Philosophy Discussion Forums

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


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.

But more importantly, what do you say?

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


If you say so.

But more importantly, what do you say?

I don't agree with your use of the words retaliation and vengeance.

Also, the law is not necessarily the moral standard. For example, there have been many laws throughout human history that encouraged genocide. Were those laws moral? If your argument is that western laws are above that sort of thing, then I would disagree with you there.

Laws reflect what is important to society. Individuals who steal a great deal of money are very likely to spend a long time in prison if caught. However, individuals who sexually violate young children will spend much less time in prison if caught. I don't agree with this moral judgement, but that is the law.

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



But more importantly, what do you say?

I don't agree with your use of the words retaliation and vengeance.

Also, the law is not necessarily the moral standard. For example, there have been many laws throughout human history that encouraged genocide. Were those laws moral? If your argument is that western laws are above that sort of thing, then I would disagree with you there.

Laws reflect what is important to society. Individuals who steal a great deal of money are very likely to spend a long time in prison if caught. However, individuals who sexually violate young children will spend much less time in prison if caught. I don't agree with this moral judgement, but that is the law.

A couple of things:

Firstly, I am not wedded to particular nomenclature. Whatever descriptor you prefer to describe the A) general issue of personally getting back at those who wrong you (regardless of the context) and B) the specific subset of A) that deals with taking the Law into one's hands, ie doing A) in a setting where there is a formal system of Justice that punishes wrongdoers, is fine by me. My comments are on those concepts regardless of the labels you would choose to call them.

I agree completely that the Law is not necessarily the moral standard, though it is an agreed upon mechanism for handing out justice. Therefore if you make the decision to operate outside of the Law (take the Law into your own hands) then in my opinion that is either outright wrong, or the (moral) justification of such action demands clearly identifiable dysfunction in the Law that will be accepted as reasonable by many if not most.

As to your last comment, from the perspective of a potential self-appointed justice wielder, the fact that the crime in question is punished like this and theoretical crime #2 is punished like that, is inconsequential, all they need to bother with is: "is the crime again me, punished by the justice system?" if not, then perhaps they can justify taking that role themselves; if so, then that is the punishment that society has deemed appropriate, if you don't like it, that is a job for the legislature, not individuals in the street, from a moral perspective.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I don't agree with your use of the words retaliation and vengeance.

Also, the law is not necessarily the moral standard. For example, there have been many laws throughout human history that encouraged genocide. Were those laws moral? If your argument is that western laws are above that sort of thing, then I would disagree with you there.

Laws reflect what is important to society. Individuals who steal a great deal of money are very likely to spend a long time in prison if caught. However, individuals who sexually violate young children will spend much less time in prison if caught. I don't agree with this moral judgement, but that is the law.

A couple of things:

Firstly, I am not wedded to particular nomenclature. Whatever descriptor you prefer to describe the A) general issue of personally getting back at those who wrong you (regardless of the context) and B) the specific subset of A) that deals with taking the Law into one's hands, ie doing A) in a setting where there is a formal system of Justice that punishes wrongdoers, is fine by me. My comments are on those concepts regardless of the labels you would choose to call them.

I agree completely that the Law is not necessarily the moral standard, though it is an agreed upon mechanism for handing out justice. Therefore if you make the decision to operate outside of the Law (take the Law into your own hands) then in my opinion that is either outright wrong, or the (moral) justification of such action demands clearly identifiable dysfunction in the Law that will be accepted as reasonable by many if not most.

As to your last comment, from the perspective of a potential self-appointed justice wielder, the fact that the crime in question is punished like this and theoretical crime #2 is punished like that, is inconsequential, all they need to bother with is: "is the crime again me, punished by the justice system?" if not, then perhaps they can justify taking that role themselves; if so, then that is the punishment that society has deemed appropriate, if you don't like it, that is a job for the legislature, not individuals in the street, from a moral perspective.

Right. Here's where we differ. I don't need the acceptance of many or most to believe that something is moral/immoral. There have been many times in history where the majority of people believed that certain acts were moral/immoral and a smaller number of individuals believed that they were not. Many hundreds of years later, humanity decided that the majority had been 'wrong'. I don't have hundreds of years to wait for the approval of the majority. I have my own morality. Thankfully for me, it often coincides with the majority, but sometimes it does not.

I disagree with the only question being 'is the crime against me punished by the justice system'. There is also, 'is the crime against me (or mine) being punished sufficiently'? Are other people in society being treated fairly in the same manner? And so forth.

If this is not a job for individuals, but always for legislature, then those individuals who went against the Nazi regime and helped Jews were acting immorally.

