::Squints Angrily:: You would reduce it to a math problem, wouldn't you?
Hey, you write what you know. Stephen King's characters scarcely leave Maine, he writes about troubled authors and can't help himself from mentioning penises. I tend to frame most things as mathematics.
So let me ask you this. Do you think the action and the reaction need to be identical to have the same value? Not necessarily in the whole framing scenario, but in that often the idea of "an eye for an eye" comes to be unreasonable for a whole list of reasons.
Honestly, the Code of Hammurabi was fairly sophisticated and among the best legal formulations until Rome came around. This isn't me defending it, but it's something worth acknowledging.
And you hit the nail on the head: nowhere in my guideline have I said anything about intent or what does it mean to get equal retaliation. That's a can of worms that hinges on contemporary morality and ethics, which are neither objective nor universal. For instance, while strict, the code of Hammurabi wasn't seen as barbaric or inhuman by Babylonians. It was the rule of law. Hell, I would postulate that Babylonians were genuinely proud of it and found it as something that separates them from barbarism and disorder. Don't even get me started on Romans.
Anyway, that's only one of the holes that one can find in what I wrote about Justice.
But to (finally) answer your question explicitly: action and reaction don't have to be identical to be fair, but should be in most cases. What are those cases? That's for people who don't boil everything down to math problems to decide. ;)