Beware the Jabberwock
Talon-chan
The only way around this is if we have Man B take Man A's eye in retaliation for Man A taking Man B's eye. Then Man A would have no claim against B to take another eye.
Yes however Man B would still have taken an eye, whether it was the eye of the offender or not he would still have taken an eye, which is seen as a bad thing to do. Because of this, he should (theoretically) still have to pay the price of taking an eye.
The equation is balanced. Why would it be required that it continue?
As for your other argument, obviously it's not like -everyone- thought that way; The world isn't blind.
Although, now that I think about it, if that was really a problem, then it is obvious to me that people believing in it in the way that Ghandi was arguing would kill themselves off, thus ending the problem.
