It basically says that if someone does something heinous, they deserve to have the same thing done to them. For example, if someone breaks your MacBook, it's only right that you take his MacBook and break it.
Gandhi, on the other hand, was not on board. His remark "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" means that if we continue to punish people we consider cruel, we are no better than the bad ones ourselves. It's the whole "you can't solve violence with violence" spiel.
The main reason "an eye for an eye" cannot be applied to all situations is because it would yield ludicrous results in some cases. A vehicle thief might not possess a car to steal, while an arsonist might not own anything to burn down. Would cops abduct a convicted kidnapper or spy on a Peeping Tom?
And applying "an eye for an eye" to more horrific offenses such as rupe, assault, and attempted murder raises the question of who would carry out such retributions.
However, when considering the death penalty today, the quote may be pertinent.
I agree. It means that when violent trades are blown on both sides, both will be crippled. If humans can choose to resolve a conflict peacefully, no or few eyes will be lost. It relates to us because in Ukraine, about 2 million people have evacuated and many have lost their lives. If this was resolved peacefully, then many people wouldn't have to evacuate and few would have died.
Samuels action is surprised. The narrator's thoughts are about Samuel. THe narrator words are about the story. Minty's thoughts are about herself and Samuel's.
