Saturday, February 11, 2012

Tit for Tat Vs The Power of Forgiveness

"An eye for eye will make the whole world blind", says Mahatma Gandhi. The world has been trying to find sustainable soultions to historical faults such as 9/11, apartheid violence, communal violences in ireland and India etc. Those who emphasis forgiveness say that forgiveness need not be viewed as a principle of altruism, and it is done out of self-interest. At the same time, Tit for Tat clearly says it is a tool of cooperative game and aims to elicit cooperative behaviour from others. How do we strike a balance between these diverging strategies?

69 comments:

mayank tiwari said...

Gandhi used these words because he knew that the use of non-violent methods against British would have an abysmal impact rather than killing or harming. Forgiveness requires a greater amount of courage than revenge and has the power to induce positive feelings in the enemy. But these methods cannot be generalised for every scenario. Take Global Terrorism for instance, if the US would not have replied the 9/11 attacks by war in Afghanistan, these attacks might have continued because of the several terrorist training camps there. Similarly, if we continue to forgive then people will start taking us for granted.
Mayank Tiwari
32079

tijilthomas said...

In human situation participants play the next round of the game after observing others. So it becomes extremely important to make sure that the other player must not be dubious about the reason for which the action occurred for the occasion. The best part of TIT FOT TAT is, it has got high degree of clarity. In a new community it may not be feasible for one to apply TIT FOT TAT which gives negative outcomes right from the first day as a calculative business man, and may demand the strategy, but the reason for forgiveness should be conveyed clearly.
Tijil Thomas - 32045

Gaurav Singhal said...

Actors’ contribution to a collective effort under the auspices of a "tit-for-tat" logic depends on: Actors are faced with the question whether to produce and sustain a collective good not just once but indefinitely and Actors value the benefits of cooperation in the distant future quite highly, i.e. they have low discount rates of future benefits. For parties, forgiveness means the freedom again to be at peace inside their own skins and to be glad in each others’ presence. It is done out of self-interest but collective action involves interests of all the actors.

Gaurav Singhal (32014)

Abhishek Misra said...

There should be a balance between the act of forgiveness and tit-for-tat. In any situation the first act should be that of forgiveness, as it results in enhancing your opponent’s belief and regards in you and ultimately leads to a WIN-WIN situation. But if there is no initiative and cooperation from your competitor and he goes on playing the WIN-LOSE game, then after a certain threshold, one should revert to “tit for tat”. This will result in a “LOSE-LOSE” game and in many cases leads to cooperative action among all competitors to convert the situation into WIN-WIN.

ABHISHEK MISRA
(32001)

Ritu Kashyap said...

The idea of an eye for eye will make the whole world blind”, says Mahatma Gandhi. But this is incomplete story he also supported his own statement by saying that”, “Weak can never forgive; forgiveness is the attribute of the strong”. So forgiveness is a relative term, forgiven should realize it. He should not feel that he who decides the destiny of his subordinate (oppressed). Forgiving the culprit of 9/11 is nonsense because the culprit is not guilty of their misconduct. So there is no question of forgiveness .Hence Tit for Tat is the only strategy against them.
Ritu
(32037)

Prerna said...

Tit for Tat is a stable strategy in which a player lets other player defect first and then reciprocate in the similar way. In responding to defection from the other player, Tit for Tat strikes balance between punishing and forgiving. How much to forgive depends on environment in which one is working. If there is mutual recrimination, then generous level of forgiveness can be allowed but if the person whom you forgive starts taking advantage of you then forgiving can lead to exploitation. Thus judging the situation before forgiving is necessary. Reciprocating defection as well as cooperation leads to victory.

Prerna Gupta (32030)

BLOGupta ! said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shipra Sharma said...

“Excess of anything is bad.” Tit for Tat starts due to deflection by one player but when the other player reciprocates the action of former, it end up with cooperation from both sides. Forgiveness believes in cooperating others without deflecting so as to avoid for being deflected. However in the later strategy there is greater risk of exploitation. So to maintain a balance between these two divergent strategies one should adopt the rule of TIT FOR TWO TATS i.e, deflect only if the other player has deflected in two consecutive moves.
Shipra Sharma
(32092)

BLOGupta ! said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BLOGupta ! said...