I agree with the OP that vengeance is unhealthy. There is a saying that if you seek vengeance, first you should dig two graves - 1 for your enemy and 1 for yourself. I find a profound truth in this that extends beyond vengeance that involves killing. I find that vengeance rots the soul. It is a blight that grows and spreads from the original hurt/circumstance (someone crossed you) to effect other areas of your life (ex. your relationship with your spouse or children). Vengeance requires being hard about the decision to take vengeance and the act itself. For me, it required cutting myself off from my emotions about it all. That didn't work out well for me in the long run.

Personally, I try not to hold on to anger at all. I try to work through the anger to whatever is under it, because anger doesn't really exist without another emotion. Once I have worked through the anger, I'm able to make a more objective (because human beings are never truly objective) decision on how I will act/respond.

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


A couple of things:

Firstly, I am not wedded to particular nomenclature. Whatever descriptor you prefer to describe the A) general issue of personally getting back at those who wrong you (regardless of the context) and B) the specific subset of A) that deals with taking the Law into one's hands, ie doing A) in a setting where there is a formal system of Justice that punishes wrongdoers, is fine by me. My comments are on those concepts regardless of the labels you would choose to call them.

I agree completely that the Law is not necessarily the moral standard, though it is an agreed upon mechanism for handing out justice. Therefore if you make the decision to operate outside of the Law (take the Law into your own hands) then in my opinion that is either outright wrong, or the (moral) justification of such action demands clearly identifiable dysfunction in the Law that will be accepted as reasonable by many if not most.

As to your last comment, from the perspective of a potential self-appointed justice wielder, the fact that the crime in question is punished like this and theoretical crime #2 is punished like that, is inconsequential, all they need to bother with is: "is the crime again me, punished by the justice system?" if not, then perhaps they can justify taking that role themselves; if so, then that is the punishment that society has deemed appropriate, if you don't like it, that is a job for the legislature, not individuals in the street, from a moral perspective.

Right. Here's where we differ. I don't need the acceptance of many or most to believe that something is moral/immoral. There have been many times in history where the majority of people believed that certain acts were moral/immoral and a smaller number of individuals believed that they were not. Many hundreds of years later, humanity decided that the majority had been 'wrong'. I don't have hundreds of years to wait for the approval of the majority. I have my own morality. Thankfully for me, it often coincides with the majority, but sometimes it does not.

I disagree with the only question being 'is the crime against me punished by the justice system'. There is also, 'is the crime against me (or mine) being punished sufficiently'? Are other people in society being treated fairly in the same manner? And so forth.

If this is not a job for individuals, but always for legislature, then those individuals who went against the Nazi regime and helped Jews were acting immorally.

If you lived in Nazi Germany, I suspect everyone here would agree your comments are both correct and relevant (though my ideas would still pass muster since many inside Nazi Germany disagreed with the goings on there in Real Time), though I was excluding that (on purpose) by stipulating: "Modern western society". OTOH, for those in this Forum who are thinking of putting these ideas into current practice, I am going to have to hear a better example than that one.

Of course, I have already stated that such examples COULD exist and taking the Law into one's own hands CAN be justifiable, though I suspect that if a sizable current majority disagrees with you, I predict history will similarly be unsympathetic to your opinion.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Right. Here's where we differ. I don't need the acceptance of many or most to believe that something is moral/immoral. There have been many times in history where the majority of people believed that certain acts were moral/immoral and a smaller number of individuals believed that they were not. Many hundreds of years later, humanity decided that the majority had been 'wrong'. I don't have hundreds of years to wait for the approval of the majority. I have my own morality. Thankfully for me, it often coincides with the majority, but sometimes it does not.

I disagree with the only question being 'is the crime against me punished by the justice system'. There is also, 'is the crime against me (or mine) being punished sufficiently'? Are other people in society being treated fairly in the same manner? And so forth.

If this is not a job for individuals, but always for legislature, then those individuals who went against the Nazi regime and helped Jews were acting immorally.

If you lived in Nazi Germany, I suspect everyone here would agree your comments are both correct and relevant (though my ideas would still pass muster since many inside Nazi Germany disagreed with the goings on there in Real Time), though I was excluding that (on purpose) by stipulating: "Modern western society". OTOH, for those in this Forum who are thinking of putting these ideas into current practice, I am going to have to hear a better example than that one.

Of course, I have already stated that such examples COULD exist and taking the Law into one's own hands CAN be justifiable, though I suspect that if a sizable current majority disagrees with you, I predict history will similarly be unsympathetic to your opinion.

