Agree, but it doesn't mean what most people think it means.
Again, you have to view it in the context of the times. At that time, disproportional justice was the norm throughout the world. In 95% of all places, if you had the power to do it, it was an eye for a life, or an eye for a livelihood.
Of course, although I think the topic was simply about the concept of an "eye for an eye", regardless of it's use and historical context.
If someone killed one of your family, you would kill all of theirs.
Only somewhat true, it depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't want this concept legislated. Meaning, the retribution would be dependent on my actions, and not through an intermediate like the state.
In fact, many of the OT punishments that people now say are "cruel" were intended to limit recourse. No more than an eye for an eye. No more than a goat for a goat.
It's very humane and fair, especially considering the times.
Even considering context, you can still judge the concept, and it's consequences. Excusing barbarism because it's use is relegated to "ancient history" for us is laziness.