Sometimes if there is no serious penalty or disincentive attached to the very first defection members will be tempted to defect to gain petty advantages. During my fieldwork I got to know about a number of SHGs that collapsed because a member defected after taking a loan and owed it to his critical economic status for his inability to repay. Sometimes the member was forgiven, sometimes not. Still in both the cases most SHGs succumbed due to either indebtness or disputes. Ultimately if defections are not strongly responded it can become the pathology of the entire group.
Mayank Gupta(32022

aniket said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aniket said...

Gandhi’s sayings are very true but when this saying was coined it was the time of Mahatma, now things have changed drastically. In today’s time it’s a non-zero sum game where your actions speak for you. Events like 9/11 etc can only reach a sustainable conclusion when parties involved practices timely and effective reciprocity. If a lion is forgiving someone then that makes a difference rather than a goat. Tit for tat with a check on envy and desires if practised can lead to a sustainable world. But this path is tough to tread on.
Aniket Mitra(32003)

Vineeth K N said...

Forgiveness as a strategy can work only in a social climate based on a shared vision of future. In the absence of such a climate it might lead to continued exploitation by the defector/ oppressor. Forgiveness can be instrumental in creating such a social climate by appealing to the value systems of the oppressor. Tit for tat also has forgiveness built into it in the sense that it does not hold on to grudges. Thus it also requires an enabling environment of shared future. But tit for tat will be far more effective in creation of such an environment by penalizing the defector for his actions.
Vineeth K N(32049)

Jainee said...

When people involved in any action have mutual interests and wish for welfare of all, forgiveness is the key to solve problems. Example could be- communal riots. Both Hindus and Muslims desire peace and harmony. Just because one of them defects, other bounces on, to show they are no less! But here strategy of forgiveness and extending a hand of friendship could actually work. On contrary, if any one party involved wishes the ill of other, as in case of 9/11, the only strategy that works is: Tit-For-Tat, as it proves the opponent you are not weak!
Jainee Nathwani
32071

Arshia said...

Response to problem depends upon its intensity. A tester strategy could be applied incase the problem is not as intense and sufferer can afford to grant another chance, sending out a signal of peace. If the problem is as intense as 9/11, the sufferer cannot be expected to forgive the opponent. This is a situation for tit for tat, or perhaps more. However, if the sufferer wants to be aggressive and forgiving simultaneously, a less intense tit-for-tat could be employed, where the sufferer reacts but not in the same measure, giving the opponent a chance to mend his ways.

Arshia Gupta (32057)

Ajay vikram singh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ajay vikram singh said...

Forgiveness is a powerful tool and a courageous act which provides an opportunity to the defector to correct his wrongdoing. The TRC of South Africa, for e.g. granted amnesty to those who committed abuses during the apartheid era. Yet TIT for TAT is an apt strategy when mutual cooperation is most desirable and when there are frequent interactions. It sends a very clear and strong signal of our strategy to the opponent. Moreover, TIT for TAT involves certain aspects of forgiveness as one can (depending on the situation) start retaliating even after the second defection of the opponent.

Ajay (32053)

JAY SINGH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAY SINGH said...

Forgiveness can be used to deal with a situation only in the short run where we are a little aware of how the future will transpire. But when repeated efforts fail to produce the desired result/s or are contradictory to what we have fought for, the whole purpose of forgiveness is lost and we start thinking of a different method of achieving our objective which sometimes takes a violent turn. A balance can be achieved if we do not depend too much on one aspect- forgiveness or revenge which is equally dangerous. Tit for tat is the only option left if all attempts of forgiveness fail.

JAY SINGH
32072

abcd said...

It is indeed true that "an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind" but in situations where forgiveness is deciphered as your weakness and is used against you, it becomes imperative to opt for Tit for Tat strategy. It makes sure the other person is also realize the implications that his action has created. In other words its about making the other one understand what it actually means to loose an eye.
Raja Panchal (32086)

Avanita said...

