Stephen Nathanson argues that cases of torture or arson provide counterexamples to the principle of "an eye for an eye."

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Stephen Nathanson criticizes the principle of "an eye for an eye" by arguing that it fails to provide a morally acceptable guide in cases like torture or arson, where replicating the harm done (such as torturing the torturer or burning the arsonist's property) does not seem just or morally right.

Stephen Nathanson Argues That Cases of Torture or Arson Provide