Updated: Apr 23, 2021
Recently I had a discussion about morality and the biblical quote 'eye for an eye' came up with a question, if we really need to fight back in case of a personal assault.
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' as Ghandi said and I truly admire his perspective. But how can you find the right action in accordance with religious rules vs. your own morality? or How can your own morality raise above regulations and automatic defensive reactions?
After this meeting one of my new, good friend provided me his perspective and it gave me an insight that despite the fact that the 'eye for an eye' considered barbaric, it led to countless new regulations, and resulted in moral development. It was also the case with similar other 'barbaric' rules. The point what he made is despite the fact of the morality of the rule, at the end it caused the change of the whole legislation.
But are cruelty or cruel rules necessary element of moral development? Or from the other aspects of it, do we need to answer assault with assault?
As per my point of view, aggressivity breeds agressivity and if I answer with the same method, I just sink down to the mental level of the attacker. So I avoid the attacker as I do not want to involve any kind of aggressivity and I think that the main reason of his/her aggressive act-out is his/her own inner conflict with him/herself with which I have nothing to do.
But if I withdraw, I look weak in the eye of the attacker and in the eye of everyone involved in a situation actively or passively. It can lead to a suggestion that everyone who assaults me can go without any kind of punishment, ergo I can transform into a black sheep of the community, victimized by the attacker. Is that really the case?
So do you need to fight back or not?
I believe that in order to answer the question, we need to justify if the situation is based on an ego-game, strictly for establishing power or hierarchical levels or if it is based on personal boundary's trespassing?
As per the ego-game, I believe this is clearly for the ones, who has not dealt with their own ego, and therefore they centralize their whole life around material issues and demands. Therefore answering to a challenge of that kind, is absolutely unnecessary as it is more profoundly considering the person inner conflict and has nothing to do with the other person.
But what happens when the trespassing is an intentional boundary hurting? In that case we are speaking about a clear sign of disrespect of personal space and according to my belief, it requires a clear and loud territory declaration, as I am responsible for my own Self. I wish to emphatize that Im speaking about boundary declaration and not counter-attack.
But how can I differentiate which is the ego-game and which is the trespassing? Standing up and declaring my own boundaries is healthy and necessary response.
But standing up just for the ego-sake to declare that I am better than an other, is absolutely unnecessary.
The real value will shine through the toughest darkness, just because of the quality. That is how it was made. The real diamond is real from the process, which it went through and therefore there is no need for any price-tag to be able to shine.
So how can you choose your own morality above the regulation? There is a level of development, where the diamond becomes ready. From that moment, it shines with its own light even in the mids of attacks. The source of the light came from inside therefore there is no need any outside source. It simply shines and does what it has to do, what it was destined to do. Therefore it is in peace, cause it knows that the one who created it, will provide the protection as well.