Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

I have not read through the whole topic, so perhaps someone has already said this, but food for thought: "An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Yup, that is essentially one of the two common answers. The shortsighted, naive one IMHO.

[Kinyonga]

I have not read through the whole topic, so perhaps someone has already said this, but food for thought: "An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Yup, that is essentially one of the two common answers. The shortsighted, naive one IMHO.

Shortsighted, naive - how so? I suppose you disagree with "two wrongs don't make a right", as well. What good does anyone get out of hurting other people?
I'd be interested to know what the less naive answer is, in your opinion.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Yup, that is essentially one of the two common answers. The shortsighted, naive one IMHO.

Shortsighted, naive - how so? I suppose you disagree with "two wrongs don't make a right", as well. What good does anyone get out of hurting other people?
I'd be interested to know what the less naive answer is, in your opinion.

Your answer makes sense for the community. As it turns out I am my daughter's father, not the communal father of a group of girls.

Let me start by stating that I believe in justice, some don't, but I do.

As I have posted before, I see no role for vengeance in areas where the Law has jurisdiction. Even if the Law is unevenly applied or I personally disagree with the Law's conclusion, I will accept it. However, a huge percentage of the time when those in my family are wronged, lies outside the jurisdiction of the Law, so if justice is to happen, I have to make it happen (or my daughter has to make it happen for herself). This is, in my opinion, the appropriate role for vengeance.

BTW, the benefit of punishing wrongdoers is the same in the schoolyard as it is in superior court, deterrence. You have heard of the bullying epidemic, haven't you?

[Kinyonga]

Your answer makes sense for the community. As it turns out I am my daughter's father, not the communal father of a group of girls.

Let me start by stating that I believe in justice, some don't, but I do.

As I have posted before, I see no role for vengeance in areas where the Law has jurisdiction. Even if the Law is unevenly applied or I personally disagree with the Law's conclusion, I will accept it. However, a huge percentage of the time when those in my family are wronged, lies outside the jurisdiction of the Law, so if justice is to happen, I have to make it happen (or my daughter has to make it happen for herself). This is, in my opinion, the appropriate role for vengeance.

BTW, the benefit of punishing wrongdoers is the same in the schoolyard as it is in superior court, deterrence. You have heard of the bullying epidemic, haven't you?

What definition do you put on "justice"? Google suggests "just behaviour or treatment". It depends whether the focus of justice is on soothing the victim's feelings (revenge?), punishing the perpetrator (to make them realise where they went wrong and change?) or as a deterrence to prevent such things recurring.

The first seems rather blood-thirsting and unforgiving; the second the most logical; and, as far as deterrence goes, it would seem that the harsher the punishment, the less people would commit the crime. Although perhaps that's not quite true, as I seem to remember statistics refuting that in the case of the death penalty. And prevention would seem a better method of preventing crime than deterrence.

In my opinion, and this is where the "eye for an eye" thing comes in, it is not "justice" to punish someone for hitting you by hitting them back, or for murdering someone by executing them. It doesn't - or shouldn't - help the victim, won't help the perpetrator (especially in the case of murder...) and deterrence would appear not to work very well.

Might I ask why you would not apply vengeance if you disagree with the Law?

-- Updated August 11th, 2017, 10:35 pm to add the following --

My definition of vengeance would be X meting out a (justified or otherwise) punishment on Y, who had hurt them in some way - a punishment which, rather than being used either to reform Y or to deter others, appeases X's anger as Y "deserved it".

And no, unless I just don't understand what you mean, I have not heard of the bulling epidemic.

[LuckyR]

Your answer makes sense for the community. As it turns out I am my daughter's father, not the communal father of a group of girls.

Let me start by stating that I believe in justice, some don't, but I do.

As I have posted before, I see no role for vengeance in areas where the Law has jurisdiction. Even if the Law is unevenly applied or I personally disagree with the Law's conclusion, I will accept it. However, a huge percentage of the time when those in my family are wronged, lies outside the jurisdiction of the Law, so if justice is to happen, I have to make it happen (or my daughter has to make it happen for herself). This is, in my opinion, the appropriate role for vengeance.

BTW, the benefit of punishing wrongdoers is the same in the schoolyard as it is in superior court, deterrence. You have heard of the bullying epidemic, haven't you?

