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

[Pattern-chaser]

To me the purpose of justice in general and vengeance in cases where there is no external justice is NOT to address what happened, it is to make sure future episodes are less likely to occur.

For me, this is the sole useful purpose of law and justice. Not only "where there is no external justice", but in all cases. The law should seek to protect those innocents who have not yet been harmed. After all, we cannot undo whatever has already been done, but we can, as you describe, try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

We're in agreement on the particulars, but my logic train works in the reverse order: if the goal is less future evil behavior, then attaching negative consequences to current evil behavior is a mechanism for accomplishing the goal. If the formal justice system provides the negative consequences, great. If the formal justice system does not ( or rarely will not) operate in the particular setting in question, I support individuals providing that negative incentive. This is what is commonly labeled vengeance.

Yes, it is, that's why I oppose vengeance. It achieves nothing except making me the same as the offender. We don't want or need "negative consequences" — vengeance by another name; euphemism — we need protective action, and we probably need to call it that, so that we are clear about what we mean.

If an offender cannot be trusted to walk our streets freely without doing some sort of harm to their fellow citizens, then that person cannot be allowed to intermingle with the rest of us. They must be separated or segregated from the rest of the community: protective action. We cannot un-kill the person they killed, but we can make sure they can't kill anyone else. Positive action; protective action; vengeance would add nothing useful or productive to this.

[LuckyR]

To me the purpose of justice in general and vengeance in cases where there is no external justice is NOT to address what happened, it is to make sure future episodes are less likely to occur.

For me, this is the sole useful purpose of law and justice. Not only "where there is no external justice", but in all cases. The law should seek to protect those innocents who have not yet been harmed. After all, we cannot undo whatever has already been done, but we can, as you describe, try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

We're in agreement on the particulars, but my logic train works in the reverse order: if the goal is less future evil behavior, then attaching negative consequences to current evil behavior is a mechanism for accomplishing the goal. If the formal justice system provides the negative consequences, great. If the formal justice system does not ( or rarely will not) operate in the particular setting in question, I support individuals providing that negative incentive. This is what is commonly labeled vengeance.

Yes, it is, that's why I oppose vengeance. It achieves nothing except making me the same as the offender. We don't want or need "negative consequences" — vengeance by another name; euphemism — we need protective action, and we probably need to call it that, so that we are clear about what we mean.

If an offender cannot be trusted to walk our streets freely without doing some sort of harm to their fellow citizens, then that person cannot be allowed to intermingle with the rest of us. They must be separated or segregated from the rest of the community: protective action. We cannot un-kill the person they killed, but we can make sure they can't kill anyone else. Positive action; protective action; vengeance would add nothing useful or productive to this.

Your comments sound great to read online, but don't square with common (accepted) human behavior. Say someone at the office takes credit for work you did. You could bring this up to your manager, but you make the accurate calculation that you will lose more through appearing
"petty" than you will gain from getting credit for your efforts. Let's say later you are in a position to choose the next project leader, your antagonist is slightly better qualified to get the position, but there are other reasonable candidates. No one will second guess your decision. You can respond by 1) doing literally nothing (pretend it didn't happen) and promote your antagonist 2) pass over your antagonist specifically based on what they did to you before.

What do you do? Which do you think most folks would choose?

Do you dispute the psychological reality that wrong doers who have literally no consequences for performing a negative act have a higher chance of repeating that act than if they suffer a negative consequence?

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, it is, that's why I oppose vengeance. It achieves nothing except making me the same as the offender. We don't want or need "negative consequences" — vengeance by another name; euphemism — we need protective action, and we probably need to call it that, so that we are clear about what we mean.

If an offender cannot be trusted to walk our streets freely without doing some sort of harm to their fellow citizens, then that person cannot be allowed to intermingle with the rest of us. They must be separated or segregated from the rest of the community: protective action. We cannot un-kill the person they killed, but we can make sure they can't kill anyone else. Positive action; protective action; vengeance would add nothing useful or productive to this.

