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

[Leontiskos]

Our larger conversation is about whether one can punish (or deter) someone who is innocent. You are apparently claiming that one is able to harm someone who has not acted unjustly, and that this is some sort of exception to the principles I have been enunciating. For example, you said, "...I am justified (though not required) to use methods outside of the rules to meet my goals." When I look at <that post> I am at a loss as to why you are making a distinction between breaking and bending the rules, and how that distinction relates to what I have said. You seemed to claim that your principle of proportionality extends beyond the realm of retribution, because retribution is a response to injustice whereas proportionality may respond to acts which are not unjust (like the bending of the rules). So my most obvious response was to point out that bending the rules is unjust, and therefore proportionality and retribution are co-extensive.

The purpose of my last post was to show that your actions still adhere to the principles that I have been putting forward in this thread. Significantly punishing the person who breaks the rules and slightly punishing the person who bends the rules rely on the same principle, and both cases involve retribution, adversion to the past event, injustice, et al.

Just to be clear, in my office coworker/competitor example, since we are competitors, we are SUPPOSED to act in our own interest, which in a zero sum game, is against our competitor's interest. You use the word "harm" to describe his outcome at my hands, but that's the legitimate goal of the exercise when everyone is playing by the rules and competing cleanly. I described a particular situation where one competitor deviates from the spirit of "just" competition. You accurately described this as both against the spirit of the rules and unjust. I invoked proportionality to respond to him in similar fashion. We good?

Okay, great. Yes - good enough!

[LuckyR]

Someone who craves revenge can always find a reason, perceived or even illusory, why that vengeance is 'deserved'. Your argument here seems to be that, even when vengeance has no justification, the avenger can always see or find one. So you support your argument with the assertion that the 'avenger' fabricates justification that they want and need to be true. Not a strong position, IMO?

Vengeance is closely linked to blame. Blame is what we do in preparation when we want to hurt someone. Blame is the 'justification' for hurting someone. The primary motivator here is the wish/need to harm someone. The consequent assignment of 'blame' offers a fabricated 'justification'. The final step is the vengeance itself, 'justified' by the victim being 'blameworthy'. Bullying by another name, I think? Or just 'might makes right'?

Everything in your post is possible, though I would draw a distinction between post hoc rationalization for one's own spontaneous act of violence and vengeance in response to an actual act of aggression.

Yes, I accept and acknowledge the distinction, but I can't see that it has much of a practical effect on our discussion. People do indulge in 'vengeance' whether they have a valid justification — e.g. "in response to an actual act of aggression" — or not. For me, it is the vengeance that is the issue, not the 'justification', and not whether that 'justification' is a convincing one.

Well technically if one uses a fabricated rationalization of "vengeance" in order to justify spontaneous acts of violence, you're not actually practicing vengeance and such acts should not be included in this thread.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well technically if one uses a fabricated rationalization of "vengeance" in order to justify spontaneous acts of violence, you're not actually practicing vengeance and such acts should not be included in this thread.

Agreed. It all starts to get a bit complicated when we start wondering if it's vengeance just because the avenger says it is? If the avenger has fabricated their justification, then is it still vengeance? As I've already commented, I think that vengeance is just an excuse — a sort of justification, but perhaps not a valid one? — to hurt someone we've already decided to hurt. We use blame too, for the same purpose.

So, given that the precise meaning of vengeance is less clear than we thought it was, do we constrain this topic, as you suggest, only to 'proper' vengeance? And what is "'proper' vengeance"?

Oh, and I don't think the acts of violence we're discussing are "spontaneous". I think they're planned, and quite deliberate. Even — especially? — when the justification is intentionally fabricated.

[LuckyR]

Well technically if one uses a fabricated rationalization of "vengeance" in order to justify spontaneous acts of violence, you're not actually practicing vengeance and such acts should not be included in this thread.

Agreed. It all starts to get a bit complicated when we start wondering if it's vengeance just because the avenger says it is? If the avenger has fabricated their justification, then is it still vengeance? As I've already commented, I think that vengeance is just an excuse — a sort of justification, but perhaps not a valid one? — to hurt someone we've already decided to hurt. We use blame too, for the same purpose.

So, given that the precise meaning of vengeance is less clear than we thought it was, do we constrain this topic, as you suggest, only to 'proper' vengeance? And what is "'proper' vengeance"?

Oh, and I don't think the acts of violence we're discussing are "spontaneous". I think they're planned, and quite deliberate. Even — especially? — when the justification is intentionally fabricated.

Sorry, I meant "spontaneous" to mean de novo ie not in response to an assault, not to mean unpremeditated.

[Leontiskos]

Well technically if one uses a fabricated rationalization of "vengeance" in order to justify spontaneous acts of violence, you're not actually practicing vengeance and such acts should not be included in this thread.

So, given that the precise meaning of vengeance is less clear than we thought it was, do we constrain this topic, as you suggest, only to 'proper' vengeance? And what is "'proper' vengeance"?

Lucky's salutary point is not that the concept of vengeance is unclear, but rather that what you have been describing is clearly not vengeance. A fabricated rationalization of "vengeance" is not vengeance.

For a parallel example, suppose we had a thread on jealousy. Someone in the thread says, "All jealousy involves desire." Someone else responds, "Ah, but someone could pretend to be jealous, and claim to be jealous, even without desiring anything in particular." The proper reply would be to point out that the person who is pretending is not jealous, and therefore has no place in the thread on jealousy.