Forgiveness doesn't mean that you undermine those things that people have done to you but its an understanding and acknowledgement that sometimes people are unfair but depite this we choose them. Tit for Tat is taking your hatred a step further but it becomes peremptory if thats the only way to fetch results. The strategy that you adopt depends upon what the situation demands and more importantly is what individuals think should be their strategy as a solution to the existing problem.
Avanita
32058

Arpit said...

Tit for Tat is a strategy to make sure that every actor plays the game fairly and that the co-operation is maintained. Gandhi's thought of forgiveness was more of a fitting strategy to gather masses against the British rule in India. It was aimed to induce the largest number of people to come out and participate in the protests. As far as maintaining a balance between the two is concerned it can be said that an actor can be once forgiven for diverging from the cooperative, but for the greater interest of the cooperative a habitual divergent should be handled with Tit for Tat strategy.
Arpit Bansal
32009

Deepak Sharma said...

If you regularly start forgiving then it can be taken as a sign of weakness by the opponent, then you should use 'Tit for Tat' strategy.

Deepak Sharma
P32013

Himadri said...

The choice between a retaliation and forgiveness is more of a strategic choice. Striking back at an opponent may be more harmful if we are not capable of a sustained campaign. While forgiveness though is the moral answer but for steadfast opponents it is a sign of weakness, they might take advantage of it. I believe forgiveness is something you give to who has been shamed, someone who is unabashed at attacking you cannot and must not be forgiven. Here the strategy of “tit for tat” must be used.

Himadri Sarkar
32068

mayank k said...

Forgiveness is not something done for others it is done for oneself to forget the past and move on but there has to be a line when to forgive and when to use Tit for Tat.In a situation of riot one has to forgive and move on because in these cases Tit for Tat will increase tension and wont serve purpose while in case of terror attacks if some action is not taken then it is considered as a sign of weakness.A balance has to be maintained between two strategies.The context in which an actis done,the intensity of act commiitted all have to play a major role in deciding when to use what strategy
Mayank kashyap
32023

Nilesh Sharma said...

Gandhiji used these words, because scenario was appropriate according to the non violence at that time. He knew what Britishers were capable of doing and what Indians could do.TIT for TAT policy has to be applied differently in different circumstances. Forgiveness is important but it should be given by some signal of retaliation, so that your exploitation would not take place. It is not easy to forgive but if everyone continues to follow TIT for TAT, the result would be catastrophic.
Nilesh Sharma(32080)

kajal kumari said...

I would say it is best to reciprocate, be it defection or co-operation. And doing good to someone who has been defecting regularly is to make a fool of oneself, as in the other person may consider you too week to retaliate. So, it is best to co-operate till the other person does and retaliate with a lesser impact every time so as to send a message that the potential for greater harm in future exists if they do not stop defecting.
kajal kumari
32074.

Durga Satapathy said...

"tit - for tat" policy is important, so is forgiveness..but the question is under what situation. forgiveness is fine if the circumstance demands it, when there is no other alternative, or when the condition is not that grave. Again ' tit for tat' is also needed, to show that the opponent is not the one who can cause harm, however the degree to which 'tit for tat' is done is essential

Durga Satapathy
32065

Gurpreet said...

Tit-for-Tat implicitly means no one defects first. Basically it is when Tit-for-Tat itself get defected by players, it will lead to dilemma between retaliation and forgiveness.
As such there can't be a demarcating line between retaliation and forgiveness. Words and actions of opponent can help in deciding whether to retaliate or to forgive. Even then we can't be sure whether the option we have chosen is correct or not and to what extent.
Gurpreet Singh
32066

varun said...

Though ‘Tit-for-Tat’ strategy is useful in a collective action where members would not like to defect in order to avoid similar actions and thus keep cooperating. But retaliation through same actions out of revenge of some injustice in the past only causes problems. After bearing the brunt of racial discrimination by Blacks, the current regime under Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is following Tit for tat against the Whites even though that hurts economically. So it depends on situation for a greater good that forgiveness and retaliation should be exercised.
Varun
32046

Sameera Mushini said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sameera Mushini said...