Your comments sound great to read online, but don't square with common (accepted) human behavior. Say someone at the office takes credit for work you did. You could bring this up to your manager, but you make the accurate calculation that you will lose more through appearing
"petty" than you will gain from getting credit for your efforts. Let's say later you are in a position to choose the next project leader, your antagonist is slightly better qualified to get the position, but there are other reasonable candidates. No one will second guess your decision. You can respond by 1) doing literally nothing (pretend it didn't happen) and promote your antagonist 2) pass over your antagonist specifically based on what they did to you before.

What do you do? Which do you think most folks would choose?

Do you dispute the psychological reality that wrong doers who have literally no consequences for performing a negative act have a higher chance of repeating that act than if they suffer a negative consequence?

I was aiming, in my comments, at the more extreme offences, like murder. But your comments remind me that the same sort of thinking also applies to lesser misdemeanours too. I think, and hope, that my sentiments apply as well to those too.

The problem with these minor offences is that they are not serious enough for most of us to want laws to control such behaviours. In the case of murder, we have a 'contract' with our fellows that we don't take vigilante action (personal vengeance), that our police will deal with it. There is no such system in place for minor offences, and perhaps there shouldn't be. So we're looking for some sort of social agreement, an informal social 'contract', to oppose such behaviours informally and socially. I don't know how successful that might prove to be, in practice.

[LuckyR]

Yes, it is, that's why I oppose vengeance. It achieves nothing except making me the same as the offender. We don't want or need "negative consequences" — vengeance by another name; euphemism — we need protective action, and we probably need to call it that, so that we are clear about what we mean.

If an offender cannot be trusted to walk our streets freely without doing some sort of harm to their fellow citizens, then that person cannot be allowed to intermingle with the rest of us. They must be separated or segregated from the rest of the community: protective action. We cannot un-kill the person they killed, but we can make sure they can't kill anyone else. Positive action; protective action; vengeance would add nothing useful or productive to this.

Your comments sound great to read online, but don't square with common (accepted) human behavior. Say someone at the office takes credit for work you did. You could bring this up to your manager, but you make the accurate calculation that you will lose more through appearing
"petty" than you will gain from getting credit for your efforts. Let's say later you are in a position to choose the next project leader, your antagonist is slightly better qualified to get the position, but there are other reasonable candidates. No one will second guess your decision. You can respond by 1) doing literally nothing (pretend it didn't happen) and promote your antagonist 2) pass over your antagonist specifically based on what they did to you before.

What do you do? Which do you think most folks would choose?

Do you dispute the psychological reality that wrong doers who have literally no consequences for performing a negative act have a higher chance of repeating that act than if they suffer a negative consequence?

I was aiming, in my comments, at the more extreme offences, like murder. But your comments remind me that the same sort of thinking also applies to lesser misdemeanours too. I think, and hope, that my sentiments apply as well to those too.

The problem with these minor offences is that they are not serious enough for most of us to want laws to control such behaviours. In the case of murder, we have a 'contract' with our fellows that we don't take vigilante action (personal vengeance), that our police will deal with it. There is no such system in place for minor offences, and perhaps there shouldn't be. So we're looking for some sort of social agreement, an informal social 'contract', to oppose such behaviours informally and socially. I don't know how successful that might prove to be, in practice.

I agree 100% with your observations yet disagree completely with your conclusion. Yes, we agree that vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing. We also agree that lesser concerns commonly don't have a formal justice system and shouldn't involve the justice system. But my take is: these minor episodes of wrongdoing provide situations which are precisely what vengeance is designed to address, namely provide justice in situations where there is no other source of justice. Otherwise, in your view major crimes get justice and minor issues escape justice.

[Pattern-chaser]

But my take is: these minor episodes of wrongdoing provide situations which are precisely what vengeance is designed to address, namely provide justice in situations where there is no other source of justice.

Vengeance is "designed"? I think quite differently, that vengeance is a biologically- or genetically-codified knee-jerk response. "You've hurt me, so now I will hurt you back!" In many instances, a brief period of calm reflection gives rise to a different response. When you say that vengeance is "designed", you give the impression that it is a skill or ability, that has a constructive role to fulfil. With that, I disagree strongly; I see vengeance as more of an immature and inefficient way of dealing with things we find undesirable. Other ways are more constructive — they (sometimes) allow for a solution that actually fixes something that was wrong, not simply beating seven shades of out of the bastard that harmed you, which rarely achieves anything worthwhile.

