Firstly, I agree the returning of good for good is necessary, but not sufficient because sometime, even if one has never done anything good for you, you still should do something good for the person. For example: if you see a stranger who does not swim is fallen in water. You are the only one available on that spot. Should you do the person a favor to save him or her? The answer is certainly positive. What I am saying here is that sometime, doing good thing for someone is not because you reward someone for the good thing she or he has done for you, rather, because doing good for the person will make the her or his life better. When doing so we do not intend to seek for any good reward for the person. Sometim

For the second reason, demand of fairness, it is impractical to seek fairness by harming one back. How much harm to be returned is considered fair enough? It is very difficult to measure it. How can we be sure that we can return the exact same amount of harm to the person as he or she did to us? What would we do about if the harm we return to the person is much greater then the original harm the person has done to us? Let say a person hurts your, if you hit the person back that only hurts the person's skin or hurts the person's both of legs. Should the person return you another hit again in order to make both of you to be harmed equally and fairly? If both sides want the same amount of returning harm, when the fights will be stopped? In this case, I will say that negotiating non-harm compensation probably is a better solution for bala

Some common words found in the essay are:
Pure Retribution, returning harms, returning harm, harms harms people, pure retribution, returning harms harms, harms harms, harms people, demand fairness, person hurts, person example, harm person, hurts person's,
Approximate Word count = 564
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)