What definition do you put on "justice"? Google suggests "just behaviour or treatment". It depends whether the focus of justice is on soothing the victim's feelings (revenge?), punishing the perpetrator (to make them realise where they went wrong and change?) or as a deterrence to prevent such things recurring.

The first seems rather blood-thirsting and unforgiving; the second the most logical; and, as far as deterrence goes, it would seem that the harsher the punishment, the less people would commit the crime. Although perhaps that's not quite true, as I seem to remember statistics refuting that in the case of the death penalty. And prevention would seem a better method of preventing crime than deterrence.

In my opinion, and this is where the "eye for an eye" thing comes in, it is not "justice" to punish someone for hitting you by hitting them back, or for murdering someone by executing them. It doesn't - or shouldn't - help the victim, won't help the perpetrator (especially in the case of murder...) and deterrence would appear not to work very well.

Might I ask why you would not apply vengeance if you disagree with the Law?

-- Updated August 11th, 2017, 10:35 pm to add the following --

My definition of vengeance would be X meting out a (justified or otherwise) punishment on Y, who had hurt them in some way - a punishment which, rather than being used either to reform Y or to deter others, appeases X's anger as Y "deserved it".

And no, unless I just don't understand what you mean, I have not heard of the bulling epidemic.

OK, we clearly have very different life experiences, so perhaps a simple and clear example can bridge the gap in our expectations and communication:

Say you kid runs into a punk kid in the schoolyard. The punk punches your kid in the face. He goes down in a bloody mess. Not bad enough to require medical attention.

What do you do?

[Kinyonga]

To clarify two points, before I proceed: I'm supposing that a) this is a completely unprovoked attack and b) when you say "not bad enough to require medical attention", you mean I don't need to call an ambulance, but he does require whatever ice, bandages etc the school can provide?

So. If I arrived on the scene just a few minutes later, my child was still on the floor and the "punk kid" still there, I would...actually, I'm not sure. I was going to say I'd probably scream at the kid and possibly hit him, but more likely I'd be too worried about my own child to even think about the idiot who punched him. Afterwards, however, I'd speak to the Head and demand the punk kid's expulsion.

But that's what I would do, not what I should do. As to why I would act that way, yes, I'd have to say it was vengeance.
If I did happen to hit him, it would be because the brat deserves it, having hit my poor innocent darling. Because people can't do that sort of thing and expect to get away with it. If I got him expelled, I might add that that was to stop him hurting other people, but that would be more of an afterthought.

What one should do would be to a) make the punk kid apologise, b) sit him down and go through a lot of patronising-sounding stuff about why he did it and can't he see that it's not nice and c) maybe get him suspended for a few days so he learns not to do it again.
Only if he is a persistent bully and it seems impossible to reform him might one expel him to prevent him from hurting other children.

I hope that's clear. I'm afraid I'm not all that good at expressing myself. And bearing in mind, as I'm sure you are anyway, that one can never tell exactly what one would do under particular circumstances.

[LuckyR]

To clarify two points, before I proceed: I'm supposing that a) this is a completely unprovoked attack and b) when you say "not bad enough to require medical attention", you mean I don't need to call an ambulance, but he does require whatever ice, bandages etc the school can provide?

So. If I arrived on the scene just a few minutes later, my child was still on the floor and the "punk kid" still there, I would...actually, I'm not sure. I was going to say I'd probably scream at the kid and possibly hit him, but more likely I'd be too worried about my own child to even think about the idiot who punched him. Afterwards, however, I'd speak to the Head and demand the punk kid's expulsion.

But that's what I would do, not what I should do. As to why I would act that way, yes, I'd have to say it was vengeance.
If I did happen to hit him, it would be because the brat deserves it, having hit my poor innocent darling. Because people can't do that sort of thing and expect to get away with it. If I got him expelled, I might add that that was to stop him hurting other people, but that would be more of an afterthought.

What one should do would be to a) make the punk kid apologise, b) sit him down and go through a lot of patronising-sounding stuff about why he did it and can't he see that it's not nice and c) maybe get him suspended for a few days so he learns not to do it again.
Only if he is a persistent bully and it seems impossible to reform him might one expel him to prevent him from hurting other children.

