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

[Pattern-chaser]

While I understand the logic behind avoiding vengeance, I also believe there's a place for it. In some cases, justice can only be served through retribution. [...] It's a complex issue with no easy answers.

Yes, if there is no retribution, what will stop psychopaths from wreaking havoc on decent people?

It's hard to see how "justice can only be served through retribution". Maybe an example would illustrate your point?

Who will stop the psychopaths? We will, by imprisonment or some similar form of constraint, protecting those who have not yet been harmed. Can vengeance do that?

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the two can be differentiated quite easily. Vengeance is punishment — you hurt me, so I will hurt you. "Robust" action is not shying away from the somewhat unpleasant act of confronting a wrongdoer, and protecting those they have yet to harm by constraining or confining them.

Vengeance is quick, full of hate & anger, is violent
Justice is slow, no hate nor anger, and is non-violent
Gandhiji taught us this lesson and his ideas were followed by Nelson Mandela and MLK
And we know peaceful protests get more done than by using violence, causing mayhem

Interesting definitions. So getting a death sentence from a slow, deliberate trial is what?

If the trial hears all available evidence, and is carried out in a just and considered manner, then that is not "revenge", as I would see it. I don't agree with a death sentence in any circumstances, but there are otherwise-civilised societies where it is practised, so...


As regards Vanamali's comments, I'm not sure that vengeance need always be quick — 'revenge is a dish best served cold' — or justice always slow, but other than that, I think I agree with what they say.

It's interesting, he draws the distinction based on the goal of the actor, you seem to key in on what and in what circumstances it occurs and I focus on who is performing the action.

Yes, it's interesting. Do I focus on the circumstances? I thought I focussed on what prevention, as opposed to vengeance, achieves.

[Samana Johann]

While I understand the logic behind avoiding vengeance, I also believe there's a place for it. In some cases, justice can only be served through retribution. [...] It's a complex issue with no easy answers.

Yes, if there is no retribution, what will stop psychopaths from wreaking havoc on decent people?

It's hard to see how "justice can only be served through retribution". Maybe an example would illustrate your point?

Who will stop the psychopaths? We will, by imprisonment or some similar form of constraint, protecting those who have not yet been harmed. Can vengeance do that?

What about: "That the acter do not act wrong again and possible bend his ways", good householder? It's right that proper punishment (as one measure) isn't at all to be thought as a vengeance, under more intelligent people, but actually should be seen as an act of compassion toward the wrong doer.

[baker]

What about: "That the acter do not act wrong again and possible bend his ways", good householder? It's right that proper punishment (as one measure) isn't at all to be thought as a vengeance, under more intelligent people, but actually should be seen as an act of compassion toward the wrong doer.

"I'm killing you for your own good!! You should thank me!!"

[baker]

Yes, if there is no retribution, what will stop psychopaths from wreaking havoc on decent people?

People don't go crazy overnight for no reason. It's often the "decent people", "the pillars of society", who bring them to that point.

"Decent" people, in order to feel decent, need to scapegoat others. And sometimes, those who were scapegoated go crazy.

[Pattern-chaser]

What about: "That the acter do not act wrong again and possible bend his ways", good householder? It's right that proper punishment (as one measure) isn't at all to be thought as a vengeance, under more intelligent people, but actually should be seen as an act of compassion toward the wrong doer.

"I'm killing you for your own good!! You should thank me!!"

Yes, people who consider themselves as "more intelligent", or generally superior, often characterise themselves in a way that makes their whims look like considered and compassionate works of charity. For example, as I grew up (in the 1950s and 1960s), I learned that the British Empire generously gave our 'civilisation' to the countries we conquered and looted. Later, much later, many of these countries "earned" their independence by demonstrating that they had changed from primitive savages (), and absorbed our Great British 'civilisation'.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, if there is no retribution, what will stop psychopaths from wreaking havoc on decent people?

People don't go crazy overnight for no reason.

No, psychopaths have always been as they are. I don't think psychopathy can just happen, overnight or otherwise.

[baker]

Well, to be fair, matters of daily living need to be handled somehow. And people who kill, rape, and pillage cannot (always) just be ignored and left to do what they're doing.

The problem is, of course, that there are now many competing value systems, and so it is not at all clear what is right and what is wrong. Worse yet, in a democracy, these matters are left to majority decisions, as if the majority (which is sometimes as little as 51%) is somehow magically morally right.

And we're back at "might makes right."

[baker]

No, psychopaths have always been as they are. I don't think psychopathy can just happen, overnight or otherwise.

But statistically, psychopaths and sociopaths don't commit the majority of the crimes.

It's the psychologically relatively normal people who commit the majority of the crimes.

