If a man breaks my arm and I then break his arm should I be punished for my correctional an-arm-for-an-arm strategy?
Some people definitely seem to thinkso,as they say I should never take the justice in my own hands and leave it instead to the legal system, but I have to say at least in some situations, where there’s hardly any better realistic alternative (such as receiving adequate compensation from him), an-arm-for-an-arm is simply the right way to do it. Though of course, that is a bit simplistic since my arm could very well be more useful to me than another man’s arm is to him. Unless I’d try to correct for that I could easily suffer more
than the other man who offended me first and thus he couldpossibly have gained an advantage by committing such a despicable act of violence (which is hardly acceptable in my opinion as it easily leads to more evil in the world). Just to get even I might well have to break both his arms or more. And I just as well might righteously enjoy a bit while braking them.
Why do I think these thoughts? I guess mainly because, I’m often so upset when I learn how justice is served in modern societies. It is not hard to acknowledge that sometimes to get justice you have to get it for yourself without the help of the legal system. If it doesn’t work and you are hardly in the position to fix the system, you have to bypass it. You have to become a living embodiment of the abstract concept of justice to force it upon the villains. A bit like Dexter in that one TV show. Though when you do that the responsibility of doing it the right way is yours and yours alone. Still, I support taking responsibility.
Report This Post
While spending some days cursing one Turkish interner service provider
for not fixing their network problem sooner, I at least managed to
reada few novels I otherwise would probably have never had time to read.
One was “Never let me go” by Kazuo Ishiguro.
(Spoiler warning: don’t read if you don’t like spoilers)
I do think I’d probably enjoyed it more if I was a child, but
it was pretty decent reading. Very easy reading too, since I didn’t
notice the writer taking me down a syntactical garden path even once.
So unlike much of the scientific stuff I’ve read in recent years,
although I do suspect that has something to do with not having to explain
complex ideas explicitly. Anyway, the book tells afictional story about people, clones,
who are conceived for the sole purpose of using them for curing other
ordinary (non-clone) people. In particular, the story is mainly about such clones
who are brought up in a particularly humane environment where they are prepared
to be ready to fulfill their premeditated destinies in a soft mind
control environment not unlike public education in many countries. It’s kind of hard to believe, at least for a born-again rebel like me,
but nobody in the story actually rebels against his or her destiny; instead
all the clones do what they are supposed to do and become “donors” in the end. No matter if it spells their early deathsand they don’t have that much real freedom in choosing how to live their lives.
Though I guess that isn’t that unrealistic after all since so many people seem
to be like that in real life too – like sheep that is. At best, they are just rebelling against the ideas some schemers have convinced them to rebel against using usually quite empty rhetoric instead of thinking very hard what it is
they should really be rebelling against themselves. And of course, it is quite believable
that ordinary people don’t want to think about the clones that much after their
existence has become so convenient; after all no common man is stupid enough to believe clones could have souls. Much like the case of animals in modern societies. Though I would suspect it would be much harder to initially gather support for such an idea. But if that could be done, the momentum would soon again be against change.
Report This Post