Otherwise, in your view major crimes get justice and minor issues escape justice.

No, minor issues deserve justice too; I thought my previous post made that clear?

[LuckyR]

But my take is: these minor episodes of wrongdoing provide situations which are precisely what vengeance is designed to address, namely provide justice in situations where there is no other source of justice.

Vengeance is "designed"? I think quite differently, that vengeance is a biologically- or genetically-codified knee-jerk response. "You've hurt me, so now I will hurt you back!" In many instances, a brief period of calm reflection gives rise to a different response. When you say that vengeance is "designed", you give the impression that it is a skill or ability, that has a constructive role to fulfil. With that, I disagree strongly; I see vengeance as more of an immature and inefficient way of dealing with things we find undesirable. Other ways are more constructive — they (sometimes) allow for a solution that actually fixes something that was wrong, not simply beating seven shades of out of the bastard that harmed you, which rarely achieves anything worthwhile.

Otherwise, in your view major crimes get justice and minor issues escape justice.

No, minor issues deserve justice too; I thought my previous post made that clear?

Unclear. Mostly because you didn't answer either of the two questions I asked you directly as to your solution to the office problem.

Otherwise I wouldn't get too obsessive with the use of single word descriptions like "designed". Though I do support providing justice (as a non-member of the justice system), in areas where the justice system is absent. So it is part of my "design". I realise most prefer not to have justice in settings where a justice system does not work. Dif'rent strokes...

[Leontiskos]

I agree 100% with your observations yet disagree completely with your conclusion. Yes, we agree that vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing. We also agree that lesser concerns commonly don't have a formal justice system and shouldn't involve the justice system. But my take is: these minor episodes of wrongdoing provide situations which are precisely what vengeance is designed to address, namely provide justice in situations where there is no other source of justice. Otherwise, in your view major crimes get justice and minor issues escape justice.

I generally agree with this, even though I do not agree with the consequentialist account of justice which the conversation is premised upon.

In these conversations it is very important to have a good definition of "vengeance." For example, it strikes me as odd to say that "vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing." This is because when the justice system is addressing wrongdoing it is at the same time meting out vengeance. If vengeance means something like "returning evil for evil" then justice systems as well as individuals mete out vengeance. Probably what you meant by "vengeance" in that quote was vigilante justice.

Vengeance is an important part of a functioning society, even in the private sphere. There are even more mundane examples than choosing the next project leader. Honking your horn when someone cuts you off is (very often) a form of vengeance.
Expressing disgust when someone farts is a form of vengeance. Laughing when someone does something foolhardy is a form of vengeance.

In reality there is a good kind of vengeance and a bad kind of vengeance; a good kind of revenge and a bad kind of revenge. But everyone wants it to be black and white, and so they say, "No vengeance!" or "No revenge!" There is some weird moral conditioning in place in America with respect to things like moral claims, retribution, altruism, etc. In my opinion it stems from the heterodox forms of Christianity which have always dominated this country.

[Pattern-chaser]

Unclear. Mostly because you didn't answer either of the two questions I asked you directly as to your solution to the office problem.

OK...

Say someone at the office takes credit for work you did. You could bring this up to your manager, but you make the accurate calculation that you will lose more through appearing "petty" than you will gain from getting credit for your efforts. Let's say later you are in a position to choose the next project leader, your antagonist is slightly better qualified to get the position, but there are other reasonable candidates. No one will second guess your decision. You can respond by 1) doing literally nothing (pretend it didn't happen) and promote your antagonist 2) pass over your antagonist specifically based on what they did to you before.

What do you do?
Which do you think most folks would choose?

I answered thus:

The problem with these minor offences is that they are not serious enough for most of us to want laws to control such behaviours. In the case of murder, we have a 'contract' with our fellows that we don't take vigilante action (personal vengeance), that our police will deal with it. There is no such system in place for minor offences, and perhaps there shouldn't be. So we're looking for some sort of social agreement, an informal social 'contract', to oppose such behaviours informally and socially. I don't know how successful that might prove to be, in practice.

So my answer is that I don't think we have a practical answer.

If faced by a practical problem such as you describe, my entire life is a history of how to get it badly wrong. [This bears heavily on my being an autist, but let's not get sidetracked by that.]