We would like to forgive, but we would just like to know who to forgive. How fantastic to see this young girl, still human despite all efforts to dehumanise her." These words of Desmond Tutu summaries the whole argument about the two divergent theories. It is important to forgive, but whom to forgive and whom not to, is even more important. It also depends on the moral strategy of the person. It pays to use TIT FOR TAT when the perpetuator is made to understand the rationale behind the action, only then a WIN WIN status can be achieved.

Ayan Roy said...

Forgiving our adversary umpteen times is unrealistic especially in today’s world. On occasions we must stand up to the enemy and counter force with force. If the opponent is persistently unreasonable and confrontational we must face him squarely and counter him. But this does not mean that we should fight our opponents all the time. If we try to play the game our enemy is playing then we might fall into his trap. In doing so we shall be losing our own happiness and mental peace. So we should adopt the tit for tat policy but only upto a point.
Ayan Roy(32061)

Anusha said...

The idea of forgiving the perpetrator or the opponent often strikes very late when the TIT FOR TAT strategy seems not to be fruitful. Same was the case with the independence movement where the TIT FOR TAT strategy had triggered the freedom struggle. The movement had lost its momentum until Gandhi came up with an idea of ‘satyagraha’ and forgiveness. As far as the present day terrorism and communal violence is concerned, forgiveness is taken as weakness by the perpetrators for their cause of the struggle itself is irrational and hence can be settled only by TIT FOR TAT.
ANUSHA (32007)

Pavan EVSR said...

I would like to refer to a movie named ‘Invictus’ to illustrate forgiveness. This movie is based on book ‘Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation’. Nelson Mandela used forgiveness as a tool to bring the whole of South Africa together and become an inspiration behind their rugby world cup success as shown in the movie. He was pressurized from various corners to adopt a vengeance mode on whites after he became president. But he embraced forgiveness path to elicit co-operation from whites, which has a hint of both altruism and self-interest.
Pavan EVSR(32084)

Abhinav Deep Sinha said...

In today's world, the power of media and communication ensures that any propaganda can be sustained in any part of the world for as long as required. Forgiveness requires that a big part of the issue be wiped out of public memory. What is out of sight, is also out of mind. But that is not possible in today's world. One who forgives would harm himself as the other party would keep alive its propaganda and plan their revenge making forgiveness a futile exercise. Nothing constructive will happen if old wounds are constantly prodded by propaganda .

Himanshu Pilania said...

There are two sides from which forgiveness can be looked upon. First defines forgiveness as value strong enough to put an end to the TIT for TAT settling of scores that has wreaked havoc over generations. Other defines forgiveness as a weak gesture which lets the violator off the hook and encourages only further violence. In my opinion, the first view (Gandhi’s) is true. For example, some victims of violence and terrorism recognize that the more you slam down, the more people re-group and emerge in a stronger way. And there is a real desire to break this cycle of violence.
Himanshu Pilania
(32070)

Ankush said...

We can believe in ‘Tit for Tat’ when those we are dealing with are weaker than us or of same strength. Otherwise, we can only save our face by believing in forgiveness. Though I do not believe in violence, I feel forgiveness could only be used to an extent. If the opponent starts taking it as a weakness, it is time for a change of strategy. India, for instance, is considered a weak state – unable to protect its own citizens. I don’t think that level of forgiveness or tolerance is any better than a Tit for Tat strategy, or is it?
- Ankush khanna

Ankithreddy said...

Gandhiji believed in his strategy of non-violence as the best tool, each time he adopted different methods to pressurize the Britishers which is a kind of Tit For Tat for the actions of Britishers(e.g : protests against Rowlatt act, peasent movements in Kheda). Forgiveness at first is applicable in a situation where there is acknowledgement and reciprocity from the oppressor, otherwise oppressed remains in the same state. Tit for Tat as a tool promotes the mutual interest rather than by exploiting the other's weakness.
Ankith Reddy(32054)

RAJKAMAL RAWAT said...

