Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hereandnow wrote:

Lucky4:
Bottom line we all want him punished

I thought the bottom line was justice.

I think we are in agreement, justice can include punishment.

Can't agree here Lucky4. Vengeance is punishment without the justice. I really can't see the difference between it and anger, hate, and the like. Not a fan.

Hereandnow wrote:Can't agree here Lucky4. Vengeance is punishment without the justice.

How you can clarify about that, that vengeance is a punishment without the justice. And how justice is not a vengeance?

A lot of words such as this, still carry archaic interpretations that do not reflect an evolving consciousness and sense of humaneness befitting to the present. Surely to mete out justice fairly one would need to be objective and without emotional bias which is difficult as most of us are conditioned via the archaic interpretations based on cultural and religious dogma and to be free to make an objective judgement based on an evolved (dogma free) state would put you at odds with the masses who have been emotionally and mentally manipulated via media and groups intent on preserving the status quo and keeping the population in a state of fear.

Stormcloud puts a finger on it Okisites. i add that when justice enters into raw emotions one feels about an offense of some kind, from that point on is nothing but the mitigation or compromise of vengeance and the prevailing of reasoned moral thinking trying to understanding something vengeance knows nothing about: genuine accountability. It may be that vengeance hits the mark and the one guilty is the object of revenge; but maybe not. The point is, vengeance qua vengeance doesn't care.

Stormcloud wrote:A lot of words such as this, still carry archaic interpretations that do not reflect an evolving consciousness and sense of humaneness befitting to the present.

Excellent observation. Vengeance has evolved over the eras. Justice implies a code that is followed dispassionately, vengeance implies conduct outside of a codified law. Thus in ancient times, since the justice "system" was often nonfunctional, vengeance was sometimes the only mechanism for one to have their grievances addressed. Not optimal but reasonable.

Fast forward to today. Since there is a robust justice system, using vengeance to substitute for justice would only be justified in the most unusual of circumstances (where the Law is ignored by those in charge of the Law), which would be very rare. Most cases of Modern vengeance would cross the line into the negative. However the above statement only applies to situations under the purview of the Law, such as criminal behavior. However there are many situations where there is no Law (the schoolyard is one, office politics is another). This is the Modern venue where vengeance is reasonable, since one cannot be outside of the Law in a lawless place.

MarkE wrote:that rapist comment didn't offend me, i sort of chuckled at it

the thing is i won't ever attack someone under any circumstances for no reason. It needs to be directly affecting me after they do something bad... to .me

People like me will never learn, scott. Defense is the best bet.

I relate very much to MarkE. I become very bothered when I feel that someone has 'done me wrong' and I get the feeling that they are 'getting away with something' and need to 'learn a lesson'.

It is quite difficult for me to fight this feeling and the desire to behave in a retaliatory way. I have to somehow believe that I am also in some way to blame for the other person's behavior. I have to believe that I behaved badly toward them in some way that provoked their response. Otherwise, I will probably retaliate in one way or another.

Why? It does not work to dampen my aggression or anger, but rather fuels the flames. I think that I am this way in order to protect myself from being bullied. My 'stance' allows me to feel secure in the knowledge that I will never be bullied in any way that I feel is unacceptable.

Boots wrote:

MarkE wrote:that rapist comment didn't offend me, i sort of chuckled at it

the thing is i won't ever attack someone under any circumstances for no reason. It needs to be directly affecting me after they do something bad... to .me

People like me will never learn, scott. Defense is the best bet.

I relate very much to MarkE. I become very bothered when I feel that someone has 'done me wrong' and I get the feeling that they are 'getting away with something' and need to 'learn a lesson'.

It is quite difficult for me to fight this feeling and the desire to behave in a retaliatory way. I have to somehow believe that I am also in some way to blame for the other person's behavior. I have to believe that I behaved badly toward them in some way that provoked their response. Otherwise, I will probably retaliate in one way or another.

Why? It does not work to dampen my aggression or anger, but rather fuels the flames. I think that I am this way in order to protect myself from being bullied. My 'stance' allows me to feel secure in the knowledge that I will never be bullied in any way that I feel is unacceptable.

But as mentioned above, not all retaliation is vengeance, so therefore much, if not most of retaliation can be completely justified, noble even.

Let me illustrate what I mean:

1) Perp savagely beats up a family member of mine, I don't tell the police who he is and in the dark of night I nail shut his doors and light his home on fire.

2) Driver cuts me off, I flip him off and yell out the window at him.

