Philosophy Discussion Forums

Boots wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


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.

Your statement is, of course completely accurate, but the rarity stems from the fact that though injustice is common, the additional requirements that A) the Law addresses the injustice B) but the Law is so egregiously inadequate that it C) justifies killing or maiming an individual in Modern western society. The proof of my comment is that should a case actually occur (outside of a Philosophy Forum) it will make headline news. Common events don't do that, by definition.

LuckyR wrote:

Boots wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


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.

Your statement is, of course completely accurate, but the rarity stems from the fact that though injustice is common, the additional requirements that A) the Law addresses the injustice B) but the Law is so egregiously inadequate that it C) justifies killing or maiming an individual in Modern western society. The proof of my comment is that should a case actually occur (outside of a Philosophy Forum) it will make headline news. Common events don't do that, by definition.

Agree to disagree.

I can not imagine a benefit to society for vengeance.

In my opinion, when one resorts to vengeance they are breaking their contract with society.

When we form societies then we accepted that we will abide by the rules, laws and decisions of that society or change to a different society. If we don't like the methods determined to be most effective by the society then we are beholden to try to change the methods. I believe modern societies have evolved to a point where vengeance isn't considered beneficial to the society and therefore not justified.

If someone in a society is harmed by another it is up to the society to met out justice and for the victim to accept that and move on. A problem with individuals trying to met out justice on their own is that they most likely will not do it justly. They will not have the benefit of society in mind but their own selfish interests. It is likely the vengeance will be more severe than the initial injury which, in turn, is likely to incite a return of violence which can escalate and be very damaging to the society. We've seen extreme cases of this throughout history.

The most obvious argument that shows how vengeance is irrational is the following:

Let us suppose that a person (P1) has committed an act that produced a perceived harm on another person (P2).

The harm could be measured, hypothetically, in arbitrary "harm units". Let us suppose that the act P1 committed produced five harm units.

If P2 decides to commit a similar act, i.e. an act that produces five harm units, against P1, then the total measure of harm units has increased.

Here's the argument:

Premise 1) If P1 and P2 want to minimize the number of harm units produced, then neither would contribute to the amount of total harm produced.
Premise 2) P2 contributed harm units to the total.
Conclusion) P2 did not want to minimize the number of harm units produced.

And we can extrapolate from there, based on typical moral reasoning, that P2 has acted in a way that unnecessarily harmed another. We want to avoid harm as much as possible, and P2 did not do so. Therefore, we would conclude, P2 committed an immoral act.
______________________________________________________-

In other words, adding to the net amount of harm that is inflicted does not reduce the amount of harm - it, by definition, does the exact opposite. If we want to avoid harm, and if indeed being harmed is what causes anger, sadness and frustration, then why would inflicting harm make any sense? If harm is the principle "moral debt", why add more to that "debt"?

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:The most obvious argument that shows how vengeance is irrational is the following:

Let us suppose that a person (P1) has committed an act that produced a perceived harm on another person (P2).

The harm could be measured, hypothetically, in arbitrary "harm units". Let us suppose that the act P1 committed produced five harm units.

If P2 decides to commit a similar act, i.e. an act that produces five harm units, against P1, then the total measure of harm units has increased.

Here's the argument:

Premise 1) If P1 and P2 want to minimize the number of harm units produced, then neither would contribute to the amount of total harm produced.
Premise 2) P2 contributed harm units to the total.
Conclusion) P2 did not want to minimize the number of harm units produced.

And we can extrapolate from there, based on typical moral reasoning, that P2 has acted in a way that unnecessarily harmed another. We want to avoid harm as much as possible, and P2 did not do so. Therefore, we would conclude, P2 committed an immoral act.
______________________________________________________-

In other words, adding to the net amount of harm that is inflicted does not reduce the amount of harm - it, by definition, does the exact opposite. If we want to avoid harm, and if indeed being harmed is what causes anger, sadness and frustration, then why would inflicting harm make any sense? If harm is the principle "moral debt", why add more to that "debt"?