The attitude of retaliation is not good for anyone. It is the strong who have the power of forgiveness. It needs lots of courage to walk in the path of non violence. Tit for tat has its advantage if it is employed in positive mode or else it could be very dangerous. For example the whole world was on the verge of destruction at the time of World Wars and Cold war. There is need for balance.

Rajkamal Rawat
32035

p32021 said...

In choosing between Tit for tat and forgiveness it is important to study the environment in which the decision is to made. Gandhi used the tactic of not going outside the experience of the indian people and believed that call of non -violence will facilitate collective action more efficiently than violence. In the context of 9/11 and apartheid, the danger with forgiveness is that it can be exploited and taken for granted.Here tit for tat works as the punishment fits the crime without being as painful as the crime was.

Mayank Gaur
p32021

Nitin D Mendhe said...

Forgiveness liberates us from the negativity and the trap of endless retaliation, lets us to move forward and acts as a paradigm shifting solution for transforming hatred into peace of mind whereas "An eye for an eye " leads to an endless round of attack and counter-attack. .But,which tool should be chosen ? Forgiveness or Tit-for-Tat, its totally depends upon what situation is demanding. Could we imagine? What would have happened if we had adopted the policy of forgiveness to our neighbour country Pakistan for its terrorist activities against us since partition?
P32081

Rajeev said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rajeev said...

Dealing with the aforementioned problems, everything boils down to the cost-benefit analysis of the future action. Where cost can be – property loss, human deaths, loss in economy etc and profits – higher self esteem, deal/pact in the respondents favour, peace etc. Values can be assigned to each type of cost and benefit to derive the net benefits. The motive is to obtain positive net benefits. Now the approach - out of Tit for Tat or Forgiveness - that will get more benefits in a given situation will be the chosen strategy. So both the approaches have self interests attached to them.
Rajeev (32034)

Dhruv Mittal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dhruv Mittal said...

Balance between “Tit fot Tat” and “Forgiveness” will greatly be determined by the context i.e. when and with whom are we dealing with. If the enemy is ruthless, then forgiveness will only give indication that we are weak. On the other hand, if we dealing at a stage where we know that events are visible to other significant players and enemy has some inherent values, then forgiveness will be the right strategy.

Dhruv mittal
32064

Neelam said...

Forgiveness can be seen as sign of weakness to defend oneself from being harmed by the opponent & reiterated as “altruism” or defined as a strategy according to Tit for tat. Both ways the utility of the term is justified referring to the situation one gets into. It is important to reveal one’s power in form of tit for tat & communicate a message to other opponents depicting ones strength. But at that same it is imperative to realize that this power should be used in limits as its over-use eventually goes in vain with no substantial benefits.
Neelam (p32026)

KHUSHBOO SINHA said...

A serious problem with TIT for TAT is that it iterates a sense of escalating tension,once a feud gets started it can continue indefinitely. Whereas forgiveness as a strategy inculcates a sense of mutual benefit by not retaliating.It is important to recognize defection when it occurs but the way to strike a balance between diverging strategies like TIT for TAT and forgiveness as a principle of altruism is that both should be mixed for a successful collective action. A better strategy might be to return only nine tenths of a TIT for TAT and should be incorporated with a signal.
Khushboo Sinha(p32017)

supriya1317 said...

Any strategy whether be forgiveness or Tit for Tat depends on the situation.Excess of forgiveness can be considered a sign of weakness while Tit for Tat can increase the tension.The strategy which benifits in a particular situation should be used in that situation.Many naxalites on surrendering are forgiven by the government and no action is taken against them .This act promotes other naxalites to surrender and strategy is useful but if someone again defects then TIT For TAT will be correct strategy to use .
Supriya Bajaj

Kamal Rangan said...