Or even easier: "All nurses know how to draw blood." "Ah, but someone could pretend to be a nurse, and claim to be a nurse, and not know how to draw blood."

Of course it is true that we can pretend to do all sorts of things. People also lie by making false excuses for their behavior. But this doesn't invalidate any of the points at issue.

[Newme]

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.

That is probably the best perspective regarding this, especially considering how we each can relate. The best justice may be doing what you can to heal, focusing on what you can control & stop wasting energy trying to control what is beyond your control (ie the past, others).

[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.

That is probably the best perspective regarding this, especially considering how we each can relate. The best justice may be doing what you can to heal, focusing on what you can control & stop wasting energy trying to control what is beyond your control (ie the past, others).

We all normalize to fit our prior experience. Many have had no success modifying the behavior of others through their own actions. I completely see where in that circumstance that said folks would view attempts to alter one's risk of victimization at the hands of "others" to be a waste of time. However, to be clear many others (myself included) have had much success altering other folk's behavior through selective use of various modalities and therefore feel perfectly comfortable using techniques to improve one's future risk profile.

[Pattern-chaser]

The best justice may be doing what you can to heal, focusing on what you can control & stop wasting energy trying to control what is beyond your control (ie the past, others).

A nice bit of Stoicism there. Well said!

[Leontiskos]

The best justice may be doing what you can to heal...

But "doing what you can to heal" is not justice, and we should not call it justice. Probably what you meant to say is, "It may be best to abandon justice and instead focus on healing."

...focusing on what you can control & stop wasting energy trying to control what is beyond your control (ie the past, others).

But we know that others are not beyond our control. That's why law exists. That's why correction exists. That's why defense exists. Any philosophy which attempts to state as a truism that "others are beyond our control" is simply false, and should not be heeded.

[styxphilip16]

Vengeance isn't really my style. It's better to focus on the positive and take action in a constructive way. There's no point in getting caught up in a cycle of negativity and revenge.

[LuckyR]

Vengeance isn't really my style. It's better to focus on the positive and take action in a constructive way. There's no point in getting caught up in a cycle of negativity and revenge.

It all depends on perspective. Many find confrontation stressful, thus avoiding confrontation by "turning the other cheek" would be at least marginally positive when victimized by a wrongdoer. OTOH, others are more stressed by the idea of wrongdoers escaping justice than they are by confrontation, thus in that case ignoring being victimized is more negative.

There is no one size fits all solution, but I agree, it's not your style.

[Pattern-chaser]

Vengeance isn't really my style. It's better to focus on the positive and take action in a constructive way. There's no point in getting caught up in a cycle of negativity and revenge.

It all depends on perspective. Many find confrontation stressful, thus avoiding confrontation by "turning the other cheek" would be at least marginally positive when victimized by a wrongdoer. OTOH, others are more stressed by the idea of wrongdoers escaping justice than they are by confrontation, thus in that case ignoring being victimized is more negative.

There is no one size fits all solution, but I agree, it's not your style.

You seem to be moving here in the direction of style and life-choices, and away from wondering whether vengeance has merit. If vengeance truly cannot be judged in a way that most would agree with, perhaps you're right. But what if vengeance is a really-good or really-bad thing? What if it is a necessary part of human life? What if it is a destructive behaviour that has no benefits for anyone, anywhere?

I do not assert that a judgmental attitude is appropriate here, I just wonder...? Is this a purely moral discussion, or is there more to it than that?

[LuckyR]

Well, morality being subjective, some will rank vengeance/justice higher or lower on the moral imperativity scale. But you bring up a very important point, namely how much (or little) does expediency play a role in choosing to follow one's moral code? Or even in forming a moral code.

[Pattern-chaser]

My own suspicion is that vengeance embraces a few fairly factual real-world matters, but mostly hinges on emotional moral judgements. And there's a fair amount of rationalisation going on as well, as we try (post hoc, as always ) to fabricate reasons why our own conduct is acceptable, even admirable. This latter, of course, we do all the time; it's not just something we do in connection with vengeance. But the difficulty remains, it is not easy to weigh vengeance against justice, and come up with the 'right' answer.

[Leontiskos]

But the difficulty remains, it is not easy to weigh vengeance against justice...

I'm not convinced that folks have any clear definition of 'justice' when they make comments like this.

Classically, justice is to render what is due, and this is twofold: distributive and commutative. Commutative justice is contrapassum, which is often translated as retaliation. (The only problem with this translation is that contrapassum can be positive or negative, whereas nowadays we always view retaliation as negative.) Contrapassum is effectively the idea that we receive in accord with what we do. So if we do good things, we receive good things; and if we do bad things, we receive bad things. More generally, the idea that a certain form of equality is to obtain between the things we do and the things we receive.

So if vengeance or retaliation is half of contrapassum (commutative justice), namely the half regarding bad things, then it makes no sense to "weigh vengeance against justice." Neither would it make sense to weigh vengeance against distributive justice, for the genera of commutative and distribute justice are distinct, and vengeance pertains to commutative justice (i.e. transactions between individual parties). If justice has two parts, and vengeance is contrary to neither of the parts (but is instead integral to one of the parts) then obviously vengeance cannot be contrary to justice.

Of course there is also the question of whether 'vengeance' should be defined in a purely pejorative and imprecise manner, but this was already covered earlier in the thread.