You're way off base on this one. First of all, your red comment is patently incorrect. Society punishes folks for and with harm every day and the vast majority wouldn't have it any other way. Or to put it in your nomenclature: if perp P1 commits 5 harm units against his victim, (hopefully) sheriff S1 will catch P1 and prosecutor Pr1 will convict him of his crimes so P1 will spend an amount of time in prison Pri1 for a number of years to extract < 5 harm units against P1.

So the issue is NOT should crimes be punished or not, but who gets to do the punishing. If the State does it, we call that normal. If the victim V1 does it we call that vengeance.

Mind you, I have stated many times in this thread that in the Modern era, justifiable vengeance is extremely rare, to the point of almost never being seen.

I can't think of a case of "justifiable vengeance". As I said above, vengeance is most often used as an excuse to harm others. When you live in a society you enter into a contract that you will abide by the justice as decided by the society.

LuckyR wrote: You're way off base on this one. First of all, your red comment is patently incorrect. Society punishes folks for and with harm every day and the vast majority wouldn't have it any other way. Or to put it in your nomenclature: if perp P1 commits 5 harm units against his victim, (hopefully) sheriff S1 will catch P1 and prosecutor Pr1 will convict him of his crimes so P1 will spend an amount of time in prison Pri1 for a number of years to extract < 5 harm units against P1.

So the issue is NOT should crimes be punished or not, but who gets to do the punishing. If the State does it, we call that normal. If the victim V1 does it we call that vengeance.

Mind you, I have stated many times in this thread that in the Modern era, justifiable vengeance is extremely rare, to the point of almost never being seen.

No, you're off about my message: I wasn't talking about punishment, neither was I referring to extracting harm from criminals. I wad referring solely to personal vengeful acts between individuals. The principle at work here is that if harm is what we want to avoid, and the thing that we are upset over when it is inflicted, then adding more harm will not do anything except produce more of the principle thing which we wanted to avoid.

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:

LuckyR wrote: You're way off base on this one. First of all, your red comment is patently incorrect. Society punishes folks for and with harm every day and the vast majority wouldn't have it any other way. Or to put it in your nomenclature: if perp P1 commits 5 harm units against his victim, (hopefully) sheriff S1 will catch P1 and prosecutor Pr1 will convict him of his crimes so P1 will spend an amount of time in prison Pri1 for a number of years to extract < 5 harm units against P1.

So the issue is NOT should crimes be punished or not, but who gets to do the punishing. If the State does it, we call that normal. If the victim V1 does it we call that vengeance.

Mind you, I have stated many times in this thread that in the Modern era, justifiable vengeance is extremely rare, to the point of almost never being seen.

No, you're off about my message: I wasn't talking about punishment, neither was I referring to extracting harm from criminals. I wad referring solely to personal vengeful acts between individuals. The principle at work here is that if harm is what we want to avoid, and the thing that we are upset over when it is inflicted, then adding more harm will not do anything except produce more of the principle thing which we wanted to avoid.

Yeah I know, neither am I. I said "the issue is NOT should crimes be punished or not".

Perhaps we are talking past one another, let me try to clarify: are you referring to areas where there is a system (the Law) designed to provide justice, or are you speaking of areas where there is no Law, such as the office, the schoolyard? You may not care one way or another but the role of individual justice differs if there is or is not already an agreed upon societal system of said justice.

LuckyR wrote:

ThamiorTheThinker wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


No, you're off about my message: I wasn't talking about punishment, neither was I referring to extracting harm from criminals. I wad referring solely to personal vengeful acts between individuals. The principle at work here is that if harm is what we want to avoid, and the thing that we are upset over when it is inflicted, then adding more harm will not do anything except produce more of the principle thing which we wanted to avoid.

Yeah I know, neither am I. I said "the issue is NOT should crimes be punished or not".

Perhaps we are talking past one another, let me try to clarify: are you referring to areas where there is a system (the Law) designed to provide justice, or are you speaking of areas where there is no Law, such as the office, the schoolyard? You may not care one way or another but the role of individual justice differs if there is or is not already an agreed upon societal system of said justice.

I am referring to situations that are outside laws and institutions. I was making a general claim about vengeance among people. So, yes, environments such as the office or schoolyard fit under that description.

Mo_reese wrote:I can not imagine a benefit to society for vengeance.

