the Politics area, that at first glance look innocent and open, but are pushing a side. If you're going to root for one side, just be open about it and not try to conceal it.
The best we can do is selectively pick, but no one side - in any matter - deserves a full endorsement.
You're welcome to try though. So go by your words: You start.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
