You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)
Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)
An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind. (Gandhi)
The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. (Martin Luther King Jr.)
If you want to play:
If two players play prisoners' dilemma more than once in succession and they remember previous actions of their opponent and
change their strategy accordingly, the game is called iterated prisoners' dilemma.
This game is very similar to interactions in the real world.
Tit for tat strategy is one of the best strategies for this game
1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
3. The agent is quick to forgive
4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.
Tit for tat is very similar to eye for an eye.
In Nice Guys Finish First, Dawkins seems to concentrate only on how nice tit for tat is, and talks about cooperation and forgiveness.
I feel like he's "peacemongering" and should be concentrating more on retaliation part and how tit for tat is basically eye for an eye.
Or am I wrong?
Nice Guys Finish First
Jesus said it's not eye for an eye, but turn the other cheek (pacifism).
Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi were also against eye for an eye.
This is not right as this is don't retaliate strategy (or always cooperate).
This strategy is no good, because nasty strategies exploit it quickly.
Like a kid that won't fight a bully and always gets beat up, or a guy that always loans money and never gets it back.
Or a guy that does favors when asked and never gets one in return...
Or being nice to everyone and people exploiting this.
That's where I think Dawkins is a little biased in Nice Guys Finish First.
"Nice guy" sounds like a sucker, more accurate representation of his nice guy is a guy that starts off nice,
but if you're nasty he takes revenge and won't stop until you stop. I substituted retaliation with revenge. Same word.
Ok, so if eye for an eye is a highly effective strategy, is our justice system flawed?
Why is death penalty more and more "wrong"?
Is this natural, or is this how pacifism and other religious thought influenced the world?
Jesus, Buddha --> Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., United Nations (universal declaration of human rights) --> Amnesty International --> most of the world abolishes death penalty
Ok, I read that they started thinking about abolishment during Enlightenment, but that didn't take.
Only after declaration of human rights, there were significant changes.
Maybe we should think about the possibility of objectively examining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)?
It was put together very quickly, while the world was still in shock from WW2, and it was heavily influenced by religious organisations and pacifists.
1st and 3rd article of UDHR is basically a copy of 2nd sentence of the Declaration of Independence, without "Creator" and "pursuit of Happiness".
Notice "Creator", Jefferson was a deist, so I believe this is a direct influence of religious thought on UDHR.
Some of the organisations that were consulting at the time of draft of UDHR:
World Women's Christian Temperance Union
World's Young Women's Christian Association
International Federation of Christian Trade Unions
Catholic International Union for Social Service
International Union of Catholic Women's Leagues
Commission of the Churches on International Affairs
from wiki (source Glendon 2001, A World Made New...):
Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on human rights,
including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.
So, back onto death penalty. It seems that a better strategy is to retaliate life for life as game theory (PD, tit for tat) teaches us.
There have been studies about the deterrence effect of death penalty, but there were also opposite studies. No definite conclusions can be drawn.
I was thinking if the state can make decent money off of prisoners, with work, this would be a better alternative.
But then it would be in the state's and its businesses' interest to have prisoners, because they generate income. This is conflict of interests,
so it's not the brightest idea, but it doesn't even matter, because forced labor kind of violates article 4 of human rights, it violates labor rights and it takes jobs from law-abiding people.
I know of no rational arguments behind the 3d article of UDHR.
Tit for tat suggests that revenge argument of abolitionists is wrong.
Seems that only valid argument against death penalty is wrongful death.
Risk of wrongful death is bad, but once studies show the deterrence effect of death penalty and determine that many lives are saved with just one execution,
the views on the risk of wronful death will be different. And the state has a duty to protect its people.
"The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal..."
Steven D. Stewart, JD
What are your thoughts on everything?
This post is not meant to offend anyone, try to be reasonable in your responses.
I'm a fan of Dawkins btw, but what if root of all "evil" is not religion, but religion-influenced morals that may (or not) go against our nature?
-argument from game theory for death penalty, against pacifism, indiscriminate altruism and for objectively examining the UDHR.
-prisoner's dilemma is very similar to interactions in real world
-tit for tat is one of the best strategies for PD
-tit for tat is basically eye for an eye
-eye for an eye is one of the best strategies for real world
-revenge is good
-death penalty is good, life for life seems reasonable
-not everyone has "right to life"
-UDHR, pacifism, common ethics seem wrong (including most religious and secular humanist ethics)