Maybe everyone here would agree with me and maybe they wouldn't. That's the point. I can't allow their morality to dictate mine. If I do, then I will inevitably act immorally or put another way, against my own morality.

History being sympathetic or not is also moot.

-- Updated March 5th, 2016, 10:35 am to add the following --

AnAyanami wrote:I agree with the OP that vengeance is unhealthy. There is a saying that if you seek vengeance, first you should dig two graves - 1 for your enemy and 1 for yourself. I find a profound truth in this that extends beyond vengeance that involves killing. I find that vengeance rots the soul. It is a blight that grows and spreads from the original hurt/circumstance (someone crossed you) to effect other areas of your life (ex. your relationship with your spouse or children). Vengeance requires being hard about the decision to take vengeance and the act itself. For me, it required cutting myself off from my emotions about it all. That didn't work out well for me in the long run.

Personally, I try not to hold on to anger at all. I try to work through the anger to whatever is under it, because anger doesn't really exist without another emotion. Once I have worked through the anger, I'm able to make a more objective (because human beings are never truly objective) decision on how I will act/respond.

The soul? I don't think there is such a thing so it would be difficult to rot it.

Vengeance is an action not a blight. It may or may not be fleeting and depends on the person and the circumstances.

Vengeance does not require being hard, but rather a decision to act against another based on a perceived hurt or wrong.

Anger is a required emotion and has allowed the species to survive and thrive.

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


If you lived in Nazi Germany, I suspect everyone here would agree your comments are both correct and relevant (though my ideas would still pass muster since many inside Nazi Germany disagreed with the goings on there in Real Time), though I was excluding that (on purpose) by stipulating: "Modern western society". OTOH, for those in this Forum who are thinking of putting these ideas into current practice, I am going to have to hear a better example than that one.

Of course, I have already stated that such examples COULD exist and taking the Law into one's own hands CAN be justifiable, though I suspect that if a sizable current majority disagrees with you, I predict history will similarly be unsympathetic to your opinion.

Maybe everyone here would agree with me and maybe they wouldn't. That's the point. I can't allow their morality to dictate mine. If I do, then I will inevitably act immorally or put another way, against my own morality.

History being sympathetic or not is also moot.

I agree that history is moot, I was just responding to your using current attitudes about past Nazi behavior in your example.

I also don't disagree with your words about using your personal ethics to dictate your behavior, I would hope that many would say the same thing, though from a practical perspective, I cannot name a Real example in my life where I took the Law into my own hands AND that I felt that my "justice" was superior FOR SOCIETY to that which would have come about from the Law. So for me (and I expect just about everyone, even you perhaps), your words are admirable but never used.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Maybe everyone here would agree with me and maybe they wouldn't. That's the point. I can't allow their morality to dictate mine. If I do, then I will inevitably act immorally or put another way, against my own morality.

History being sympathetic or not is also moot.

I agree that history is moot, I was just responding to your using current attitudes about past Nazi behavior in your example.

I also don't disagree with your words about using your personal ethics to dictate your behavior, I would hope that many would say the same thing, though from a practical perspective, I cannot name a Real example in my life where I took the Law into my own hands AND that I felt that my "justice" was superior FOR SOCIETY to that which would have come about from the Law. So for me (and I expect just about everyone, even you perhaps), your words are admirable but never used.

So then you think it admirable to break the law when standing up for your principles? That is contradictory to what you were saying earlier or am I missing something?

The law is a deterrent. We must all weigh our need to live with our action or inaction against our willingness to be prsecuted for it. But, there are many examples of people doing just that sort of thing. Nelson Mandela, Galileo, Socrates, Muhammad Ali, Maxamillian Kolbe, Ghandi....

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I agree that history is moot, I was just responding to your using current attitudes about past Nazi behavior in your example.

I also don't disagree with your words about using your personal ethics to dictate your behavior, I would hope that many would say the same thing, though from a practical perspective, I cannot name a Real example in my life where I took the Law into my own hands AND that I felt that my "justice" was superior FOR SOCIETY to that which would have come about from the Law. So for me (and I expect just about everyone, even you perhaps), your words are admirable but never used.

So then you think it admirable to break the law when standing up for your principles? That is contradictory to what you were saying earlier or am I missing something?

The law is a deterrent. We must all weigh our need to live with our action or inaction against our willingness to be prsecuted for it. But, there are many examples of people doing just that sort of thing. Nelson Mandela, Galileo, Socrates, Muhammad Ali, Maxamillian Kolbe, Ghandi....

