4 Strange Reasons ‘Eye for an Eye’ Does Not Bring Justice”

Avatar photo
Daohe · Jan 4, 2025
This article is inspired by a video featuring a young girl who, after being mocked by her classmates, chose to retaliate with violence to bring justice. Her mother gave her an important lesson: Two wrongs don’t make a right. In life, we often encounter similar conflicts: when faced with wrongful actions or even injustice, how […]

This article is inspired by a video featuring a young girl who, after being mocked by her classmates, chose to retaliate with violence to bring justice. Her mother gave her an important lesson: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

In life, we often encounter similar conflicts: when faced with wrongful actions or even injustice, how should we respond? Some choose to compromise, others remain silent, while some believe the best way to defend themselves is “an eye for an eye” to bring justice.

In a society grounded in the rule of law and ethics, every member of society should understand one fundamental truth: just because others make mistakes doesn’t mean one should make mistakes too. This is a test from God and a responsibility each citizen carries while enjoying their rights. It reflects our collective dedication to upholding justice in society.

1. Not combating evil with evil is the cornerstone to bring justice

The essence of the rule of law lies in limiting the abuse of power, restraining wrongdoing with justice, rather than allowing wrongdoings to cancel each other out. As citizens of the state, each of us has the right and responsibility to participate in society. The foundation of this right is the social order, centered on civilization and the rule of law.

The true mark of a civilized society lies in resolving conflicts through reason, dialogue, and structured systems, rather than resorting to violence. When faced with injustice, responding with force may appear justifiable, but it conveys a dangerous message—that violence can triumph over the principles and values that govern a civilized world. This approach ultimately erodes the moral fabric and legal foundation of society.

If everyone retaliated against wrongdoing with more wrongdoing, society would spiral into chaos, and the sound of people striking each other in anger would drown the voice of justice to. Ultimately, it is the members of society who would suffer the most. Violence and harmful actions are often emotional reactions born of pain and anger, rather than thoughtful solutions. They will bring more consequences. Therefore, when facing injustice, we should stick to our principles and defend to bring justice through lawful and righteous means.

2. Injustice is a test of civic duties

God granted us life with the purpose of becoming beacons of light. This light is seen not only in acts of individual goodness but also in our dedication to upholding social justice. As responsible citizens, it is our duty to care about public affairs and defend fairness and righteousness, never compromising our principles because of the misdeeds of others.

When we choose not to align ourselves with wrongdoing, we are not only living out our personal moral convictions but also setting a standard of righteousness for society. This choice is often difficult, as it requires us to endure pressure and misunderstanding from those around us. Yet this is precisely the test God places upon our souls: Are we willing to hold fast to the light in the midst of darkness? Do we have the courage to uphold to bring justice in the face of injustice?

3. Citizen power drives social progress

As citizens of a nation, we must exercise our power by overseeing social injustices, engaging in public affairs, and driving social change. When faced with injustice, we can choose to defend our rights through legal means, influence others’ perspectives through rational dialogue, and advocate for systemic improvement through collective social action.

While history does offer examples of social change driven by armed struggle, true societal progress depends on the improvement of institutions and adherence to rules, rather than actions driven by violence or emotion. Violence may bring about short-term reforms, but without rational planning and broad consensus, such changes are often unsustainable and susceptible to being undone by future turmoil. Anger can serve as a catalyst for action, and not bring justice but lasting transformation requires deep reforms in institutions, laws, and culture to build a more just and stable society.

At times, we may feel that our individual power is too small to change the status quo. Yet history teaches us that many great transformations began with the persistence of a single person. From Gandhi’s resistance to colonial rule to Rosa Parks’ fight for civil rights, they exercised their civic power to inject justice and hope into society. Their actions remind us that, in the face of injustice, the rational and lawful use of our rights is the most powerful weapon a citizen possesses.

4. Kindness Is Our Collective Responsibility to Bring Justice

We cannot justify our own wrongdoing simply because others have acted wrongly. This is not only a personal standard we set for ourselves but also a promise we make to society. When we choose kindness and to bring justice, our actions inspire others, creating a ripple effect of positive social interactions. Such choices bring inner peace and contribute to guiding society toward greater civility and fairness.

As the Bible teaches us, “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” This is not only God’s guidance but also the attitude we, as citizens, should adopt. Kindness is not a sign of weakness, and to bring justice does not mean compromising. Faced with injustice, every decision we make plays a role in shaping the surrounding society.

Conclusion: Our Peace and Light Bring Justice

This statement is not only a belief, but also a call to action. It reminds us that each of us bears the responsibility of improving society. As citizens of a nation, we must use our power to lawfully and rationally combat injustice, while safeguarding kindness and let the higher authority to bring justice.

God has granted us free will, empowering us to choose to be champions of kindness and light. Let us face injustice with courage, using our wisdom and resolve as citizens to bring about change. Every time we stand firm, we uphold the principles that bind society; every action we take sparks hope for the future. May we all strive to be citizens who stay true to our values, undeterred by the mistakes of others, and may we shine as beacons of light in the world.

Amen!

