please give the examples against the topic - an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I believe the meaning of that cliche is . . .
The world won't get anywhere by old, outdated, archaic means of relating to each other.
- 1 decade ago
If everyone took something back for every single thing that was taken from them, the world would be even worse off.
i.e. Revenge is not always the answer
Found out it is a saying from Mahatma Gandhi...
And that there is a previous question posted here if that could help you http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200807...
That has a long explanation on it. But basically, one way you could argue against it would be to say "What if we didn't take one back for one we lost?" Would those that has taken the 'one eye' go on and take two? Then truly we would be blind, Do we wait to be blinded ourselves if we didn't go an eye for an eye? Many people are of the opinion that it would only make us one eye blind, and that is, in a way, true, just like I mentioned before, if we do strike back, maybe each of us loses one eye but never fully blind, and learn a lesson.
Of course, it could go on and on about continuing the whole eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth etc. but that it my simple understanding of it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It's basically saying that if everyone gives eachother things in return, the whole world will turn into thieves.Source(s): My lovely brain