Admirable? Not really, I chose "don't disagree with" on purpose (as opposed to "agree with"). Since you dodged my question on your personal experience and dragged out a few shopworn historical figures, I assume you agree that your commentary, while admittedly noble, is for most people somewhere between impractical and useless.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


So then you think it admirable to break the law when standing up for your principles? That is contradictory to what you were saying earlier or am I missing something?

The law is a deterrent. We must all weigh our need to live with our action or inaction against our willingness to be prsecuted for it. But, there are many examples of people doing just that sort of thing. Nelson Mandela, Galileo, Socrates, Muhammad Ali, Maxamillian Kolbe, Ghandi....

Admirable? Not really, I chose "don't disagree with" on purpose (as opposed to "agree with"). Since you dodged my question on your personal experience and dragged out a few shopworn historical figures, I assume you agree that your commentary, while admittedly noble, is for most people somewhere between impractical and useless.

"I also don't disagree with your words about using your personal ethics to dictate your behavior, I would hope that many would say the same thing." Why would you hope that many would say the same thing? It sounds as if you approve of this behaviour.

"I assume you agree that your commentary, while admittedly noble..." You think the behaviour is noble, but not admirable?

Dodges what question? "So for me (and I expect just about everyone, even you perhaps), your words are admirable but never used." This is a statement and not a question. You are stating what you suspect to be the case.

So your argument then is that, unless I divulge any personal law breaking to you on a public forum, then standing by ones principles even if it is against the law is impractical and useless?

It is clear to me that we are not that far apart, but are talking past one another. I too admire Galileo, for example. And I too, would like to believe that I would stand up for principles in a future similar to a Nazi Germany. However, my point is that in Modern western society the number of Real Life situations where the Law is so incredibly off base that I could justify personally killing or otherwise severely harming someone who harmed me, is vanishingly small. To the point of making the topic essentially theoretical, thus my commentary on uselessness.

Remember the topic is not justified Law breaking, it is vengeance.

LuckyR wrote:It is clear to me that we are not that far apart, but are talking past one another. I too admire Galileo, for example. And I too, would like to believe that I would stand up for principles in a future similar to a Nazi Germany. However, my point is that in Modern western society the number of Real Life situations where the Law is so incredibly off base that I could justify personally killing or otherwise severely harming someone who harmed me, is vanishingly small. To the point of making the topic essentially theoretical, thus my commentary on uselessness.

Remember the topic is not justified Law breaking, it is vengeance.

Yes, but you made the topic 'justified law breaking' when you used breaking the law as an example of when vengeance would be unjustified.

And whether there are fewer instances of modern injustice is both subjective and moot. If there is even one such injustice, then it is worth discussing.

I wonder if racial profiling by police might be one such example. I also think that laws against child molestation are no where near harsh enough.

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote:It is clear to me that we are not that far apart, but are talking past one another. I too admire Galileo, for example. And I too, would like to believe that I would stand up for principles in a future similar to a Nazi Germany. However, my point is that in Modern western society the number of Real Life situations where the Law is so incredibly off base that I could justify personally killing or otherwise severely harming someone who harmed me, is vanishingly small. To the point of making the topic essentially theoretical, thus my commentary on uselessness.

Remember the topic is not justified Law breaking, it is vengeance.

Yes, but you made the topic 'justified law breaking' when you used breaking the law as an example of when vengeance would be unjustified.

And whether there are fewer instances of modern injustice is both subjective and moot. If there is even one such injustice, then it is worth discussing.

I wonder if racial profiling by police might be one such example. I also think that laws against child molestation are no where near harsh enough.

Partially correct, I stated that getting back at someone personally has it's place when there is no other mechanism (the Law) for dealing with transgressions. Doing so in instances that we have agreed as a society is the purview of the Law, breaks that "contract", thus the Law must be egregiously in error to justify such vengeance. We both agree that such cases could be justified and are rare.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Yes, but you made the topic 'justified law breaking' when you used breaking the law as an example of when vengeance would be unjustified.

And whether there are fewer instances of modern injustice is both subjective and moot. If there is even one such injustice, then it is worth discussing.

I wonder if racial profiling by police might be one such example. I also think that laws against child molestation are no where near harsh enough.

Partially correct, I stated that getting back at someone personally has it's place when there is no other mechanism (the Law) for dealing with transgressions. Doing so in instances that we have agreed as a society is the purview of the Law, breaks that "contract", thus the Law must be egregiously in error to justify such vengeance. We both agree that such cases could be justified and are rare.

I don't think they are that rare. It depends on your place in society, as to whether or not you are faced with injustice on a relatively regular basis or not. For example, in western society, white males would probably believe that cases of justified vengeance where the law is broken are rare.