The Morality of Eye
People say it is immoral to follow "an eye for eye" principle, this is because people think there is something unethical about revenge. Hence "an eye for eye will make the world blind"
This is true violence without purpose is reprehensible. But sometimes there are circumstances where violence is not only neccessary but also the most honourable course to follow.
War is such a time, when war is neccessary then the soldier is not punished for violence but awarded for killing enemies, this ofcourse goes with natural instinct for survival.
Then applying the above quoted adage is fallacious in all the situations. This is because while in many situations "an eye for eye" may result in world becoming blind, in other situations not acting on it may result in a person becoming blind and trampled.
The criteria to distinguish between these two situations has been indicated above, do not commit violence for sake of revenge, but do commit for sake of self - defense. In other it is perfectly moral (infact the only morality) to harm other's eye (or at the least maintain a credible capability and demonstrable intention to commit it) if it can save your eye.
Indians do not realise it but terrorism is a form of war, violence is unleashed to achieve a purpose, to weaken Indian state and society, so far due to sheer size India is coping with this problem. It is not clear however for how long India can resist it, already we are hearing of Muslim Pradesh , considering that Indians disrespect history, it is anyone's guess when history will again teach a lesson to Indians.
There are two perspective on the issue of terrorism. One perspective gives priority to moral highground other gives to lives of Indian citizens. I belong to the latter category, unfortunately we remain in minority.
This is true violence without purpose is reprehensible. But sometimes there are circumstances where violence is not only neccessary but also the most honourable course to follow.
War is such a time, when war is neccessary then the soldier is not punished for violence but awarded for killing enemies, this ofcourse goes with natural instinct for survival.
Then applying the above quoted adage is fallacious in all the situations. This is because while in many situations "an eye for eye" may result in world becoming blind, in other situations not acting on it may result in a person becoming blind and trampled.
The criteria to distinguish between these two situations has been indicated above, do not commit violence for sake of revenge, but do commit for sake of self - defense. In other it is perfectly moral (infact the only morality) to harm other's eye (or at the least maintain a credible capability and demonstrable intention to commit it) if it can save your eye.
Indians do not realise it but terrorism is a form of war, violence is unleashed to achieve a purpose, to weaken Indian state and society, so far due to sheer size India is coping with this problem. It is not clear however for how long India can resist it, already we are hearing of Muslim Pradesh , considering that Indians disrespect history, it is anyone's guess when history will again teach a lesson to Indians.
There are two perspective on the issue of terrorism. One perspective gives priority to moral highground other gives to lives of Indian citizens. I belong to the latter category, unfortunately we remain in minority.
