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

台湾の大規模罷免運動:私たちは彼らを選べても、罷免は決してできないのか?

台湾の大規模罷免運動:私たちは彼らを選べても、罷免は決してできないのか?

Kishou · Jul 24, 2025

一乗公益 寄稿 私たちは、世界の民主主義制度における深いレベルの改革というテーマに、引き続き注目していきます。 付録:台湾の罷免制度に関する10の修正提案 序論: 多くの民主主義国家において、国民は「投票で代表者を選ぶ」権利を持つ一方で、「任期中に罷免する」ことは極めて困難です。 これは偶然ではなく、制度設計に「内在する障壁」が組み込まれているからです。近年、台湾で相次いで発生した罷免運動を例にとれば、その制度が実際には機能不全に陥り、民意が制度的に冷遇され、政治的責任追及がほぼ不可能になっている様子が明確に見て取れます。 この背景には、より深い民主主義の問いがあります。 罷免権を持たない民主主義は、制御不能な委任に過ぎません。 有効な罷免メカニズムを持たない制度は、単なる見せかけの政治に過ぎません。 一、台湾における罷免の苦境:現実レベルの「合法的な無効化」 √ 事例1:陳柏惟氏の罷免案(2021年) × 事例2:黄捷氏の罷免案(2021年) × 事例3:鍾東錦氏の罷免案(2024年) これらの事例が示すのは、制度が罷免の道を開きながらも、実際には「罷免阻止の仕組み」を構築しているということです。 二、なぜ罷免制度は「形骸化」しているのでしょうか?台湾における5つの制度的障壁 1. 手続きが複雑で、ハードルが極めて高い 問題は、制度が「罷免」を専門的な闘争に変えてしまい、一般市民が関与しにくい点にあります。 2. 政党による乗っ取りと政治的二極化、罷免を「選挙戦の延長」に貶める 罷免の本質は制度の自浄作用であるはずが、政党が互いに攻撃する道具として利用されています。 3. 市民の動員構造の解体、行動力が高度に分散 現代の民主社会では、個人は「自由」であると同時に「孤立」しています。 4. メディア環境の異質化、言論空間が「偽の民意」を生成 メディアはもはや市民の判断を導くのではなく、政党の方針を固めるのを助ける役割を担っています。 5. 罷免後の制度的な後始末がなく、市民が混乱を恐れる 市民が求めるのは「責任ある是正メカニズム」であり、混乱後の政治の空転ではありません。 三、民主主義には「完全な罷免制度」が不可欠です もし民主主義が公共の列車だとすれば、選挙は乗車であり、罷免はブレーキです。 ブレーキシステムを持たない民主主義は、自由な制度ではなく、制度的な制御不能に陥っています。 ▶ 完全な罷免制度は、以下の5つの要素を含むべきです。 構成要素 機能 台湾の現状 改善提案 ① 容易な発動 市民が発起でき、政党の支援は不要であるべきです。 極めて高いハードルです。 第1段階のハードルを0.5%にまで引き下げます。 ② 公正な審査 署名、資格、公文書のプロセスがすべて公開されるべきです。 行政権による審査が曖昧です。 超党派の独立罷免委員会の設立。 ③ 政党による操作の排除 […]

台湾大罢免:我们能选他们,却永远罢不掉他们?

台湾大罢免:我们能选他们,却永远罢不掉他们?

Kishou · Jul 24, 2025

一乘公益 出品 我们将持续关注世界民主制度的深层改革议题。 附:台湾罢免制度的十大修正建议 引言: 在多数民主国家,人民拥有“投票选人”的权利,却极难“中途罢人”。 这不是偶然,而是制度设计上的“内建屏障”。以台湾近年来接连爆发的罢免案为例,我们可以清晰地看到:罢免制度在操作上几近瘫痪,民意被制度性冷处理,政治责任几乎无法追究。 这背后,是一个更深刻的民主命题: 没有罢免权的民主,是失控的授权; 没有有效罢免机制的制度,只是表演性的政治。 一、台湾的罢免困局:现实层面的“合法无效” 案例1:陈柏惟罢免案(2021) 案例2:黄捷罢免案(2021) 案例3:钟东锦罢免案(2024) 这些案例说明:制度虽开罢免口子,实际却构建了“防罢免机制”。 二、为什么罢免制度“名存实亡”?台湾的五重制度性障碍 1. 程序复杂,门槛奇高 问题在于:制度把“罢免”变成了专业战争,普通人难以介入。 2. 政党绑架与政治极化,令罢免沦为选战延长线 罢免的本义是制度自清,却被政党当作政治互打工具。 3. 民众动员结构解体,行动力被高度分散 现代民主社会里,个体虽“自由”,但“孤立”。 4. 媒体生态异化,言论空间制造假民意 媒体不再引导公民判断,而是在协助政党定调。 5. 罢免之后,无制度性善后,导致民众恐惧动荡 民众需要的是“负责任的纠错机制”,不是混乱后的政治空转。 三、民主必须有“完整的罢免机制” 如果民主是一辆公共列车,选举是上车,罢免就是刹车。 一个没有刹车系统的民主,不是自由的制度,而是制度性失控。 ▶ 完整的罢免机制应包含五个构件: 构件 功能 台湾现状 优化建议 ① 易启动 民众能发起,无需政党支援 极高门槛 降低第一阶段门槛至0.5% ② 公正审查 联署、资格、公文全程公开 行政权审查模糊 建立跨党独立罢免委员会 ③ 非政党操控 去党化动员 政党完全主导罢免动员 限制政党使用行政资源介入罢免 […]

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