{"id":38507,"date":"2025-01-11T13:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-01-11T13:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=38507"},"modified":"2025-01-13T07:22:00","modified_gmt":"2025-01-13T07:22:00","slug":"an-eye-for-an-eye-people-agree-about-the-values-of-body-parts-across-cultures-and-eras","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/an-eye-for-an-eye-people-agree-about-the-values-of-body-parts-across-cultures-and-eras\/","title":{"rendered":"An eye for an eye: People agree about the values of body parts across cultures and eras"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Yunsuh Nike Wee<\/a>, Oklahoma State University<\/a><\/em>; Daniel Sznycer<\/a>, Oklahoma State University<\/a><\/em>, and Jaimie Arona Krems<\/a>, University of California, Los Angeles<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bible\u2019s lex talionis \u2013 \u201cEye for eye, tooth for tooth<\/a>, hand for hand, foot for foot\u201d (Exodus 21:24-27) \u2013 has captured the human imagination for millennia. This idea of fairness has been a model for ensuring justice when bodily harm is inflicted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks to the work of linguists<\/a>, historians<\/a>, archaeologists<\/a> and anthropologists<\/a>, researchers know a lot about how different body parts are appraised in societies both small and large, from ancient times to the present day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But where did such laws originate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to one school of thought, laws are cultural constructions<\/a> \u2013 meaning they vary across cultures and historical periods, adapting to local customs and social practices. By this logic, laws about bodily damage would differ substantially between cultures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our new study<\/a> explored a different possibility \u2013 that laws about bodily damage are rooted in something universal about human nature<\/a>: shared intuitions about the value of body parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do people across cultures and throughout history agree on which body parts are more or less valuable? Until now, no one had systematically tested whether body parts are valued similarly across space, time and levels of legal expertise \u2013 that is, among laypeople versus lawmakers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are psychologists who study evaluative processes<\/a> and social interactions<\/a>. In previous research, we have identified regularities in how people evaluate different wrongful actions<\/a>, personal characteristics<\/a>, friends<\/a> and foods<\/a>. The body is perhaps a person\u2019s most valuable asset, and in this study we analyzed how people value its different parts. We investigated links between intuitions about the value of body parts and laws about bodily damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The human body and its parts appear again and again in human thought and culture over time. (A) Body: Venus of Willendorf, Austria, ~29,500 years ago, Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria. Photo by M. Kabel (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons) (B) Head: Olmec colossal head, San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico, 1200 to 600 BCE, National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City, Mexico. (C) Torso: Bust of Nefertiti, Egypt, 14th century BCE, Neues Museum, Berlin, Germany. (D) Head, shoulders, knees, and toes: Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes: children\u2019s song, illustrated by M. R. Johnson, written by S. Silver, published by Barefoot Books. (E) Eye: Movie still of L. Bu\u00f1uel\u2019s An Andalusian Dog (67), photo by A. Duverger and J. Berliet. (F) Eye: Eye on the reverse side of the US $1 bill. (G) Mouth: Rolling Stones logo, designed by J. Pasche, The Rolling Stones. Shutterstock. (H) Heart: Aztec Codex Magliabechiano, approximately mid-16th century, National Central Library, Florence, Italy. (I) Hand and eye: Hamsa amulet against the evil eye, North Africa and Middle East. (J) Thumb: Facebook Like button. Wikimedia Commons. (K) Legs: Agora, by M. Abakanowicz, Grant Park, Chicago, photo by R. Mines. (L) Opening folio of the Law of \u00c6thelberht, Kingdom of Kent, approximately 600 CE, Kent County Archives, Maidstone, England., CC BY-NC<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How critical is a body part or its function?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We began with a simple observation: Different body parts and functions have different effects on the odds that a person will survive and thrive. Life without a toe is a nuisance. But life without a head is impossible. Might people intuitively understand that different body parts are have different values?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowing the value of body parts gives you an edge. For example, if you or a loved one has suffered multiple injuries, you could treat the most valuable body part first, or allocate a greater share of limited resources to its treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This knowledge could also play a role in negotiations when one person has injured another. When person A injures person B, B or B\u2019s family can claim compensation from A or A\u2019s family. This practice appears around the world: among the Mesopotamians<\/a>, the Chinese during the Tang dynasty<\/a>, the Enga of Papua New Guinea<\/a>, the Nuer of Sudan<\/a>, the Montenegrins<\/a> and many others. The Anglo-Saxon word \u201cwergild<\/a>,\u201d meaning \u201cman price,\u201d now designates in general the practice of paying for body parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"etching
