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

[Pattern-chaser]

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...

Au contraire, I think justice has always been understood as delivering what is fair and just to all. Not just to the victim, the offender, or the population at large, but *all* of them. Anything less than this is not "justice", IMO. [And yes, it's difficult, sometimes close to impossible, to be fair to all at the same time. No-one said a judge's job is an easy one.]

[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...

Au contraire, I think justice has always been understood as delivering what is fair and just to all.

You used the definiendum in your definiens, a classic tautological mistake which illustrates my point.

[Pattern-chaser]

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...

Au contraire, I think justice has always been understood as delivering what is fair and just to all.

You used the definiendum in your definiens, a classic tautological mistake which illustrates my point.

OK, you score one schoolboy debate point.

But you see, everyone knows what I mean. Consider the first definition in the Wiktionary entry,

Noun

justice (countable and uncountable, plural justices)

• The state or characteristic of being just or fair.
• The ideal of fairness, impartiality, etc., especially with regard to the punishment of wrongdoing.
• Judgment and punishment of a party who has allegedly wronged another.
• The civil power dealing with law.
• A title given to judges of certain courts; capitalized when placed before a name.
• Correctness, conforming to reality or rules.

No mention of rendering what is due, you note. I'm sure the Avenger's Dictionary (if there is one) has a definition more suited to your idea, but I only offer Wiktionary as an example, not as an authority, of course.

[jsmyla]

I don’t so much believe in vengeance as actual justice. Punishment should fit the crime and circumstances, although I don’t believe in the death penalty. Everyone gets mad at people who commit suicide for “taking the easy way out” (whole other problem btw), so how is the death penalty different? I’m not a fan of the US prison system at all anyway: it’s for-profit (owned by private companies who make money for each prisoner they house), the bulk of the occupants are there are serving time for a felony marijuana possession conviction, even from places where it’s legal now, and statistics show that going to prison turns you into a criminal if you weren’t one already, and a better one of you were due to the average conditions- geared towards making money so everything is cheap crap and employees are unsupervised people no one else would hire getting paid crap (depending on the owner).

So I think of Justice as something that’s a punishment appropriate to the crime, and will also inflict the same amount of harm and trauma they intended to inflict on their victim. “Intended” is where the circumstances come in.

[Pattern-chaser]

...I think of Justice as something that’s a punishment appropriate to the crime, and will also inflict the same amount of harm and trauma they intended to inflict on their victim.

[My italics.]

So you equate justice with revenge, then?

[jsmyla]

Vengeance would require emotional involvement.

If there’s not equal punishment for the harm caused, it’s not justice- hence the scale being balanced.

[Pattern-chaser]

Vengeance would require emotional involvement.

If there’s not equal punishment for the harm caused, it’s not justice- hence the scale being balanced.

Justice, for many people, refers to fairness. But while justice is important to almost everyone, it means different things to different groups.

For instance, social justice is the notion that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social opportunities irrespective of race, gender, or religion. Distributive justice refers to the equitable allocation of assets in society. Environmental justice is the fair treatment of all people with regard to environmental burdens and benefits.

Restorative or corrective justice seeks to make whole those who have suffered unfairly. Retributive justice seeks to punish wrongdoers objectively and proportionately. And procedural justice refers to implementing legal decisions in accordance with fair and unbiased processes.

So for you, justice = "retributive justice" = vengeance? Personally, I find more comfort in that which is fair (and just), fair to all concerned: the victim(s), the offender(s), potential future victims who have not yet been harmed, and the general population as a whole... Everyone.

Punishment is not always just, in my opinion.

[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).

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.

To believe one can control another human being is setting themselves up for more anger and frustration which come from unrealistic expectations.

But to each their own. Live & learn.

[Newme]

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.

True on the 1st reply - that’s more what I meant.

RE the 2nd reply, in a court of law, obviously there can be some justice. But most injustices that happen will never be addressed in court. So pretending you can control others is not only useless, but it’s wasting precious energy.

[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.

To believe one can control another human being is setting themselves up for more anger and frustration which come from unrealistic expectations.

But to each their own. Live & learn.

"Control" others? I never said or implied that. Influence others is what I meant. Every one of us is influenced by things outside of ourselves many times a day, every day.

Would you be angry or frustrated if a family member was victimized by someone that you believe you could have lowered the risk of being their victim?

[Lagayascienza]

Vengeance can be sweet. Who doesn't like seeing the wrong-doer, especially violent bullies, get their comeuppance? But vengeance needs to be measured. That's why we have the law. I generally disagree with self-help but when there is no alternative we may need to defend ourselves and if the bully gets bloodied in the process, well, all the better as far as I'm concerned. Vengeance is part of the social glue instilled in us by evolution so that those who would harm the community are dealt with. That's why most of us feel justified in feeling satisfied when we see a murderer or rapist brought to justice. They are dangerous to other individuals and to society as a whole and must be punished for their wrongs as an example to other would-be wrongdoers and they must be kept in conditions where they can do no further harm. So it's t just about vengeance, it's also about forestalling harm.

[Leontiskos]

True on the 1st reply - that’s more what I meant.

Sounds good.

RE the 2nd reply, in a court of law, obviously there can be some justice. But most injustices that happen will never be addressed in court. So pretending you can control others is not only useless, but it’s wasting precious energy.

Others can be controlled (or influenced) in ways other than appeals to the law. If someone is bullying me then I could convince myself that I have no control over their actions and simply endure. Or I could punch them in the nose and deter/control/influence them to stop bullying. Much of this thread is about that possibility of deterrence.

[Zanne Crystle]

One argument is that vengeance tends to perpetuate a cycle of violence, escalating conflicts rather than resolving them so it leads to a never-ending cycle of retribution, causing more harm in the long run. That being said, while I pride myself on being a person who doesn't hold grudges and often chooses to let things slide, there are certain situations where I don't see myself being able to take the high road or turn a blind eye.

[LuckyR]

One argument is that vengeance tends to perpetuate a cycle of violence, escalating conflicts rather than resolving them so it leads to a never-ending cycle of retribution, causing more harm in the long run. That being said, while I pride myself on being a person who doesn't hold grudges and often chooses to let things slide, there are certain situations where I don't see myself being able to take the high road or turn a blind eye.

The error within the argument you describe is that evildoers who get away scott free will satisfy their need for evil doing and reduce it moving forward. That has never been my experience.

[Xenophon]

A return to vengeance would be a step toward cultural rebirth in the benighted West of today.