Take it for granted that action A is a morally reprehensible action that is condemned by the majority of human cultures. Also take for granted that persons C and D are innocent of any wrongdoings outside the circumstances of this thought experiment.
Now, person B is very evil and conducts action A upon person C.
Is it now morally acceptable now for person D to conduct action A upon person B in revenge?
No, D should mind his own business and C should turn the other cheek. B will get his in the afterlife.
>>8054407
>using sequential letter representations of different categories of designation
>>8054407
No, but I will sacrifice my morals for my loved ones.
>morals
shiggy
But more seriously, 'eye-for-an-eye' punishment doesn't make the world nicer to live in. It just multiplies suffering without actually preventing future instances.
>>8055496
Life for an eye is much better at preventing future misdemeanors
>>8055496
How wrong can one man be?
This should answer that for ya.
>>8056024
Evil does not justify evil
Depends. Does person B have a soul to be saved?
>>8057278
There is a belief system that holds not human beings have souls?
>>8056189
It's only evil when done without provoking
>>8055296
This. I got a little triggered.
>>8054407
>condemned by the majority of human cultures
If you take for granted A is morally reprehensible you presuppose well-defined morality and this piece is entirely irrelevant.
>Is it now morally acceptable now for person D to conduct action A upon person B in revenge?
No, you have taken for granted that A is morally reprehensible independent of context. You need to relax your hypothesis on A to depend on context if you want the possibility a context exists which justifies it.
If A has a built-in context (context is embedded in what we mean by "A") is is of course impossible for D to A on B as the context has changed.
