This implies that a love or revenge or a desire to avenge wrongs done to one is justifiable. Every living creature is interested in self-protection and so when dangerous situations arise there is a tendency to guard one’s own self – interest and one’s own life. At the same time, to take things lying low and allow the enemy or the opponent to have the upper hand is also considered to be a sign of weakness.
So the natural inclination is to take action against the offender. If a man has caused one of your teeth to be knocked out, then the proper action is to cause a similar loss in him. ``An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’’. Is deemed to be fair play and none can be blamed if he or she wishes to take revenge. Tolerance may be a virtue, but it is apt to be mistaken for weakness and may encourage the aggressor. Hence for weakness and may encourage the aggressor. Hence, the relation implied in the title is justified and cannot be considered unfair play.
``an eye for eye, a tooth far a tooth’’ is what was thought during the earlier days of civilization, before the birth of Christ. But he taught a new philosophy, the philosophy of love. This philosophy has been thought over the centuries by great religious leaders almost throughout the world. Our Indian culture is such that principles or love and charity have predominance over most other qualities. Gandhi showed the world the efficacy of love and non-violence with which weapons he caused the rout of the mighty British Empire.
Even in private life, if a person does harm to us and we do not take much notice of it and tolerate it, he is bound in the long run to realize his fault reform himself, feeling sorry for and ashamed of his action. On the other land, if we retaliate it is likely to cause a continuation of his spiteful attitude. Hatred breeds hatred. Hence instead of ``an eye for an eye’’ it would be nobler tap adopt the principle. `` love thy neighbor as thyself’’ the philosophy of love and understanding will bring fruitful results.