3) Coworker takes credit for my work, 5 years later when I am his Project Leader I give the Team Leader position to someone else even though he deserved the position.

In #1 you have clear (old school) vengeance. No doubt, definitely a negative thing in the Modern age, shouldn't do that. Retaliation AND vengeance.

In #2 it is murky, while there are laws about driving, it is completely impractical for the Law to intervene, so NO vengeance, just retaliation. Not good, not bad. Take it or leave it.

In #3 it clarifies again. Clearly no trace of Law involved, therefore no vengeance, just retaliation. BUT while the coworker "deserved" the leadership position, in reality the team and the company is best served with (quasi-unfairly) using your past experience to "screw" him out of the position he "deserved". A positive thing.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I relate very much to MarkE. I become very bothered when I feel that someone has 'done me wrong' and I get the feeling that they are 'getting away with something' and need to 'learn a lesson'.

It is quite difficult for me to fight this feeling and the desire to behave in a retaliatory way. I have to somehow believe that I am also in some way to blame for the other person's behavior. I have to believe that I behaved badly toward them in some way that provoked their response. Otherwise, I will probably retaliate in one way or another.

Why? It does not work to dampen my aggression or anger, but rather fuels the flames. I think that I am this way in order to protect myself from being bullied. My 'stance' allows me to feel secure in the knowledge that I will never be bullied in any way that I feel is unacceptable.

But as mentioned above, not all retaliation is vengeance, so therefore much, if not most of retaliation can be completely justified, noble even.

Let me illustrate what I mean:

1) Perp savagely beats up a family member of mine, I don't tell the police who he is and in the dark of night I nail shut his doors and light his home on fire.

2) Driver cuts me off, I flip him off and yell out the window at him.

3) Coworker takes credit for my work, 5 years later when I am his Project Leader I give the Team Leader position to someone else even though he deserved the position.

In #1 you have clear (old school) vengeance. No doubt, definitely a negative thing in the Modern age, shouldn't do that. Retaliation AND vengeance.

In #2 it is murky, while there are laws about driving, it is completely impractical for the Law to intervene, so NO vengeance, just retaliation. Not good, not bad. Take it or leave it.

In #3 it clarifies again. Clearly no trace of Law involved, therefore no vengeance, just retaliation. BUT while the coworker "deserved" the leadership position, in reality the team and the company is best served with (quasi-unfairly) using your past experience to "screw" him out of the position he "deserved". A positive thing.

Retaliation is often defined by the dictionary as revenge. So I'm not sure that you can separate the two words as you are doing here. "The action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge."

So you are arguing that it is wrong (immoral) to burn down a person's house with that person inside, if the person savagely beat a member of your family. It is neither right or wrong to shout and impolitely gesture at a driver who has cut you off. And getting back at a co-worker for something they did to you earlier is right (moral).

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


But as mentioned above, not all retaliation is vengeance, so therefore much, if not most of retaliation can be completely justified, noble even.

Let me illustrate what I mean:

1) Perp savagely beats up a family member of mine, I don't tell the police who he is and in the dark of night I nail shut his doors and light his home on fire.

2) Driver cuts me off, I flip him off and yell out the window at him.

3) Coworker takes credit for my work, 5 years later when I am his Project Leader I give the Team Leader position to someone else even though he deserved the position.

In #1 you have clear (old school) vengeance. No doubt, definitely a negative thing in the Modern age, shouldn't do that. Retaliation AND vengeance.

In #2 it is murky, while there are laws about driving, it is completely impractical for the Law to intervene, so NO vengeance, just retaliation. Not good, not bad. Take it or leave it.

In #3 it clarifies again. Clearly no trace of Law involved, therefore no vengeance, just retaliation. BUT while the coworker "deserved" the leadership position, in reality the team and the company is best served with (quasi-unfairly) using your past experience to "screw" him out of the position he "deserved". A positive thing.

Retaliation is often defined by the dictionary as revenge. So I'm not sure that you can separate the two words as you are doing here. "The action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge."

So you are arguing that it is wrong (immoral) to burn down a person's house with that person inside, if the person savagely beat a member of your family. It is neither right or wrong to shout and impolitely gesture at a driver who has cut you off. And getting back at a co-worker for something they did to you earlier is right (moral).

Ten dictionaries will have slight differences between them, so true understanding does not lie there. I am drawing the distinction between the mere act of getting back at someone for a wrong they committed against you or yours (retaliation) vs doing the same action specifically outside of a legal system that has the responsibility for punishment, thus you are usurping the system and "taking the Law into your own hands" ie vengeance. Thus why I chose the 3 specific examples, as I explained before.