I think most folks would choose brutal revenge, but I don't agree with their approach. Wisdom can sometimes flow from consensus, but there are occasions where one might choose to set aside the consensus, in favour of something ... 'better'?

Do you dispute the psychological reality that wrong doers who have literally no consequences for performing a negative act have a higher chance of repeating that act than if they suffer a negative consequence?

Hmm. IMO, wrong doers who experience no consequences for performing a negative act have a higher chance of repeating that act than if they suffer a restorative, preventative or protective consequence, as I have described in previous posts. I do not support "no consequence"; it seems to offer nothing constructive, positive or useful.

[LuckyR]

I agree 100% with your observations yet disagree completely with your conclusion. Yes, we agree that vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing. We also agree that lesser concerns commonly don't have a formal justice system and shouldn't involve the justice system. But my take is: these minor episodes of wrongdoing provide situations which are precisely what vengeance is designed to address, namely provide justice in situations where there is no other source of justice. Otherwise, in your view major crimes get justice and minor issues escape justice.

I generally agree with this, even though I do not agree with the consequentialist account of justice which the conversation is premised upon.

In these conversations it is very important to have a good definition of "vengeance." For example, it strikes me as odd to say that "vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing." This is because when the justice system is addressing wrongdoing it is at the same time meting out vengeance. If vengeance means something like "returning evil for evil" then justice systems as well as individuals mete out vengeance. Probably what you meant by "vengeance" in that quote was vigilante justice.

Vengeance is an important part of a functioning society, even in the private sphere. There are even more mundane examples than choosing the next project leader. Honking your horn when someone cuts you off is (very often) a form of vengeance.
Expressing disgust when someone farts is a form of vengeance. Laughing when someone does something foolhardy is a form of vengeance.

In reality there is a good kind of vengeance and a bad kind of vengeance; a good kind of revenge and a bad kind of revenge. But everyone wants it to be black and white, and so they say, "No vengeance!" or "No revenge!" There is some weird moral conditioning in place in America with respect to things like moral claims, retribution, altruism, etc. In my opinion it stems from the heterodox forms of Christianity which have always dominated this country.

Several things.

Firstly, yes, in this rather lengthy thread "vengeance" is being used to describe personal vengeance or "vigilante justice". Though that is the common usage of the term, so I've not seen any confusion over this.

Therefore while the government's justice system does use vengeance, it's not covered by this thread.

My stance has been to point out that personal vengeance or vigilante justice has a useful behavior modification role where there is no formal justice presence since wrongdoing in the absence of consequences begets more wrongdoing. The pattern becomes ingrained.

[LuckyR]

Unclear. Mostly because you didn't answer either of the two questions I asked you directly as to your solution to the office problem.

OK...

Say someone at the office takes credit for work you did. You could bring this up to your manager, but you make the accurate calculation that you will lose more through appearing "petty" than you will gain from getting credit for your efforts. Let's say later you are in a position to choose the next project leader, your antagonist is slightly better qualified to get the position, but there are other reasonable candidates. No one will second guess your decision. You can respond by 1) doing literally nothing (pretend it didn't happen) and promote your antagonist 2) pass over your antagonist specifically based on what they did to you before.

What do you do?
Which do you think most folks would choose?

I answered thus:

The problem with these minor offences is that they are not serious enough for most of us to want laws to control such behaviours. In the case of murder, we have a 'contract' with our fellows that we don't take vigilante action (personal vengeance), that our police will deal with it. There is no such system in place for minor offences, and perhaps there shouldn't be. So we're looking for some sort of social agreement, an informal social 'contract', to oppose such behaviours informally and socially. I don't know how successful that might prove to be, in practice.

So my answer is that I don't think we have a practical answer.

If faced by a practical problem such as you describe, my entire life is a history of how to get it badly wrong. [This bears heavily on my being an autist, but let's not get sidetracked by that.]

I think most folks would choose brutal revenge, but I don't agree with their approach. Wisdom can sometimes flow from consensus, but there are occasions where one might choose to set aside the consensus, in favour of something ... 'better'?

Do you dispute the psychological reality that wrong doers who have literally no consequences for performing a negative act have a higher chance of repeating that act than if they suffer a negative consequence?