I hope that's clear. I'm afraid I'm not all that good at expressing myself. And bearing in mind, as I'm sure you are anyway, that one can never tell exactly what one would do under particular circumstances.

You are correct about the 2 questions.

A couple of updates: the event was not witnessed, the school administration therefore will do nothing because the punk kid will lie and say your kid did such and such, so that avenue of redress devolves into a he said, she said impasse.

The punk kid has, no surprise, punk parents who don't let you anywhere near him, so you're not going to "make" him do anything.

What are you going to do?

[Kinyonga]

You are correct about the 2 questions.

A couple of updates: the event was not witnessed, the school administration therefore will do nothing because the punk kid will lie and say your kid did such and such, so that avenue of redress devolves into a he said, she said impasse.

The punk kid has, no surprise, punk parents who don't let you anywhere near him, so you're not going to "make" him do anything.

What are you going to do?

Well, there doesn't seem to be much for me to do. Tell my child to ignore him and carry on with life.

[LuckyR]

You are correct about the 2 questions.

A couple of updates: the event was not witnessed, the school administration therefore will do nothing because the punk kid will lie and say your kid did such and such, so that avenue of redress devolves into a he said, she said impasse.

The punk kid has, no surprise, punk parents who don't let you anywhere near him, so you're not going to "make" him do anything.

What are you going to do?

Well, there doesn't seem to be much for me to do. Tell my child to ignore him and carry on with life.

That is a common answer and a fine one for certain personality types. And to be honest if the kid was visiting from another school and your kid was never going to see him again, I don't have a problem with that. Of course, this particular kid goes to your kid's school.

For me? Unacceptable, here's why: If you project a victim attitude, guess what? You're gong to be a victim. I want my kid to never be a victim of this (or any other) bully. If my kid has an older, motivated sibling, I would have them take this kid out, admittedly at a later time. If there is no sibling and my kid needed some coaching, practice, instruction etc to take the kid out, I would provide it. In addition I would give my kid the clear-cut, straightforward message that they have our permission if this was ever to happen again, that we encourage and support them in doing whatever it takes to not be victimized. Get friends? Great. Use a broom handle? Even better. Throw dirt in his face and kick him during the confusion? Works for me...

This attitude provides three potential benefits, none of which is cheap gratification. Firstly, it reduces the chance that my kid will be the punk kid's victim the next day. Second, it teaches my kid the lesson that have value as a person that is worth defending. And lastly it gives them the understanding that they and their choices and actions are going to chart their destiny, not some punk kid.

[Kinyonga]

That is a common answer and a fine one for certain personality types.

Ooh, that sounds insulting. Or patronising at the very least. Which personality types, may I ask? Are you talking about a specific psychological classification?

For me? Unacceptable, here's why: If you project a victim attitude, guess what? You're gong to be a victim. I want my kid to never be a victim of this (or any other) bully. If my kid has an older, motivated sibling, I would have them take this kid out, admittedly at a later time. If there is no sibling and my kid needed some coaching, practice, instruction etc to take the kid out, I would provide it. In addition I would give my kid the clear-cut, straightforward message that they have our permission if this was ever to happen again, that we encourage and support them in doing whatever it takes to not be victimized. Get friends? Great. Use a broom handle? Even better. Throw dirt in his face and kick him during the confusion? Works for me....

I am, supposing that in this specific situation, my son (I'll call him Peter) was taken unawares. I fully encourage defence. I can fight, and I'm sure Peter would be able to as well (I suppose really anyone can if they want to, or can at least put up some sort of defence). I guess that's where the issue lies. I don't consider refusing to get revenge on someone - especially in such a dishonourable, underhand manner as throwing dirt in the punk kid's face and kicking him during the confusion - a "victim attitude". "Turn the other cheek" would be more how I described it. Peter could go and talk to the punk kid (in front of people, if he wants witnesses in case there's violence) and ask him to cease being a bully.

This attitude provides three potential benefits, none of which is cheap gratification. Firstly, it reduces the chance that my kid will be the punk kid's victim the next day. Second, it teaches my kid the lesson that have value as a person that is worth defending. And lastly it gives them the understanding that they and their choices and actions are going to chart their destiny, not some punk kid.

Firstly, going and talking to the punk kid will be likely to reduce that possibility. Secondly, your value as a person is worth defending - but, in my opinion, not at the cost of breaking someone's teeth with a broom handle. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Besides, no need to stoop to the punk kid's level. Lastly, I don't think Peter is daft enough to believe that this punk kid is Fate incarnated and will dictate what he does for the rest of his life, whatever happens.

[LuckyR]

That is a common answer and a fine one for certain personality types.

Ooh, that sounds insulting. Or patronising at the very least. Which personality types, may I ask? Are you talking about a specific psychological classification?

For me? Unacceptable, here's why: If you project a victim attitude, guess what? You're gong to be a victim. I want my kid to never be a victim of this (or any other) bully. If my kid has an older, motivated sibling, I would have them take this kid out, admittedly at a later time. If there is no sibling and my kid needed some coaching, practice, instruction etc to take the kid out, I would provide it. In addition I would give my kid the clear-cut, straightforward message that they have our permission if this was ever to happen again, that we encourage and support them in doing whatever it takes to not be victimized. Get friends? Great. Use a broom handle? Even better. Throw dirt in his face and kick him during the confusion? Works for me....

I am, supposing that in this specific situation, my son (I'll call him Peter) was taken unawares. I fully encourage defence. I can fight, and I'm sure Peter would be able to as well (I suppose really anyone can if they want to, or can at least put up some sort of defence). I guess that's where the issue lies. I don't consider refusing to get revenge on someone - especially in such a dishonourable, underhand manner as throwing dirt in the punk kid's face and kicking him during the confusion - a "victim attitude". "Turn the other cheek" would be more how I described it. Peter could go and talk to the punk kid (in front of people, if he wants witnesses in case there's violence) and ask him to cease being a bully.

This attitude provides three potential benefits, none of which is cheap gratification. Firstly, it reduces the chance that my kid will be the punk kid's victim the next day. Second, it teaches my kid the lesson that have value as a person that is worth defending. And lastly it gives them the understanding that they and their choices and actions are going to chart their destiny, not some punk kid.

Firstly, going and talking to the punk kid will be likely to reduce that possibility. Secondly, your value as a person is worth defending - but, in my opinion, not at the cost of breaking someone's teeth with a broom handle. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Besides, no need to stoop to the punk kid's level. Lastly, I don't think Peter is daft enough to believe that this punk kid is Fate incarnated and will dictate what he does for the rest of his life, whatever happens.

Hhmmm... I meant a pacifist personality type. What were you thinking I meant? Might say a lot...

I am happy to hear you agree with defense, I assume just about everyone outside of a Buddhist monk would. But this isn't the defense thread. "Underhanded"? We are talking about the dirt-bag who cold-cocked your kid in the face!! You are, of course entitled to your opinion. I respect that. As I mentioned before starting this part of the thread, we two have very different life experiences. Asking the punk kid to lay off is not unreasonable. Though I would caution you that we are talking about an individual who has proven that they don't subscribe to your moral code, so don't be surprised if their response is also not in line with your expectation. In my experience, aggressive folks respect aggressiveness and prey on what they would describe as weakness. These are not brave individuals, they are commonly described by Professionals actually as cowards, who substitute aggressiveness for fortitude.

Your red statement is in my opinion, a perfectly fine community based code. But we are talking family, which in my case trumps the community. I have a higher obligation. As to child rearing, you are technically correct that no single episode will dictate how your kid will turn out. Though I will caution you that children (and dogs, BTW) are very attuned to patterns of behavior and if this episode is one of many don't be surprised if they mimic the pattern that their parents have taught them.

This brings up a subtopic that has been discussed before, I'd like to get your take on it: Say person X wrongs Y in a moderately significant way. This is unwitnessed and there is no legal or community based recourse available to Y. In broad terms, Y has by my analysis four options: 1) They can respond in kind, either immediately or at a later time, 2) they can retaliate in a different way, say a social or administrative sabotage in response to an initial physical episode, 3) they can "learn" from the episode and initiate nothing but treat the person very differently at the next interaction or 4) they can literally do nothing and act identically to X as if the episode had never happened. Two questions: first, what is your personal preference and which of the four would you label as vengeance (what would the labels of 1-3 be if not vengeance)?

[Laozytzu]

Hello fellow philosophers!

I've read through a good deal of the posts, but not all, and I hadn't seen this piece of writing here. It's one of Francis Bacons works from "The Essays" called On Revenge. It doesn't express my personal views all that accurately, but I believe its something to be read and considered. Keep in mind this was written 1597. At the very least, it's a well written essay.

Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out. For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong putteth the law out of office. Certainly, in taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior; for it is a prince's part to pardon. And Solomon, I am sure, saith, "It is the glory of a man to pass by an offence." That which is past is gone, and irrevocable; and wise men have enough to do with things present and to come; therefore they do but trifle with themselves, that labor in past matters. There is no man doth a wrong for the wrong's sake; but thereby to purchase himself profit, or pleasure, or honor, or the like.

Therefore why should I be angry with a man for loving himself better than me? And if any man should do wrong merely out of ill-nature, why, yet it is but like the thorn or briar, which prick and scratch, because they can do no other. The most tolerable sort of revenge is for those wrongs which there is no law to remedy; but then let a man take heed the revenge be such as there is no law to punish; else a man's enemy is still before hand, and it is two for one.

Some, when they take revenge, are desirous the party should know whence it cometh. This is the more generous. For the delight seemeth to be not so much in doing the hurt as in making the party repent. But base and crafty cowards are like the arrow that flieth in the dark. Cosmus, duke of Florence, had a desperate saying against perfidious or neglecting friends, as if those wrongs were unpardonable; "You shall read (saith he) that we are commanded to forgive our enemies; but you never read that we are commanded to forgive our friends." But yet the spirit of Job was in a better tune: "Shall we (saith he) take good at God's hands, and not be content to take evil also?" And so of friends in a proportion. This is certain, that a man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well. Public revenges are for the most part fortunate; as that for the death of Caesar; for the death of Pertinax; for the death of Henry the Third of France; and many more. But in private revenges it is not so. Nay rather, vindictive persons live the life of witches; who, as they are mischievous, so end they infortunate

[Kinyonga]

Hhmmm... I meant a pacifist personality type. What were you thinking I meant? Might say a lot...

I was wondering if you were referring to the Enneagram or Jung typology, perhaps.

I am happy to hear you agree with defense, I assume just about everyone outside of a Buddhist monk would. But this isn't the defense thread. "Underhanded"? We are talking about the dirt-bag who cold-cocked your kid in the face!!

Yes, but as I said before, is there any need to stoop to his level?

You are, of course entitled to your opinion. I respect that. As I mentioned before starting this part of the thread, we two have very different life experiences.

May I ask if you have any particular "life experiences" which you believe have influenced you take this standpoint?

Your red statement is in my opinion, a perfectly fine community based code. But we are talking family, which in my case trumps the community. I have a higher obligation. As to child rearing, you are technically correct that no single episode will dictate how your kid will turn out. Though I will caution you that children (and dogs, BTW) are very attuned to patterns of behavior and if this episode is one of many don't be surprised if they mimic the pattern that their parents have taught them.

Why is it only a good community-based code? Why cannot it apply to family? I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
And, as I'd try to act in the best, most moral way possible, surely it wouldn't be such a bad thing if my children followed that pattern?

This brings up a subtopic that has been discussed before, I'd like to get your take on it: Say person X wrongs Y in a moderately significant way. This is unwitnessed and there is no legal or community based recourse available to Y. In broad terms, Y has by my analysis four options: 1) They can respond in kind, either immediately or at a later time, 2) they can retaliate in a different way, say a social or administrative sabotage in response to an initial physical episode, 3) they can "learn" from the episode and initiate nothing but treat the person very differently at the next interaction or 4) they can literally do nothing and act identically to X as if the episode had never happened. Two questions: first, what is your personal preference and which of the four would you label as vengeance (what would the labels of 1-3 be if not vengeance)?

My personal course of action would be to follow number three. 4 is obviously nothing, 1 and 2 would be vengeance, and 3...I guess it depends how exactly X is treated when they next meet. I don't know what I'd label it, really. You're bound to treat someone you don't like a different way from someone you do, and it would be even more marked if, say, Y had liked X before the issue occured.

Hello fellow philosophers!

I've read through a good deal of the posts, but not all, and I hadn't seen this piece of writing here. It's one of Francis Bacons works from "The Essays" called On Revenge. It doesn't express my personal views all that accurately, but I believe its something to be read and considered. Keep in mind this was written 1597. At the very least, it's a well written essay.

Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out. For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong putteth the law out of office. Certainly, in taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior; for it is a prince's part to pardon. And Solomon, I am sure, saith, "It is the glory of a man to pass by an offence." That which is past is gone, and irrevocable; and wise men have enough to do with things present and to come; therefore they do but trifle with themselves, that labor in past matters. There is no man doth a wrong for the wrong's sake; but thereby to purchase himself profit, or pleasure, or honor, or the like.

Therefore why should I be angry with a man for loving himself better than me? And if any man should do wrong merely out of ill-nature, why, yet it is but like the thorn or briar, which prick and scratch, because they can do no other. The most tolerable sort of revenge is for those wrongs which there is no law to remedy; but then let a man take heed the revenge be such as there is no law to punish; else a man's enemy is still before hand, and it is two for one.

Some, when they take revenge, are desirous the party should know whence it cometh. This is the more generous. For the delight seemeth to be not so much in doing the hurt as in making the party repent. But base and crafty cowards are like the arrow that flieth in the dark. Cosmus, duke of Florence, had a desperate saying against perfidious or neglecting friends, as if those wrongs were unpardonable; "You shall read (saith he) that we are commanded to forgive our enemies; but you never read that we are commanded to forgive our friends." But yet the spirit of Job was in a better tune: "Shall we (saith he) take good at God's hands, and not be content to take evil also?" And so of friends in a proportion. This is certain, that a man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well. Public revenges are for the most part fortunate; as that for the death of Caesar; for the death of Pertinax; for the death of Henry the Third of France; and many more. But in private revenges it is not so. Nay rather, vindictive persons live the life of witches; who, as they are mischievous, so end they infortunate

Welcome to the topic, and thank you for your post! The part I've highlighted in bold expresses well one of the points I was trying to make.

[LuckyR]

Your red statement is in my opinion, a perfectly fine community based code. But we are talking family, which in my case trumps the community. I have a higher obligation. As to child rearing, you are technically correct that no single episode will dictate how your kid will turn out. Though I will caution you that children (and dogs, BTW) are very attuned to patterns of behavior and if this episode is one of many don't be surprised if they mimic the pattern that their parents have taught them.

Why is it only a good community-based code? Why cannot it apply to family? I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
And, as I'd try to act in the best, most moral way possible, surely it wouldn't be such a bad thing if my children followed that pattern?

This brings up a subtopic that has been discussed before, I'd like to get your take on it: Say person X wrongs Y in a moderately significant way. This is unwitnessed and there is no legal or community based recourse available to Y. In broad terms, Y has by my analysis four options: 1) They can respond in kind, either immediately or at a later time, 2) they can retaliate in a different way, say a social or administrative sabotage in response to an initial physical episode, 3) they can "learn" from the episode and initiate nothing but treat the person very differently at the next interaction or 4) they can literally do nothing and act identically to X as if the episode had never happened. Two questions: first, what is your personal preference and which of the four would you label as vengeance (what would the labels of 1-3 be if not vengeance)?

My personal course of action would be to follow number three. 4 is obviously nothing, 1 and 2 would be vengeance, and 3...I guess it depends how exactly X is treated when they next meet. I don't know what I'd label it, really. You're bound to treat someone you don't like a different way from someone you do, and it would be even more marked if, say, Y had liked X before the issue occured
.

If I am thinking about the community, part of my calculations take the negative impact on the bully into account. When I think of my family, I don't.

For me personally, I am a #2, person, but as mentioned, I have no qualms about bumping up to #1 to get an optimal outcome for my family.

[Kinyonga]

If I am thinking about the community, part of my calculations take the negative impact on the bully into account. When I think of my family, I don't.

For me personally, I am a #2, person, but as mentioned, I have no qualms about bumping up to #1 to get an optimal outcome for my family.

Ah, I see. I suppose I don't look at things in terms of community or family, more just in terms of individuals. Of course the community has to be taken into consideration if, say, its downfall will cause more harm than good to the individuals.