Hobhouse liberalism is a political philosophy that originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, named after the British philosopher and politician Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse. At its core, Hobhouse liberalism advocates for a society in which individuals are free to pursue their own interests and goals, but also recognizes that the state has a role in promoting the common good and protecting the rights and welfare of its citizens.
One of the central ideas of Hobhouse liberalism is the concept of social justice. Hobhouse argued that the state has a responsibility to ensure that all members of society have the opportunity to lead fulfilling and productive lives, regardless of their social or economic status. This includes providing access to education, healthcare, and other essential services, as well as protecting workers' rights and promoting economic equality.
Hobhouse also believed in the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and argued that the state should not interfere in the personal lives of its citizens unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do so. He argued that the state should protect individual rights and freedoms, such as the right to free speech and freedom of religion, and should not discriminate against certain groups of people based on factors such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.
In addition to social justice and individual freedom, Hobhouse liberalism also emphasizes the importance of democracy and the rule of law. Hobhouse argued that the government should be accountable to the people and should operate transparently and in accordance with the rule of law. He believed that a strong and independent judiciary is essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens.
Overall, Hobhouse liberalism is a political philosophy that seeks to balance the interests of the individual with the needs of society as a whole. It emphasizes the importance of social justice, individual freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and advocates for a society in which all members have the opportunity to lead fulfilling and productive lives.
Did Gandhi actually say an eye for an eye?
These categories of laws were given in a way thay they suited the norms of the time and the location Arabia, around 1400 years ago. If, however, the guilty party illegally forgoes his exile, the "redeemer of blood", as an accessory of the court, may kill the guilty party. If the Spirit, Who is Life, exacted an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, this world would indeed be peopled with the blind and the toothless. The Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence states that the Gandhi family believes it is an authentic Gandhi quotation, but no example of its use by the Indian leader has ever been discovered. Retrieved 5 September 2019. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.
An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind
Retrieved 6 May 2021. Below are selected citations in chronological order. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. For example, what type of murder - only premeditated? Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, "An eye for an eye, etc.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Mahatma Gandhi — Bob Desautels
Update history: On February 25, 2012 the citation for the 1982 Gandhi movie was added. . Could you find out when and where Gandhi said this? Yes, you heard me. The Paul Harris Fellowship honours an individual that demonstrates significant support for the wonderful work of The Rotary Foundation. According to traditional Jewish Law, application of these laws requires the presence and maintenance of the biblically designated cities of refuge, as well as a conviction in an eligible court of 23 judges as delineated by the Torah and Talmud. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment. In conclusion, Mahatma Gandhi may have used the expression, but no conclusive evidence for this has yet been discovered.
Gandhi: "An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind"
I for one believe that no crime deserves the death penalty. Of course, if necessary and possible, take legal action, or anything required of this world to protect you. You get in a disagreement with a friend, spouse, relative. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. If the above is implemented correctly then it is beyond imagination that the relatives of the executed murderer would seek revenge on the relatives of the victim. Listen and learn with your eyes open, Buzzkillers! Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Therefore, the state must act as if it is precious, and under no circumstances should it take a life.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is one case where the Torah states "…and you shall cut off her hand…" Numbers 35:9—30 discusses the only form of remotely reciprocal justice not carried out directly by the court, where, under very limited circumstances, someone found guilty of negligent manslaughter may be killed by a relative of the deceased who takes on the role of "redeemer of blood". Gandhi "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" on Islamic justice system as Holy Quran also mention this. Then do what is right and he will commend you. And that way, the whole world will be blind and toothless. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. In such cases, the court requires the guilty party to flee to a designated city of refuge.
Instead of the usual reaction, take a step back and enter into reflection. Regarding reciprocal justice by court, however, the Torah states that punishments serve to remove dangerous elements from society "…and you shall eliminate the evil from your midst" The ideal of vengeance for the sake of assuaging the distress of the victim plays no role in the Torah's conception of court justice, as victims are cautioned against even hating or bearing a grudge against those who have harmed them. In other words, it is not a deterrent to people who will kill someone…state sanctioned violence may actually encourage violence! The latter condition is also applicable for any capital punishment. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. This body was the state in one of its earliest forms.