Striking a balance between “Forgiveness” and “Tit for Tat” depends very much on the environment and the defector. Our act of forgiveness should never be misunderstood as Helplessness where the defector might be even more aggravated to overpower us. Here Tit for Tat helps in sending across the message. But a situation where mutual cooperation and well-being is necessary for both parties for a shared future, forgiveness would be instrumental in achieving the end target of employing the WIN – WIN strategy. Thus forgiveness doesn’t always have to altruistic which is perfectly presented in the article by Desmond Tutu.
Kamal Rangan (32075)

Parminder Singh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Parminder Singh said...

Both forgiveness and TIT FOR TAT have their own pros and cons. Forgiveness strategy has the potential of tuning a foe into a friend. But it can send signal to oppressor that oppressed will not retaliate, which can encourage more exploitation of oppressed.
TIT FOR TAT can generate the fear of retaliation. But sometime there consequences can be catastrophic, especially when your enemy is much stronger than you. So these factors have to be taken into account while striking the balance between these two strategies.
Parminder Singh (32083)

Rahul said...

Tit for tat strategy brings in clarity of actions, so that the opponent knows the response if he deflect. In other words it acts as a deterrent mechanism and makes your opponent/other party THINK TWICE before resorting to any harmful action. However we need to balance this strategy with essence of Forgiveness, as it provides the other party a chance to correct its mistake. Thus forgiveness can open up a new path to resolve conflict without violence in domestic and international context.
Rahul Agrawal(32032)

Mehul Khare said...

Tit for Tat as a principle also brings out the fact that one of most important aspect in the game is to realize that opponent is as powerful and efficient as you are. Until the balance is perceived a non-zero sum game would not be effective. Tit for Tat as a strategy ensures the threat in case of defection to all the teams, which in long run increase the benefits. The strategy is effective when the opponent is an external party. Whereas principle of for forgiveness could be applied when you have a cushion for losses and you have enough to bear before the opponent calls it over. Such strategy may work in cases where an internal unrest is witnessed. Also if there is a sheer need for compromise and ceasefire.
Mehul,
32024

shashank- EXPLORING MYSELF said...

A very beautiful quote about forgiveness from Mahabhartha “There is one only defect in forgiving persons, and not another; that defect is that people take a forgiving person to be weak. That defect, however, should not be taken into consideration, for forgiveness is a great power. Forgiveness is a virtue of the weak, and an ornament of the strong. Forgiveness subdues all in this world. Fire falling on the grassless ground is extinguished of itself. And unforgiving individual defiles himself with many enormities. Righteousness is the one highest good, and forgiveness is the one supreme peace”.

Shashank Singhania
P32091

Kireet said...

No strategy to elicit cooperation can be considered absolute and ever applicable. A strategy of non-violence was successful against the British, however, in case of a dictatorship rule like that of Hitler, the strategy might not have worked. Similarly, forgiveness won’t work against terrorism and communal violence as they are not driven by reason or logic but by impulse and anger. Hence, the doer does not analyse the situation before acting in these cases, forgiveness will not elicit cooperation, rather would motivate further attacks. Thus, TIT for TAT is the better strategy against such thoughtless and merciless acts.
Kireet
32018

Priyanka said...

Either at the time of Gandhi or in the present context forgiving anybody is always considered more audacious than to take revenge. The basic philosophy behind forgiving is to absorb the negative energy generated by opponents, otherwise the outcomes are generally comes in the form of reaction.
Priyanka Goel
32031

vijay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vijay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vijay said...

Both the strategies may prove logical depending on the situation in which they are being applied. The credit of Indian Independence movement goes not only to Non-Violence movement By Mahatma Gandhiji but also to the 'Garam Dal' members Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Chandrashekhar Azad etc. Well it may be a logical thinking that if non-violence can uproot a whole foreign kingship in India then why can't it be used for tackling the recent communal and terrorist generated violence.But it can also not be denied that we can't rely only on non-violence and a sense of forgiveness beyond a limit. It may be a mild attitude of India that Pakistan and China were able to have more than half of Kashmir and India could have turned into a situation similar to that faced by Tibet if Indian Army is not there. The response of US to the attack on WTC on 9/11 may be an ideal course of action that should be followed if possible to uproot terrorism and stop communal grievances.
Vijay Prakash Gupta
(32047)

Raj kamal goldi said...

