What is new in this text, however, is the declaration that “I answered evil with good.” At first glance, this seems to pose a significant challenge to the fundamental Maatian principle of reciprocity which in most cases promises “a like response.” As King Kheti says in his famous Sebait of this period: “A blow is repaid by its like, to every action there is a (similar) response” (123). Or again as Ptahhotep (3 12-3 15) says, there is long life for the Maatian person, but not even a gave for the wrongdoer. However, on second look, one can read the virtue of answering evil with good as another expression of the fundamental Maatian principle of replacing isfet with Maat or in its original form, “putting Maat in the place of isfet.” Thus, one does not give good to evil or as in Christianity, do good for evil. Rather one answers (wfb) or responds to evil by doing a good, i.e., Maat, which replaces and destroys evil. The distinction here is an important one, for the intent is not to reward evil by giving what is not deserved but to create a new moral context by replacing evil with Maat, (rdit mTt m st isft). In a word, the Maatian tradition requires a response that includes doing good and eliminating evil, and answering evil with good fits into this process.

Ma’at, the Moral Ideal in Ancient Egypt by Maulana Karenga (via smarmychristopagan)