\u2018Hand for hand\u2019 is one embodiment of fair retribution. mikroman6\/Moment via Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But how much compensation is fair? Claiming too little leads to loss, while claiming too much risks retaliation. To walk the fine line between the two, victims would claim compensation in Goldilocks fashion: just right, based on the consensus value that victims, offenders and third parties in the community attach to the body part in question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Goldilocks principle is readily apparent in the exact proportionality of the lex talionis \u2013 \u201ceye for eye, tooth for tooth.\u201d Other legal codes dictate precise values of different body parts but do so in money or other goods. For example, the Code of Ur-Nammu<\/a>, written 4,100 years ago in ancient Nippur, present-day Iraq, states that a man must pay 40 shekels of silver<\/a> if he cuts off another man\u2019s nose, but only 2 shekels if he knocks out another man\u2019s tooth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Testing the idea across cultures and time<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If people have intuitive knowledge of the values of different body parts, might this knowledge underpin laws about bodily damage across cultures and historical eras?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To test this hypothesis, we conducted a study involving 614 people from the United States and India. The participants read descriptions of various body parts, such as \u201cone arm,\u201d \u201cone foot,\u201d \u201cthe nose,\u201d \u201cone eye\u201d and \u201cone molar tooth.\u201d We chose these body parts because they were featured in legal codes from five different cultures and historical periods that we studied: the Law of \u00c6thelberht<\/a> from Kent, England, in 600 C.E., the Guta lag<\/a> from Gotland, Sweden, in 1220 C.E., and modern workers\u2019 compensation laws from the United States<\/a>, South Korea<\/a> and the United Arab Emirates<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants answered one question about each body part they were shown. We asked some how difficult it would be for them to function in daily life if they lost various body parts in an accident. Others we asked to imagine themselves as lawmakers and determine how much compensation an employee should receive if that person lost various body parts in a workplace accident. Still others we asked to estimate how angry another person would feel if the participant damaged various parts of the other\u2019s body. While these questions differ, they all rely on assessing the value of different body parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To determine whether untutored intuitions underpin laws, we didn\u2019t include people who had college training in medicine or law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then we analyzed whether the participants\u2019 intuitions matched the compensations established by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our findings<\/a> were striking. The values placed on body parts by both laypeople and lawmakers were largely consistent. The more highly American laypeople tended to value a given body part, the more valuable this body part seemed also to Indian laypeople, to American, Korean and Emirati lawmakers, to King \u00c6thelberht and to the authors of the Guta lag. For example, laypeople and lawmakers across cultures and over centuries generally agree that the index finger is more valuable than the ring finger, and that one eye is more valuable than one ear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But do people value body parts accurately, in a way that corresponds with their actual functionality? There are some hints that, yes, they do. For example, laypeople and lawmakers regard the loss of a single part as less severe than the loss of multiples of that part. In addition, laypeople and lawmakers regard the loss of a part as less severe than the loss of the whole; the loss of a thumb is less severe than the loss of a hand, and the loss of a hand is less severe than the loss of an arm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional evidence of accuracy can be gleaned from ancient laws. For example, linguist Lisi Oliver notes that in Barbarian Europe, \u201cwounds that may cause permanent incapacitation or disability are fined higher<\/a> than those which may eventually heal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although people generally agree in valuing some body parts more than others, some sensible differences may arise<\/a>. For instance, sight would be more important for someone making a living as a hunter than as a shaman. The local environment and culture might also play a role. For example, upper body strength could be particularly important in violent areas, where one needs to defend oneself against attacks. These differences remain to be investigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"black
People\u2019s evaluations are precise: They even agree on the relative value of each finger. H. Armstrong Roberts\/ClassicStock via Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Morality and law, across time and space<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Much of what counts as moral or immoral, legal or illegal, varies from place to place. Drinking alcohol, eating meat and cousin marriage, for example, have been variously condemned or favored in different times and places.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But recent research<\/a> has also shown that, in some domains, there is much more moral and legal consensus<\/a> about what is wrong, across cultures and even throughout the millennia. Wrongdoing \u2013 arson, theft, fraud, trespassing and disorderly conduct \u2013 appears to engender a morality and related laws that are similar across times and places. Laws about bodily damage also seem to fit into this category of moral or legal universals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yunsuh Nike Wee<\/a>, Ph.D. Student in Experimental Psychology, Oklahoma State University<\/a><\/em>; Daniel Sznycer<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Oklahoma State University<\/a><\/em>, and Jaimie Arona Krems<\/a>, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yunsuh Nike Wee, Oklahoma State University; Daniel Sznycer, Oklahoma State University, and Jaimie Arona Krems, University of California, Los Angeles The Bible\u2019s lex talionis \u2013 \u201cEye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot\u201d (Exodus 21:24-27) \u2013 has captured the human imagination for millennia. This idea of fairness has been a model […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":38508,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[293,826,8025,10,296,36,2450],"tags":[15921,15922,885,891,886,860,15923,6610],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38507"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38507"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38507\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38509,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38507\/revisions\/38509"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38508"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}