Hmm. IMO, wrong doers who experience no consequences for performing a negative act have a higher chance of repeating that act than if they suffer a restorative, preventative or protective consequence, as I have described in previous posts. I do not support "no consequence"; it seems to offer nothing constructive, positive or useful.

If I understand your red reply, what you're saying is that you have historically done #2, but that your believe that #2 is nonetheless "wrong".

As to what most people do, we are in agreement that most choose #2. Though this is a good place to note that folks commonly describe #1 as the wrongdoer "getting away with it". Obviously this descriptor can be viewed as a rationalization to post hoc justify the "wrong" choice (turn the other cheek and all that). Though I can't find anything inaccurate in the "getting away with it" comment.

I would have less trouble with the "do nothing" strategy if time stood still after the original event since my motivation is to maximize the chance of an optimal future. Thus why I commonly choose your ignore it and do nothing tactic when interacting with people who I will never see again.

[Leontiskos]

I agree 100% with your observations yet disagree completely with your conclusion. Yes, we agree that vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing. We also agree that lesser concerns commonly don't have a formal justice system and shouldn't involve the justice system. But my take is: these minor episodes of wrongdoing provide situations which are precisely what vengeance is designed to address, namely provide justice in situations where there is no other source of justice. Otherwise, in your view major crimes get justice and minor issues escape justice.

I generally agree with this, even though I do not agree with the consequentialist account of justice which the conversation is premised upon.

In these conversations it is very important to have a good definition of "vengeance." For example, it strikes me as odd to say that "vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing." This is because when the justice system is addressing wrongdoing it is at the same time meting out vengeance. If vengeance means something like "returning evil for evil" then justice systems as well as individuals mete out vengeance. Probably what you meant by "vengeance" in that quote was vigilante justice.

Vengeance is an important part of a functioning society, even in the private sphere. There are even more mundane examples than choosing the next project leader. Honking your horn when someone cuts you off is (very often) a form of vengeance.
Expressing disgust when someone farts is a form of vengeance. Laughing when someone does something foolhardy is a form of vengeance.

In reality there is a good kind of vengeance and a bad kind of vengeance; a good kind of revenge and a bad kind of revenge. But everyone wants it to be black and white, and so they say, "No vengeance!" or "No revenge!" There is some weird moral conditioning in place in America with respect to things like moral claims, retribution, altruism, etc. In my opinion it stems from the heterodox forms of Christianity which have always dominated this country.

Several things.

Firstly, yes, in this rather lengthy thread "vengeance" is being used to describe personal vengeance or "vigilante justice". Though that is the common usage of the term, so I've not seen any confusion over this.

Therefore while the government's justice system does use vengeance, it's not covered by this thread.

My stance has been to point out that personal vengeance or vigilante justice has a useful behavior modification role where there is no formal justice presence since wrongdoing in the absence of consequences begets more wrongdoing. The pattern becomes ingrained.

Right, I understand all that. But the problem is that when people redefine vengeance to mean "personal vengeance" or "excessive revenge" they end up omitting from their lexicon any words that represent legitimate retributive justice, and this is why there is so much confusion in this area. Besides this, modern political philosophy does not make strong distinctions between individual and state, and therefore the obvious question arises, "Why can the state resort to vengeance but the individual cannot?" Or, "Why can the state return evil for evil but the individual cannot?" These lexical omissions eventually lead to conceptual ignorance and ultimately to anarchy, for if the notion of retributive justice is per se evil then it is no more acceptable on a state level than on an individual level (and all other state prerogatives also collapse). ...So I don't think you can just bracket the fuller meaning of vengeance in favor of a purely personal or pejorative meaning. This is what leads to the problems in the first place.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I understand your red reply, what you're saying is that you have historically done #2, but that you believe that #2 is nonetheless "wrong".

No. What I meant was that my own handling of such situations was ineffective. It did not achieve any aim that I might have had. My social skills are such that, once I have deployed them, I usually find they have moved me in the opposite direction to the one I intended. It's not that I tried vengeance, and found that it did or didn't work. It's that I was badly ineffective in such arenas, always. To attempt vengeance, have it backfire, and then suffer the reprisals that vengeance provokes among the might-means-right majority, is a very effective way of learning not to pursue vengeance. I learned that lesson very early in life.