Pheasant wrote:Vengeance: Harming someone in retaliation for something harmful that they have done.

An act of revenge does not balance the effects of a previous harm done. It is a new act of harming. It may make an individual feel that the score has been evened out but if vengeance were the accepted 'norm' and the accepted reaction to a perceived affront, then society would be in a constant state of warfare with itself. Not only would we have one individual harming the individual who is perceived to have committed the initial offense, but we would then have the relations of the opposing parties attacking each other in retaliation for the last revenge attack. An unending cycle of mindless violence and self created misery.

We should not forget that the law will punish the avenger just as it will punish the initiator of the harm done. It does not differentiate between violent quarreling parties. If it did it would in effect be sanctioning civil degeneration.

I agree with this. Once something has been done, it can not be undone. Society can take actions to stop it from happening again which might include punishment. I think some mistake vengeance with punishment. They are totally different. IMO vengeance is a justification to harm someone else. Some will argue that the justification for vengeance is to punish or prevent further attacks. I don't believe either is true. One problem with vengeance is that in many cases it begins a cycle of vengeance. We've seen cases where families or countries continue taking vengeance on each other, often forgetting what started the cycle. A second problem with vengeance is the rationalizing how much is appropriate. For example, if someone sticks out their tongue at you are you justified (via vengeance) to punch them in the face, or kill them?

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Retaliation is often defined by the dictionary as revenge. So I'm not sure that you can separate the two words as you are doing here. "The action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge."

So you are arguing that it is wrong (immoral) to burn down a person's house with that person inside, if the person savagely beat a member of your family. It is neither right or wrong to shout and impolitely gesture at a driver who has cut you off. And getting back at a co-worker for something they did to you earlier is right (moral).

Ten dictionaries will have slight differences between them, so true understanding does not lie there. I am drawing the distinction between the mere act of getting back at someone for a wrong they committed against you or yours (retaliation) vs doing the same action specifically outside of a legal system that has the responsibility for punishment, thus you are usurping the system and "taking the Law into your own hands" ie vengeance. Thus why I chose the 3 specific examples, as I explained before.

So your argument is that it is moral to retaliate (get back at someone for a wrong they committed against you), but immoral to seek revenge if you are breaking the law?

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Ten dictionaries will have slight differences between them, so true understanding does not lie there. I am drawing the distinction between the mere act of getting back at someone for a wrong they committed against you or yours (retaliation) vs doing the same action specifically outside of a legal system that has the responsibility for punishment, thus you are usurping the system and "taking the Law into your own hands" ie vengeance. Thus why I chose the 3 specific examples, as I explained before.

So your argument is that it is moral to retaliate (get back at someone for a wrong they committed against you), but immoral to seek revenge if you are breaking the law?

No, not at all. Retaliation is such a broad term that no particular presuppositions can be drawn. There will be examples of retaliation that are all over the place, in fact I gave examples of three different retaliatory events that all had different moral qualities (as you know).

Vengeance (retaliation in an area where that responsibility lies with the Law), is extremely difficult to justify morally in Modern Western society. True, one can concoct such a possible scenario, but by and large the vast majority of cases will be immoral.

I think about vengeance that society should retaliate against people who harm others, or in the case of just societies, those who harm the society.
The retaliation should be aimed at restitution to the person who has been harmed, and to prevention of future harms to individuals and to the society.

Those principles can be adapted to private wrongs and to the restitution of belongings and civil and moral rights to persons who have been harmed. Vengeance has no place in either of those scenarios.

The one exception to the right to avenge is when society is not centrally organised and private vendetta is the only recourse for people who cannot benefit from civil justice.

Before the great religions began around 500 BCE vendetta had been commonplace but with advances in civilisation arose the need for vendetta to be replaced by centrally administered justice. The Bible shows certain details of the procession from tribal god and vendettas to more central justice around the time of the OT Prophets.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


So your argument is that it is moral to retaliate (get back at someone for a wrong they committed against you), but immoral to seek revenge if you are breaking the law?

No, not at all. Retaliation is such a broad term that no particular presuppositions can be drawn. There will be examples of retaliation that are all over the place, in fact I gave examples of three different retaliatory events that all had different moral qualities (as you know).

Vengeance (retaliation in an area where that responsibility lies with the Law), is extremely difficult to justify morally in Modern Western society. True, one can concoct such a possible scenario, but by and large the vast majority of cases will be immoral.

If you say so.