Striking a balance between the two strategies requires knowledge of what is going on in the minds of others. If one is forgiving it must make the other person/persons realize that they have committed an offence so that the probability of their engaging in the cooperative behavior in the future may increase. But if one’s forgiveness does not make others realize their offence then by forgiving one will actually be giving them incentives to do wrong things in future also and hence in such situation tit-for-tat is the strategy which will be appropriate.
Raj kamal goldi
32033

Subhradip said...

It is obvious that forgiveness has a more fruitful effect on humans rather than the tit for tat tactics. But if we look at the recent time we find that nobody has the time to wait for the long term benefit. Everybody is looking for the short term benefit. They depend more on the first tactics than the second one. Patience is one of the most critical factors for forgiveness which is now absent in gen-X.
Subhradip Barman
(p32096)

Chocodips said...

If we regard forgiveness so highly then none of the terrorist attacks should have perturbed the world at all. The truth is its easy to say that to forgive is divine, but no one is truly divine. A person who considered it legitimate & justified enough to kill hundreds mercilessly, deserves no mercy in return! But, till he lives peacefully, nobody has a right to trouble him either.
- Bhavi Patel (32011)

empowered said...

Forgiveness is difficult when one is in a position to take revenge. But when one can’t resort to ‘Tit for Tat’, the best ‘tactic’ is to forgive. Gandhiji didn’t resort to ‘Tit for Tat’ against the British as it would have done more harm than good. In this sense, Forgiveness is not altruistic at all, but a tactic. Tit for Tat, on the other hand, is used when it pays off;for instance, Lankan Army resorting to violence against LTTE. Thus, one can’t believe in just one of two strategies; both are effective in different circumstances.
-Swati Vashisth (32098)

Parneet Kaur said...

Taking these two strategies as the two extremes, a middle path would be a conscious and peaceful settling of differences using negotiations, talks and finding out ways to redress the wrongs.(The process may be long but that depends on how earnestly and sincerely it is carried out.) This is neither as ideal as forgiving nor as undesirable as paying back in the same coin.In all 'historical faults' mentioned, narrow and crooked thinking of a few have led to larger negative consequences affecting many who were not involved directly in any way.Both in forgiving and Tit for Tat, the real sufferers don't seem to be benefiting.
Parneet Kaur(32028)

Raunak Rao said...

We must reciprocate defection and co-operation alike. For this we can employ either Tit for Tat or Forgiveness strategies whose usage depends on the kind of person or situation one is dealing with. If somebody is employing strategies deliberately to exploit the easy going rules then the power of forgiveness will lead to zero gain. In this case Tit for Tat strategy will be helpful as it works on the principle of reciprocity. Now in case of 9/11 and other terrorist activities, power of forgiveness will further lead to victimization of citizens and hence Tit for Tat is justified.
Raunak Shashikant Rao(32036)

Vikash said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vikash said...

In a collective action problem rife with defaults and betrayals tit for tat seems to be the most appropriate strategy because it not only acts as a source of deterrence but also gives the defaulter an opportunity to re-calibrate its behavior back to cooperation. The beauty of this strategy is that it never betrays on the first move, it merely reciprocates non-cooperation and breach of trust with retaliation. However it runs the risk of losing the trust of the cooperator when the default has occurred due to misinformation or without intention. In such cases forgiveness as a strategy will increase mutual trust and cooperation.

P32048

sinhasoumya7 said...

In human history,the desire for revenge and the desire for loot have often been closely associated.What’s happening under the cloak of ‘Tit for Tat’ is a gradual destruction of the society.
As mahatma Gandhi rightly said, “The weak can never forgive.Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong”,the various forms of violence are taken up by the ones who are still under the burden of anger and pain.When you choose to forgive,you choose to live in the present and the future instead of the past.But indeed,a line needs to be drawn where forgiveness would help in healing and where it would only provide prospects to the wrong-doers.
Soumya Sinha
P32095