In my opinion, when one resorts to vengeance they are breaking their contract with society.

When we form societies then we accepted that we will abide by the rules, laws and decisions of that society or change to a different society. If we don't like the methods determined to be most effective by the society then we are beholden to try to change the methods. I believe modern societies have evolved to a point where vengeance isn't considered beneficial to the society and therefore not justified.

If someone in a society is harmed by another it is up to the society to met out justice and for the victim to accept that and move on. A problem with individuals trying to met out justice on their own is that they most likely will not do it justly. They will not have the benefit of society in mind but their own selfish interests. It is likely the vengeance will be more severe than the initial injury which, in turn, is likely to incite a return of violence which can escalate and be very damaging to the society. We've seen extreme cases of this throughout history.

Contract with society? I made no such contract. I am forced to obey the rules of society through threat of punishment whether I agree or disagree with the rules. I cannot just 'change' to a different society and even if I was able to be accepted into another one that I was not born into, things would still be as I have described.

It may be that modern societies have gotten to a point where the consensus is that vengeance is bad but, we've already been over how society is not always right. I think that societies are just as capable of injustice as are individuals. Most people have selfish interests and societies' benefits are usually their benefits anyway. Society is just as capable of damaging itself as is any individual.

-- Updated March 16th, 2016, 7:20 am to add the following --

Mo_reese wrote:I can't think of a case of "justifiable vengeance". As I said above, vengeance is most often used as an excuse to harm others. When you live in a society you enter into a contract that you will abide by the justice as decided by the society.

Someone killing your loved one and then getting off on a technicality.

Society is very often unjust.

Of course vengeance is an excuse to harm others. That's what vengeance means. Getting back at someone who has harmed you.

I appreciate being able to have this discussion even though I think you might be stringing me along.
If one lives in a society they have to abide by the laws and rules of that society (the contract). I agree that society is often unjust but the only way we can avoid chaos is to all agree to abide by the rules and laws. One can leave a society if they are not satisfied with that society. There are societies around the world to choose from. There are communes here in the USofA that have different visions of justice and how to live in society. Those that won't abide by the "contract" to the point of violating laws, will be removed from the society. For example, if one is caught meting out vengeance contrary to the laws of society, they will be removed from society.
I don't agree that if one isn't satisfied with the justice of society, then they are justified to decide themselves who is guilty and what their punishment should be. I don't imagine that Nicole Brown's family was satisfied with the justice or lack of that society brought against Mr. Simpson but I don't think it beneficial to society to allow the family to met out their own version of justice. Why even have a trial if we are going to let the injured party ultimately decide what the justice will be?

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Yeah I know, neither am I. I said "the issue is NOT should crimes be punished or not".

Perhaps we are talking past one another, let me try to clarify: are you referring to areas where there is a system (the Law) designed to provide justice, or are you speaking of areas where there is no Law, such as the office, the schoolyard? You may not care one way or another but the role of individual justice differs if there is or is not already an agreed upon societal system of said justice.

I am referring to situations that are outside laws and institutions. I was making a general claim about vengeance among people. So, yes, environments such as the office or schoolyard fit under that description.

I was assuming the opposite situation. That's why I wanted to ask.

OK, some punk kid punches your kid in the schoolyard. He goes down in a heap with a bloody nose. No teacher witnesses it. No retaliation, by your determination. What happens next?

LuckyR wrote:

ThamiorTheThinker wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I am referring to situations that are outside laws and institutions. I was making a general claim about vengeance among people. So, yes, environments such as the office or schoolyard fit under that description.

I was assuming the opposite situation. That's why I wanted to ask.

OK, some punk kid punches your kid in the schoolyard. He goes down in a heap with a bloody nose. No teacher witnesses it. No retaliation, by your determination. What happens next?

My hypothetical child goes to the school's office and requests that an adult handles the situation. I don't want to assume anything about your position in this debate, but the way you worded that last inquiry makes me think that you believe that vengeance is something that must occur because it naturally occurs. Am I correct in assuming this?

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I was assuming the opposite situation. That's why I wanted to ask.

OK, some punk kid punches your kid in the schoolyard. He goes down in a heap with a bloody nose. No teacher witnesses it. No retaliation, by your determination. What happens next?

