A question concerning punishment/reward and justice

[Mathias]

A simple question for you all, which I'm curious about how people answer.

If a person A intentionally hurts a person B, how does it follow that A deserves to be hurt himself/herself (hurt as in punished)?

To teach person A not to do it again and scare others from doing it is not an answer, because that has more to do with psychology and keeping law and order. I'm asking why it logically follows from an action that the person commiting the action deserves to be punished/rewarded for the sake of justice and morality alone, not because of encouragement/discouragement.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

Lex Talionis. It's an ancient rule dating back thousands of years. It's found in many cultures across the world. In the Bible it is expressed as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb, a life for a life" or something like that. It basically come from the reasoning that the punishment must fit the crime.

[Mathias]

But why does that rule hold? Why is it a good rule?
If it comes from the reasoning that the punishment must fit the crime, then it does not answer my question, because I am asking why must the punishment fit the crime? What is the reasoning behind punishment in the first place, other than discouragement?

[CarbEast]

Morality does not appear out of thin air. Morals are the code of conduct for what is perceived to be a well ordered society, and the idea of morality is simply a derivative of idea of order. So you can't conclude anything logically out of morality alone, because alone it can't exist. That's of course unless you only accept morality as a religious testament, and then the answer is simple: it's written.

[Denny Crane!]

Morality does not appear out of thin air. Morals are the code of conduct for what is perceived to be a well ordered society, and the idea of morality is simply a derivative of idea of order. So you can't conclude anything logically out of morality alone, because alone it can't exist. That's of course unless you only accept morality as a religious testament, and then the answer is simple: it's written.

What a pile of tripe, morality is born out of instinct and reason. Any morality based on religion is specious.

[CarbEast]

What a pile of tripe, morality is born out of instinct and reason. Any morality based on religion is specious.

If only you bothered to actually read my post instead of immediately jumping on it with strong words, you might actually find that there wasn't as much contradiction in it with what you say, but never mind...

[Denny Crane!]

If only you bothered to actually read my post instead of immediately jumping on it with strong words, you might actually find that there wasn't as much contradiction in it with what you say, but never mind...

I know an appeal to moral relativity when I see one. The idea that there is only relativity or religious thought is a false dilemma.