 

Share this article:
LEARN MORE

Continue Reading

社会公民经济如何重构“就业、失业与基本收入制度”

社会公民经济如何重构“就业、失业与基本收入制度”

Kishou · Feb 5, 2026

前言:就业不是“谋生”,而是公民存在于社会中的基本许可 在资本经济的意识形态中,“就业”被粗暴地简化为一个工具性定义:“有岗位→ 才有收入→ 有收入才能生存”。这种逻辑将人的生存权与资本的雇用需求牢固捆绑,使得“没有岗位”被系统性地默认等同于“你对社会没价值”。 “失业”被道德化地污名为个人能力不足、市场竞争淘汰、自我失败的证明,进而导致个体在精神上的自我羞辱。 “基本收入”(UBI)则被制度性地污名化为“养懒人”、破坏效率、违背神圣的市场规律的异端福利。 然而,在社会公民经济的框架下,这一整套基于恐惧和效率至上的认知必须被彻底颠覆: 就业不是市场偶然赏赐的机会,而是公民参与社会生产、服务与分享文明成果的基本权利。 失业不是个人能力问题,而是技术迭代、产业变迁所产生的结构性风险。 基本收入不是施舍,而是公民作为“社会共同体成员”所应享有的、对社会共同资产的最低分红权。 这是“以资本为中心的高效市场社会”与“以人为本的公民文明社会”之间,在伦理和制度上的根本分水岭。 一、资本经济下的就业本质:不是“让人活”,而是“用人榨值” 在资本主导的经济结构中,就业的底层驱动逻辑是冰冷而单一的:不是为了解决人的生存和尊严,而是为了最大化地降低生产成本和提高资本回报率。 劳动力被视为可替换的、有价格的投入要素,而非拥有主观能动性的社会成员。 于是,系统自然形成了一种冷酷且不断优化的剥削结构: 有用的人(高性价比)→ 留在系统里,接受无限内卷和绩效考核。 暂时没用的人(低性价比/需转型)→ 被系统丢弃,成为待价而沽的风险个体。 再也没用的人(技术性淘汰)→ 被文明遗弃,成为社会救助的负担。 所谓“灵活就业”、“弹性用工”、“自由职业”,在很多时候不过是资本对“无稳定保障、无社保覆盖、无组织工会”的劳动力进行剥削的文明包装。资本并不关心劳动者能否长期稳定地生活、发展和养老,它只关心你当下这一刻的“边际成本与边际收益是否足够高”。 二、社会公民经济对“就业”的重新定义:不是岗位,而是“社会参与权” 在社会公民经济中,我们必须将“就业”的定义从狭隘的“为资本提供岗位服务”升级为:“公民参与社会生产、公共服务、治理、照护与知识创造的制度性通道。” 这意味着,有价值的劳动不再只等同于“能产生直接财务利润”的劳动,它包括但不限于: 公共服务型就业(Public Service Jobs): 政府、公益组织提供的,面向全民的基础服务。 社会照护型就业(Social Care): 针对老人、儿童、残障人士的照料和情感支持。 社区建设与文化型就业(Community & Cultural): 社区治理、文化传承、艺术创作、非盈利性教育。 生态修复型就业(Ecological Restoration): 环境保护、污染治理、可持续发展项目。 价值认定原则: 只要你的劳动具备以下特征: 对社会有真实且不可替代的价值(Real Social Value)。 对公共安全与韧性有真实贡献(Public Resilience Contribution)。 对共同体的存续有真实支撑(Communal Support)。 它就应当被视为正当就业,并获得稳定的、具备尊严的收入与制度保障。否则,一个社会必然会陷入“真实有价值的事(如照护、基础科研)没人做,纯资本回报高但价值低的事(如金融投机、广告内卷)挤破头”的结构性荒谬。 三、失业的文明定性:不是“失败者”,而是“结构性风险承受者” 在资本经济的道德叙事中,失业是一种个体失败的耻辱,被制度性地隐喻为不努力、能力差、不适应市场。这种羞辱性定性极大地增加了社会的不稳定性和个体的精神负担。 但在社会公民经济中,失业的真实本质必须被非道德化、客观化地定性为:技术迭代、产业转移、全球资本波动、政策调整等系统力量所导致的“结构性牺牲”(Structural Sacrifice)。 核心逻辑是: […]

The Cost of Extending Pension Contribution Periods

The Cost of Extending Pension Contribution Periods

Kishou · Feb 1, 2026

Introduction: A Global Surrender of Time Amid a profound global demographic reversal, virtually all modern nations are performing the same quiet yet decisive institutional surgery: delaying retirement ages, extending contribution periods, and recalibrating benefit expectations. Technocrats package this transformation as “the necessary response to the aging crisis,” while fiscal departments frame it as “rational adjustments […]

read more

Related Content

Living by the Word: Finding True Spiritual Fulfillment
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Nov 11, 2024
This is an excerpt of a speech originally in Chinese given to Yicheng volunteers. It is slightly edited and revised. The speaker is Daohe. Today we will explore the topic “seeking fulfillment of the soul”. Thank you for your attendance. God bless us. May God be with us. In the Gospel of Matthew, during Jesus’s […]
View All Content