My hypothetical child goes to the school's office and requests that an adult handles the situation. I don't want to assume anything about your position in this debate, but the way you worded that last inquiry makes me think that you believe that vengeance is something that must occur because it naturally occurs. Am I correct in assuming this?

I will answer both of your queries. First, the school administration will do nothing. This is a classic case of "he said, she said". One kid's (potentially biased) word against another's. If the parents get involved the bias goes off of the chart. Grade school professionals know this. I specifically chose this topic because you stipulated that that you were addressing situations where there is no system of justice. Well you got your wish, there will be no external/systemic justice. If there is going to be justice, you're going to have to make it happen yourself. Of course, you are free to decide there should be no justice if society can't be the one to provide it, that is perfectly logical, though unpopular.

As to how I would handle the punk kid, if my kid could take out the other kid, I would encourage him to do so, especially in the younger ages. OTOH, if my kid couldn't take out the other kid, this would be a classic case for a motivated older sibling to take that role. If that is not available, then at minimum I would use the situation as a teaching opportunity for my kid to get to the point where the next time this happened my kid would be armed with the knowledge that defending themselves is encouraged by his parents (probably the most valuable), and some practical information on ways of making that happen after the fact.

To answer your second question, I do not believe in a justice-less existence. I am perfectly content to have the societal system provide justice, as the vast majority of folks are. However, most cases of malice do not occur in that arena, they happen in areas without Law. The options in those cases are: 1) do nothing, because justice belongs to society, not individuals, what you proposed, or 2) provide justice yourself, as an individual when there is not a system to provide it for you. I subscribe to the latter belief system.

Therefore I DON'T believe that vengeance "must occur", it doesn't, when the victim believes in #1. Or they believe in #2 but they are too squeamish to perform it or the possible retribution might be too great of a risk to take.

LuckyR wrote: As to how I would handle the punk kid, if my kid could take out the other kid, I would encourage him to do so, especially in the younger ages. OTOH, if my kid couldn't take out the other kid, this would be a classic case for a motivated older sibling to take that role. If that is not available, then at minimum I would use the situation as a teaching opportunity for my kid to get to the point where the next time this happened my kid would be armed with the knowledge that defending themselves is encouraged by his parents (probably the most valuable), and some practical information on ways of making that happen after the fact.

To answer your second question, I do not believe in a justice-less existence. I am perfectly content to have the societal system provide justice, as the vast majority of folks are. However, most cases of malice do not occur in that arena, they happen in areas without Law. The options in those cases are: 1) do nothing, because justice belongs to society, not individuals, what you proposed, or 2) provide justice yourself, as an individual when there is not a system to provide it for you. I subscribe to the latter belief system.

Therefore I DON'T believe that vengeance "must occur", it doesn't, when the victim believes in #1. Or they believe in #2 but they are too squeamish to perform it or the possible retribution might be too great of a risk to take.

I'm ignoring the second paragraph in my quote of your post, because you're leading me into a previous discussion that I was not a part of. I am not talking about justice at all, I am talking solely about personal acts of vengeance between individuals. I am not involving discussions of local or federal laws whatsoever as a part of my point. You ought to be careful not to confuse what I am writing with what those before you were writing.

Onto my response. So, you believe that this hypothetical "punk kid" deserves harm because he has harmed another? That's opening up an entire metaphorical can of worms related to child psychology that I don't want to get into... However, I shall regardless, because psychology is relevant here.

Point A): Children are imitators. Primate see, primate do. They are also especially vulnerable to thousands of neurological influences associated with early brain development. Teaching a child to push back is most likely going to lead them to more aggressive behaviors and tendencies later on. Would you actually want that? No offense to you, but I think your point about the hypothetical schoolyard scenario is rather ignorant given that child psychology and development are what they are.

Point B): If the point of vengeance is to remedy the effects of a harm, how is causing a harm in response doing that? In other words, how is punching a person that punched you remediating the effects of a harm? All it is achieving is more harm. The entire point of being against the idea of harm is the principle of harm itself. If assailt is what we wish to avoid, then why would we force a counter-assault on another? It literally does nothing in terms of remediating the original principle action which led to the harm.