[LuckyR]

I agree 100% with your observations yet disagree completely with your conclusion. Yes, we agree that vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing. We also agree that lesser concerns commonly don't have a formal justice system and shouldn't involve the justice system. But my take is: these minor episodes of wrongdoing provide situations which are precisely what vengeance is designed to address, namely provide justice in situations where there is no other source of justice. Otherwise, in your view major crimes get justice and minor issues escape justice.

I generally agree with this, even though I do not agree with the consequentialist account of justice which the conversation is premised upon.

In these conversations it is very important to have a good definition of "vengeance." For example, it strikes me as odd to say that "vengeance has no role when there is a justice system to address wrongdoing." This is because when the justice system is addressing wrongdoing it is at the same time meting out vengeance. If vengeance means something like "returning evil for evil" then justice systems as well as individuals mete out vengeance. Probably what you meant by "vengeance" in that quote was vigilante justice.

Vengeance is an important part of a functioning society, even in the private sphere. There are even more mundane examples than choosing the next project leader. Honking your horn when someone cuts you off is (very often) a form of vengeance.
Expressing disgust when someone farts is a form of vengeance. Laughing when someone does something foolhardy is a form of vengeance.

In reality there is a good kind of vengeance and a bad kind of vengeance; a good kind of revenge and a bad kind of revenge. But everyone wants it to be black and white, and so they say, "No vengeance!" or "No revenge!" There is some weird moral conditioning in place in America with respect to things like moral claims, retribution, altruism, etc. In my opinion it stems from the heterodox forms of Christianity which have always dominated this country.

Several things.

Firstly, yes, in this rather lengthy thread "vengeance" is being used to describe personal vengeance or "vigilante justice". Though that is the common usage of the term, so I've not seen any confusion over this.

Therefore while the government's justice system does use vengeance, it's not covered by this thread.

My stance has been to point out that personal vengeance or vigilante justice has a useful behavior modification role where there is no formal justice presence since wrongdoing in the absence of consequences begets more wrongdoing. The pattern becomes ingrained.

Right, I understand all that. But the problem is that when people redefine vengeance to mean "personal vengeance" or "excessive revenge" they end up omitting from their lexicon any words that represent legitimate retributive justice, and this is why there is so much confusion in this area. Besides this, modern political philosophy does not make strong distinctions between individual and state, and therefore the obvious question arises, "Why can the state resort to vengeance but the individual cannot?" Or, "Why can the state return evil for evil but the individual cannot?" These lexical omissions eventually lead to conceptual ignorance and ultimately to anarchy, for if the notion of retributive justice is per se evil then it is no more acceptable on a state level than on an individual level (and all other state prerogatives also collapse). ...So I don't think you can just bracket the fuller meaning of vengeance in favor of a purely personal or pejorative meaning. This is what leads to the problems in the first place.

I agree, though in common usage, governments "dispense justice" which is considered a positive and individuals "exact revenge" which is considered a negative. Of course both are practicing vengeance as you noted and there are numerous examples of positive and negative events in both. Thus why I have been arguing uphill in this thread since there is a presupposition in the community that personal vengeance is inherently negative. Even though that is a gross oversimplification, to the point of being erroneous.

[Pattern-chaser]

...there is a presupposition in the community that personal vengeance is inherently negative. Even though that is a gross oversimplification, to the point of being erroneous.

I have said a few times that personal or judicial vengeance is pointless and not constructive, as opposed to outright "negative". A simple pragmatic perspective notes the existence of more constructive approaches than vengeance, and recommends them because they offer possible benefits that vengeance does not.

[LuckyR]

...there is a presupposition in the community that personal vengeance is inherently negative. Even though that is a gross oversimplification, to the point of being erroneous.

I have said a few times that personal or judicial vengeance is pointless and not constructive, as opposed to outright "negative". A simple pragmatic perspective notes the existence of more constructive approaches than vengeance, and recommends them because they offer possible benefits that vengeance does not.

Yes, you as an individual have addressed the concept of vengeance regardless of the source, though the majority of the thread has specifically commented on personal vengeance.