Yes, that is really something: revenge often is a reaction to injustice and makes things difficult.

In addition I had some further thoughts:

The existing rules do not always correspond to the zeitgeist that is already emerging and established in many parts. They are lagging behind in parts. This is certainly due to the fact that there is no homogeneity between people and while some still favour the eye-to-eye mentality, others are in favour of rehabilitation. The world has become a very big place, moral values not limited to one's own locality. This is why I find the most dangerous flows to be those in which one part of the population, in exaggerated zeal, tries to convert other parts of the world, thereby motivating not progress but counterproductive stagnation, sometimes even extreme terror. One should not overdo it with one's own permissiveness if elsewhere more sensitive value systems with a probably still stronger moral feeling are present. The systems are far more complicated than one could observe and judge and find a moral and communicative superstructure for all equally. Even physicists find it difficult to find a unifying theory, so why should philosophers, psychologists and sociologists be any different?

Isn't it much easier to find a moral agreement between two people or to negotiate it, than to want to do it for whole peoples? Very few of us speak simultaneously with thousands of people, but rather in dialogue with individuals or, when it comes up, in groups. It is better to keep the masses out of such encounters, isn't it? I recently visited a Syrian family and I get along very well with the mother. Nevertheless, I know that divorce is something morally questionable to them, but we elegantly circumnavigated the subject after there was such a hint and I only briefly revealed that I was divorced myself so that there would be no embarrassment later because the information was important to note.

The direct confrontation would not only be detrimental to our relationship, but also completely unnecessary, because we are mature enough to realize that agreement in this regard will be difficult to reach. Nevertheless, it also resonates that we do believe in meeting in friendship. But we do not need moral debates as long as we have not first discovered the similarities and a friendship can be established. The differences can be accepted much better if one has got to know the other person in all his good qualities. Then every moral judgement will not be as sharp, will it not?

This lets me think of diplomacy and things unspoken, because everybody feels the small influences with some sensitivity and uses them himself. It's a kind of elegant game, I noticed.

Have a lovely Sunday, dear Abi