[LuckyR]

While I understand the logic behind avoiding vengeance, I also believe there's a place for it. In some cases, justice can only be served through retribution. [...] It's a complex issue with no easy answers.

Yes, if there is no retribution, what will stop psychopaths from wreaking havoc on decent people?

It's hard to see how "justice can only be served through retribution". Maybe an example would illustrate your point?

Who will stop the psychopaths? We will, by imprisonment or some similar form of constraint, protecting those who have not yet been harmed. Can vengeance do that?

Does anyone doubt that unpunished bad (self serving) behavior encourages more of that behaviour?

[LuckyR]

I think the two can be differentiated quite easily. Vengeance is punishment — you hurt me, so I will hurt you. "Robust" action is not shying away from the somewhat unpleasant act of confronting a wrongdoer, and protecting those they have yet to harm by constraining or confining them.

Vengeance is quick, full of hate & anger, is violent
Justice is slow, no hate nor anger, and is non-violent
Gandhiji taught us this lesson and his ideas were followed by Nelson Mandela and MLK
And we know peaceful protests get more done than by using violence, causing mayhem

Interesting definitions. So getting a death sentence from a slow, deliberate trial is what?

If the trial hears all available evidence, and is carried out in a just and considered manner, then that is not "revenge", as I would see it. I don't agree with a death sentence in any circumstances, but there are otherwise-civilised societies where it is practised, so...


As regards Vanamali's comments, I'm not sure that vengeance need always be quick — 'revenge is a dish best served cold' — or justice always slow, but other than that, I think I agree with what they say.

It's interesting, he draws the distinction based on the goal of the actor, you seem to key in on what and in what circumstances it occurs and I focus on who is performing the action.

Yes, it's interesting. Do I focus on the circumstances? I thought I focussed on what prevention, as opposed to vengeance, achieves.

Oh, you know your outlook much better than I do. But the different perspectives are interesting.

[Sculptor1]

While I understand the logic behind avoiding vengeance, I also believe there's a place for it. In some cases, justice can only be served through retribution. [...] It's a complex issue with no easy answers.

Yes, if there is no retribution, what will stop psychopaths from wreaking havoc on decent people?

It's hard to see how "justice can only be served through retribution". Maybe an example would illustrate your point?

Who will stop the psychopaths? We will, by imprisonment or some similar form of constraint, protecting those who have not yet been harmed. Can vengeance do that?

Does anyone doubt that unpunished bad (self serving) behavior encourages more of that behaviour?

A thing undone is no cause.

[Samana Johann]

What about: "That the acter do not act wrong again and possible bend his ways", good householder? It's right that proper punishment (as one measure) isn't at all to be thought as a vengeance, under more intelligent people, but actually should be seen as an act of compassion toward the wrong doer.

"I'm killing you for your own good!! You should thank me!!"

Killing isn't a valid punishment as useful measure, as well as other bodily harm. It seems that yours live in areas where bodily rengeance, just rengeance is present.

How does one come to the idea of such in the context, good Baker?

[Samana Johann]

What about: "That the acter do not act wrong again and possible bend his ways", good householder? It's right that proper punishment (as one measure) isn't at all to be thought as a vengeance, under more intelligent people, but actually should be seen as an act of compassion toward the wrong doer.

"I'm killing you for your own good!! You should thank me!!"

Yes, people who consider themselves as "more intelligent", or generally superior, often characterise themselves in a way that makes their whims look like considered and compassionate works of charity. For example, as I grew up (in the 1950s and 1960s), I learned that the British Empire generously gave our 'civilisation' to the countries we conquered and looted. Later, much later, many of these countries "earned" their independence by demonstrating that they had changed from primitive savages (), and absorbed our Great British 'civilisation'.

Did yours ever try to stay on a matter instead of giving certain popping up traumatas always more preferences? That's a matter of being attentive and concentrated, requires some good effort.

It was about the way of thinking, that makes, what's called punishment, escape the pattern of "always just vengeance". Measures to bend someones bad actions (which naturally fall down on him) are, if not acting out of ill-will of vengeance, compassionate acts. Every education actually work that way.

And no, "we don't need no..." is just bind vengeance of ungrateful de-generations.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, to be fair, matters of daily living need to be handled somehow. And people who kill, rape, and pillage cannot (always) just be ignored and left to do what they're doing.

The problem is, of course, that there are now many competing value systems, and so it is not at all clear what is right and what is wrong. Worse yet, in a democracy, these matters are left to majority decisions, as if the majority (which is sometimes as little as 51%) is somehow magically morally right.

And we're back at "might makes right."

No-one here has suggested that serious crime should be ignored. And yes, democracy is the 'dictatorship of the majority', even if it's 51%, but do you know of a better or fairer system than that? I don't.