What is the principle of talion. The principle of talion: the moral content

The famous biblical "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" has another name, adopted in jurisprudence - the talion principle. What does it mean, how did it arise, how and where it is used today?

Definition

Taleon principle presupposes punishment for a crime, the measure of which must reproduce the harm that is caused to them.

It can be material and symbolic. In the first case, the harm caused is reproduced by punishment exactly, and in the second case, the equality of crime and retribution is held in the idea.

The appearance of the talion principle is associated with the growth of a person's legal awareness, when uncontrolled blood feuds no longer meet the requirements of legal awareness. Thus, its purpose is to protect the offender and his family members from attempts to cause them excessive damage on the part of the victim and his family.

Punishment on the principle of talion in prehistoric times

The origins of the idea to equalize the punishment of a criminal with the damage caused to them, appeared in primitive society many millennia ago. In a primitive form, this principle has been preserved by some peoples to the present day. Thus, among the inhabitants of Guinea, a man whose wife was convicted of adultery had the right to sleep with the wife of the guilty, and in Abyssinia, the brother or other relative of a person who died as a result of someone's reckless fall from the tree could, in the same conditions, To an involuntary offender.

The principle of talion in the laws of Hammurabi

This Babylonian king, known for his wisdom and foresight, created a set of rules, according to which justice was to be administered in his country and on the territory of conquered lands. In the laws of Hammurabi there are 3 types of punishments:

• Punishment on a typical talion, ie, on the principle of "an eye for an eye";
• By a symbolic rule (the son who hit his father, cut off his hand, the doctor for an unsuccessful surgery - finger, etc.);
• According to the mirror rule (if the roof of the house collapsed and killed someone from the family of the owner, they put to death the relative of the builder).

It is interesting that for a false accusation a person could also be threatened with killing. In particular, such a penalty was envisaged if the slanderer was subjected to the death penalty.

In Judea and in ancient Rome

The famous theologian Philo of Alexandria defended the principle of balanced retribution as the only fair way to punish the perpetrator. He was also one of the first Jewish thinkers to consider the possibility of compensation for damage.

Responsibility on the principle of talion was recorded in the laws of ancient Rome. During the same period in Judea, the victim could choose between inflicting the same damage to the guilty and monetary compensation that was prescribed in the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 21:30). However, after a while, the Talmudic scholars decided that only monetary compensation could be recognized as a worthy talion for bodily harm. They justified this by saying that the validity of the talion can not be regarded as true, since the eye can be of smaller or larger size, visually or visually impaired, and so on.

Thus, the principle of Taleon equivalence was initially violated, and also the unity of the law prescribed for all in the Old Testament.

In the Bible

In the Old Testament, the talion principle was introduced in order to stop the chain of crimes due to blood feud between the families, which could last for many decades. Instead, the principle of equal retribution was applied. And this law was intended for use by judges, and not by individuals. That is why scientists urge not to consider the biblical principle of justice "an eye for an eye" as a call for revenge, as in the Old Testament Book of Exodus (21: 23-21: 27) it is only a matter of the punishment of the gravity of the crime committed.

Later, Christ called for "substituting his right cheek," thereby making a revolution in the minds of people. However, the principle has not disappeared, but has been transformed into the "golden rule of ethics", which in the original formulation says that one should not treat others as you would not want to do to you, and later served as an appeal to positive action.

In the Quran

In Islam, punishment on the principle of talion means in some cases the opportunity to compensate for damage by ransom.

In particular, the Qur'an envisions mirror retaliation for the dead (a woman for a woman, a slave for a slave), but if the murderer was forgiven by a relative (necessarily a Muslim), then he should pay a worthy ransom to the victims. The latter rule is presented as "relief and mercy", and for its violation a painful punishment is imposed.

In this case, the behavior of the forgiving in Sura 5 is considered an act that redeems sins. However, forgiveness in it is only recommended, but not required. At the same time in subsequent surahs one can find the idea that the recompense of evil for evil itself is such, therefore the avenging man equates himself with the villain.

Thus, in Islam the talion is not rejected as decisively as in Christianity. Especially the requirements to make distinctions when resolving questions with "our own" and with respect to infidels, on the insult of which it is required to respond the same, are especially sharp.

In the Russian law

The idea of talion in our country was preserved until the 18th century. So, in the Sobornoye Code of 1649, the punishment on the principle of talion means that it must treat the criminal as well as he does. The law explicitly states that for the ejected eye it follows "to do the same to him". Moreover, criminals could be tortured on holidays, as they did dashing deeds all the days of the week.

Strangely enough, but the talion was also preserved in the laws of Peter I. In particular, in the article of military from 1715 it was prescribed to burn the tongue of blasphemers with red hot iron, to cut off two fingers for a false oath, and to cut off a head for murder.

However, over time, such forms of talion have ceased to apply. First of all, this was due to the fact that the forms of crimes became more complicated, and the mirror punishment became impossible.

From the point of view of morality

It is believed that the talion principle is the first in a series of norms through which people ask the most general formulations about how the ratio of good and evil should be regulated. In other words, it precedes the emergence of moral standards. However, the emergence of a state that assumed the functions of justice turned the talion into a vestige of the past and struck it out of the list of basic principles of regulation based on morality.

Now you know the moral content of the talion principle, as well as its interpretation and essence of use in different religious and cultural traditions.