Reply
Wed 9 Jun, 2010 04:43 pm
Just something I was pondering earlier...
I noticed that "fairness," even in today's age, is still often held as the highest moral principle. This is true especially in judiciary or legal cases. "An eye for an eye" still has precedence over other ways to solve situations. This striked me as odd, considering many sources, such as the Sermon on the Mount, have long since made claim that this wasn't the best course of action.
The "eye for an eye" mentality, to me, causes unneccesary attachment to material possessions. I propose a new mentality: the "chill out dude, just let it go" system of jurisdiction. I've heard of so many court cases that should never have made it into a court, and were there simply because someone wouldn't just let the matter go. To pursue a matter of triviality, in the name of fairness, will cause nothing but unhappiness for the accusee.
Many Eastern concepts support this, as well as that Jesus fellow. If you wanna be happy, don't chase fairness, chase forgiveness.
In conclusion: be cool.
@dharma bum,
dharma_bum;175136 wrote:Just something I was pondering earlier...
I noticed that "fairness," even in today's age, is still often held as the highest moral principle. This is true especially in judiciary or legal cases. "An eye for an eye" still has precedence over other ways to solve situations. This striked me as odd, considering many sources, such as the Sermon on the Mount, have long since made claim that this wasn't the best course of action.
The "eye for an eye" mentality, to me, causes unneccesary attachment to material possessions. I propose a new mentality: the "chill out dude, just let it go" system of jurisdiction. I've heard of so many court cases that should never have made it into a court, and were there simply because someone wouldn't just let the matter go. To pursue a matter of triviality, in the name of fairness, will cause nothing but unhappiness for the accusee.
Many Eastern concepts support this, as well as that Jesus fellow. If you wanna be happy, don't chase fairness, chase forgiveness.
In conclusion: be cool.
I do see your point, At least I think I do. The "eye for an eye" mentality, I think was a defect in ethics as it was the mentality of revenge.
I see nothing wrong with considering fairness or equality.
I would hope that everyone would consider to treat your mother and other family members with fairness or equality.
I am sad to say that not all of us have the same neurology and psychology so we will not be able to treat your mother that way, so we may need your help for us to understand and then there are some of us who will never be able to understand because of neurolgy.:detective:
@dharma bum,
dharma bum wrote:
Just something I was pondering earlier...
I noticed that "fairness," even in today's age, is still often held as the highest moral principle. This is true especially in judiciary or legal cases. "An eye for an eye" still has precedence over other ways to solve situations. This striked me as odd, considering many sources, such as the Sermon on the Mount, have long since made claim that this wasn't the best course of action.
The "eye for an eye" mentality, to me, causes unneccesary attachment to material possessions. I propose a new mentality: the "chill out dude, just let it go" system of jurisdiction. I've heard of so many court cases that should never have made it into a court, and were there simply because someone wouldn't just let the matter go. To pursue a matter of triviality, in the name of fairness, will cause nothing but unhappiness for the accusee.
Many Eastern concepts support this, as well as that Jesus fellow. If you wanna be happy, don't chase fairness, chase forgiveness.
I personally would change the headline saying that "eye for an eye" isn't the greatest moral, as I find fairness in in it self as a great moral, fairness doesn't nessessarily have to be answerd with violence for violence, but a more suble punishment fit for the crime, do community work or pay compensation ..etc.
@dharma bum,
Fairness, when if means justice is the highest morality; but when fairness means equality without regard to justice which is injustice, it is not fair, so it is not moral..
@dharma bum,
It depends how you construe 'fairness'. I would define it as the impartial application of standards in effect. "Eye for eye", or
lex talionis to use the legal term, is rarely enacted in contemporary legal systems except in cases of financial damages. Being fair does not necessarily involve retaliation, it just means applying the standards which are in effect impartially to everyone. Those standards, of course, may be unfair by some other standard.
@dharma bum,
dharma bum wrote:
Just something I was pondering earlier...
I noticed that "fairness," even in today's age, is still often held as the highest moral principle. This is true especially in judiciary or legal cases. "An eye for an eye" still has precedence over other ways to solve situations. This striked me as odd, considering many sources, such as the Sermon on the Mount, have long since made claim that this wasn't the best course of action.
The "eye for an eye" mentality, to me, causes unneccesary attachment to material possessions. I propose a new mentality: the "chill out dude, just let it go" system of jurisdiction. I've heard of so many court cases that should never have made it into a court, and were there simply because someone wouldn't just let the matter go. To pursue a matter of triviality, in the name of fairness, will cause nothing but unhappiness for the accusee.
Many Eastern concepts support this, as well as that Jesus fellow. If you wanna be happy, don't chase fairness, chase forgiveness.
In conclusion: be cool.
I agree with you to some degree but it's not that simple. I believe that sometimes it is best to take an eye for an eye and other times it is best to turn the other cheek. It takes prudence and practice to figure out when either approach is preferable.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace