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

[LuckyR]

Like anybody, I may succumb to emotions in the heat of the moment (which is almost always regrettable), but I generally do not support vengeance and instead choose compassion. But I want to know what arguments you have against vengeance.

This is an old thread and I'm sure that the good answers have already been given. So, I'm just posting because I want to say something.

I also do not believe in vengeance. I would not waste my time plotting the best revenge against people. But it doesn't mean I would have compassion for some of the wrongdoers -- molesters, abusers, and con artists do not deserve my compassion. The way I deal with the feeling of vengeance is to avoid being in a situation where you're overcome with vengeful ideas. Remove yourself from the environment that fosters evil in people. I don't care whether it's your own family, your coworkers/employers, or your neighborhood. Just get out of it a soon as possible. We could literally live an 'uneventful', drama-free life if we take precautions. So, prevention is the key.

While it is true that folks can manage their statistical risk of hostile interactions, it is an error to suppose that everyone can manage that risk to zero.

[Elephant]

While it is true that folks can manage their statistical risk of hostile interactions, it is an error to suppose that everyone can manage that risk to zero.

True. I understand that this often is not easy. You are at a disadvantaged if you are in a situation that fosters vengeful emotions if you cannot leave.

So, here my answer against vengeance is, it would not teach the offender to be compassionate towards you, and your vengeful actions against them would be seen as "wrong", so no good ending to this story unless you're prepared to die or go to jail. The Chinese has a saying about revenge -- vengeance is digging two graves at once. The only thing you can do is continue to live well.

[LuckyR]

While it is true that folks can manage their statistical risk of hostile interactions, it is an error to suppose that everyone can manage that risk to zero.

True. I understand that this often is not easy. You are at a disadvantaged if you are in a situation that fosters vengeful emotions if you cannot leave.

So, here my answer against vengeance is, it would not teach the offender to be compassionate towards you, and your vengeful actions against them would be seen as "wrong", so no good ending to this story unless you're prepared to die or go to jail. The Chinese has a saying about revenge -- vengeance is digging two graves at once. The only thing you can do is continue to live well.

Well we are in agreement that murder is definitely not the right choice to "get back" at someone who has victimized you or your family. But that is a matter of degree not the core concept of vengeance.

If we stipulate that in areas where the justice system is active, say in the realm of law breaking, that retribution is left to that entity, what do you actually do in situations such as the school yard, the office or online where the justice system very rarely is used? Kid punches your daughter in the nose on the walk home from school, do you do nothing?

[Elephant]

If we stipulate that in areas where the justice system is active, say in the realm of law breaking, that retribution is left to that entity, what do you actually do in situations such as the school yard, the office or online where the justice system very rarely is used? Kid punches your daughter in the nose on the walk home from school, do you do nothing?

Of course we're supposed to do something if that's the case. Vengeance is the wrong word here. Bullying is not solved by vengeance. By definition, vengeance is retaliation using the same degree of injury. Because children are involved here, someone has to act as an adult. Get that bully's parents involved. You have to build a case about neglectful parents who allow their children to bully other children.

The office? Same thing. Start the paper trail then if after all that, management doesn't do anything, sue them for hostile work environment. Trust yourself and stick to the facts. The point is, you build a case first -- that it is a pattern.

[LuckyR]

If we stipulate that in areas where the justice system is active, say in the realm of law breaking, that retribution is left to that entity, what do you actually do in situations such as the school yard, the office or online where the justice system very rarely is used? Kid punches your daughter in the nose on the walk home from school, do you do nothing?

Of course we're supposed to do something if that's the case. Vengeance is the wrong word here. Bullying is not solved by vengeance. By definition, vengeance is retaliation using the same degree of injury. Because children are involved here, someone has to act as an adult. Get that bully's parents involved. You have to build a case about neglectful parents who allow their children to bully other children.

The office? Same thing. Start the paper trail then if after all that, management doesn't do anything, sue them for hostile work environment. Trust yourself and stick to the facts. The point is, you build a case first -- that it is a pattern.

Punk kids have punk parents, they're not going to solve your problem. Are you going to solve it, or is it going to go unsolved.

[Elephant]

Punk kids have punk parents, they're not going to solve your problem. Are you going to solve it, or is it going to go unsolved.

Okay, if that's the case, then take revenge in hopes of stopping them. I suppose we need to use fear as a way to stop them. Not sure how to do it though because, like I said earlier, be prepared to get hurt back and escalate the problem. The time and effort put into it, and the injury you might sustain in the process might not be worth it. Anyway, I do realize that some people are so destructive that there's no other solution.

[LuckyR]

Punk kids have punk parents, they're not going to solve your problem. Are you going to solve it, or is it going to go unsolved.

Okay, if that's the case, then take revenge in hopes of stopping them. I suppose we need to use fear as a way to stop them. Not sure how to do it though because, like I said earlier, be prepared to get hurt back and escalate the problem. The time and effort put into it, and the injury you might sustain in the process might not be worth it. Anyway, I do realize that some people are so destructive that there's no other solution.

You're completely missing the point. It's not about revenge, it's about teaching your kid to present themselves in such a way that they are treated like all the other kids in the school who didn't and won't be a victim of a bully. Bullies aren't brave, they're cowards. They look for (perceived) weakness in order to fight unfair fights. They aren't interested in taking on difficult tasks. Don't you want your kid to have the reputation of a non-victim? To be someone who the bullies of the world pass by to go look for easier pickings?

It's kind of like the hiking party running away from an angry bear, you don't have to outrun the bear, you just need to outrun one of your party members.

[Elephant]

You're completely missing the point. It's not about revenge, it's about teaching your kid to present themselves in such a way that they are treated like all the other kids in the school who didn't and won't be a victim of a bully.

Okay.

[Baby Augustine]

IF you don't believe in God then your horrors and injustices have to be avenged by you. The universe itself is cruelly indifferent. Your death thrusts you into the void and all your maybe great suffering evinces not even a yawn...so you have to do your own avenging.

Vengeance is wrong and terrible but LOGICAL if you are the only 'god' that your life will ever have.

What did the Jews say to their Nazi killers" God is watching you, He sees what you are doing.
And Nuremberg seemed built on this same foundation In the Nuremberg trials, prosecutors argued that there was a higher law that all should recognize and take precedence over state laws

[LuckyR]

IF you don't believe in God then your horrors and injustices have to be avenged by you. The universe itself is cruelly indifferent. Your death thrusts you into the void and all your maybe great suffering evinces not even a yawn...so you have to do your own avenging.

Vengeance is wrong and terrible but LOGICAL if you are the only 'god' that your life will ever have.

What did the Jews say to their Nazi killers" God is watching you, He sees what you are doing.
And Nuremberg seemed built on this same foundation In the Nuremberg trials, prosecutors argued that there was a higher law that all should recognize and take precedence over state laws

Exactly. Religion and their gods and utopian afterlife were invented by the power structure in antiquity to pacify the rabble to not use their superior numbers to grab resources from the numerically small number of wealthy/powerful and instead wait for eternal paradise after death.

[Papus79]

I see this as a bit of both. On one end you want to die a better person than you were born and so sinking too low for pragmatic reasons won't make you happy, in fact it will probably leave you scarred long-term. In that context it's best to either be able to set the conditions for a popular movement that can be effective and distribute personal risk or to work on stealth / technocratic solutions that change the playing field in ways that undermines corruption.

You could make these same arguments for a deistic or pantheistic / panentheistic universe where God is perhaps real but does nothing either because It's not looking or because it's a superorganism that's made of all existent things. The only place where you could anticipate God's wrath on the wicked is under a theistic cosmology.

[Samantha Barnes 3]

I feel that vengeance is, in most cases, unnecessary. If someone hurts me, then my priority is to heal myself and restore my happiness. If I were to seek vengeance, then I would be dwelling in the past pain for longer than necessary. Even if I got the vengeance I was seeking, it would not heal the pain I was feeling; it would only add to the pain by hurting another person, even if they did deserve it.

[LuckyR]

I feel that vengeance is, in most cases, unnecessary. If someone hurts me, then my priority is to heal myself and restore my happiness. If I were to seek vengeance, then I would be dwelling in the past pain for longer than necessary. Even if I got the vengeance I was seeking, it would not heal the pain I was feeling; it would only add to the pain by hurting another person, even if they did deserve it.

All true, though can be incomplete. If your kid is bullied because they give off a "victim" vibe, vengeance can play a role in establishing a different "don't mess with me" persona, such that they avoid bullying in the future.

[Stoppelmann]

How do I feel about a punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong?

I suppose it depends on the extent to which someone is punished, and I remember that some few thousand years ago, someone said that punishment should not go beyond the injury or wrong done. Since then, we have also found reasons to reduce the punishment even more, such as in European countries where nobody is executed, but sometimes punishment is reduced so much that we have a feeling that the perpetrator will have shrugged it off.

Our societies are influenced by Judaism and Christianity to the degree that behind the leniency was a conviction that at the end of life, perpetrators will face divine retribution. With that now gone, we find ourselves debating whether the punishment should reflect the crime once again and reintroduce a life for a life. It does seem barbaric, but the question is, whether we find ourselves up against a wall, and that there is a necessity for such severity. Judging by the number of women who are killed by their husbands or other family members, something is really amiss.

I have a feeling that a majority isn’t available for capital punishment in most European countries at present, and that the numerous incidents where the wrong person has been convicted suggest that some kind of absolute proof would be needed in order to go that far. I wouldn’t vote for it, but I would want to look at crime prevention, and the ethical basis of our society, which seems to me to be inappropriate.

[LuckyR]

How do I feel about a punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong?

I suppose it depends on the extent to which someone is punished, and I remember that some few thousand years ago, someone said that punishment should not go beyond the injury or wrong done. Since then, we have also found reasons to reduce the punishment even more, such as in European countries where nobody is executed, but sometimes punishment is reduced so much that we have a feeling that the perpetrator will have shrugged it off.

Our societies are influenced by Judaism and Christianity to the degree that behind the leniency was a conviction that at the end of life, perpetrators will face divine retribution. With that now gone, we find ourselves debating whether the punishment should reflect the crime once again and reintroduce a life for a life. It does seem barbaric, but the question is, whether we find ourselves up against a wall, and that there is a necessity for such severity. Judging by the number of women who are killed by their husbands or other family members, something is really amiss.

I have a feeling that a majority isn’t available for capital punishment in most European countries at present, and that the numerous incidents where the wrong person has been convicted suggest that some kind of absolute proof would be needed in order to go that far. I wouldn’t vote for it, but I would want to look at crime prevention, and the ethical basis of our society, which seems to me to be inappropriate.

Are you equating the machinations of the formal Justice system with vengeance?