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

[LuckyR]

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.

Your red comment would make sense to me, if time stood still after the original event. The punch to the face is in the past, dry your tears. "Getting back" at the punk kid won't change your black eye, move on.

Unfortunately for that mindset, life goes on. The punk kid isn't going evaporate just because you don't like him. What do you think is going to happen tomorrow on the schoolyard? The purpose of defending oneself isn't to turn back time and make the original assault not happen, nor is it to make my kid feel better. It is Behavior Modification: people get treated the way they let themselves get treated. I want my kid to project the outward image of a kid that never gets beat up. BTW, it isn't only the brawniest kids that never get beat up, plenty of kids who are not physically intimidating never get provoked and I want my kid to be one of them.

Your blue comment is wishful thinking unencumbered by data or experience. Teaching children not to have a victim's outlook, that they have worth and value that deserves to be defended is a potent life lesson. Within my actual child's cohort, the problem of being a doormat will vastly outnumber those who have aggression problems.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Your red comment would make sense to me, if time stood still after the original event. The punch to the face is in the past, dry your tears. "Getting back" at the punk kid won't change your black eye, move on.

Exactly: It's in the past. Move on. Why are you disagreeing with my points when this statement right here agrees with them?

Your blue comment is wishful thinking unencumbered by data or experience. Teaching children not to have a victim's outlook, that they have worth and value that deserves to be defended is a potent life lesson. Within my actual child's cohort, the problem of being a doormat will vastly outnumber those who have aggression problems.

I call ********. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ode=vzps20 and http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ode=vzps20 and http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/6/2/119/

Children are better social learners than any of us, in fact social learning is one of the driving factors in childhood brain development. Also, teaching a child that counterattacks are the only way to defend their worth is blatantly ignorant. There are many ways to defend oneself that don't involve counterattacks. Mahatma Ghandi would have words with you on that.

-- Updated March 17th, 2016, 3:41 pm to add the following --

Also, here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

-- Updated March 17th, 2016, 3:46 pm to add the following --

After rethinking through and reevaluating our arguments and counterarguments, LuckyR, I have come to a conclusion about why we disagree. We disagree because I am speaking about the abstract, future consequences of vengeance, where as you are discussing the concrete, immediate consequences. You and I aren't on the same page in the context of the original question.

You see, I was arguing that vengeance is unallowable because it contributes to the overall level of harm, which is something I assume we all want to avoid; you, on the other hand, were arguing that children should be taught to value themselves and protect what they value. You and I weren't truly on the same note, I think.

So, how about we start from the beginning, eh? How do you define vengeance, and what are your thoughts on whether or not that definition of vengeance is allowable?

[LuckyR]

After rethinking through and reevaluating our arguments and counterarguments, LuckyR, I have come to a conclusion about why we disagree. We disagree because I am speaking about the abstract, future consequences of vengeance, where as you are discussing the concrete, immediate consequences. You and I aren't on the same page in the context of the original question.

You see, I was arguing that vengeance is unallowable because it contributes to the overall level of harm, which is something I assume we all want to avoid; you, on the other hand, were arguing that children should be taught to value themselves and protect what they value. You and I weren't truly on the same note, I think.

So, how about we start from the beginning, eh? How do you define vengeance, and what are your thoughts on whether or not that definition of vengeance is allowable?

I completely agree with your assessment of our two relative viewpoints. This is a good example of how perspective changes the narrative.

For example, I would like to see a society with less overall violence. I think that: "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" is a bumper-sticker that provokes real thought. So the goal is self-evident, the means to get there differs among different folks. Usually in cases like this there is no one best answer and the best course is a comprehensive strategy that involves many different means to get to a common end.

As to your question there are many nuances to this issue that IMO require different responses and provoke different opinions in my mind. Here are just a few:

1) Someone hurts me in a way that the Law can step in to deal with this assault. I am comfortable with this, even if the Law's outcome is not to my liking, I will be satisfied that justice was "done". I find it almost impossible or highly improbable that retaliation, where the Law has jurisdiction, can be ethically justified.

2) Someone hurts me in a way that the Law does not cover. I definitely will use this occurrence in my future dealings with this person. However, many of the ways I will use the information most people would not call "vengeance". For example, everyone agrees that if a guy punches me in a bar and I punch him back, that is retaliation and/or vengeance. OTOH, what if I cut him off on the freeway a week later just because it makes me feel better? What if I have my daughter not invite only his daughter to her 1st grade birthday party? What if I give him a dirty look the next time I see him walking down the street? The alternative is to do literally nothing, ie act like it never happened, treat the guy exactly if he never hit me. This is a really unusual response. Therefore most agree we should not treat the offender exactly normally, the question is how much different treatment is acceptable? Even preferable? Where does learning from an event (a good thing) cross the line into retaliation/vengeance (a bad thing)? I don't know the answer and if pressed would probably retreat to something like: I'll know it is an appropriate level of response if I will proudly own my actions, but if I have to lie about or hide my actions, then it is likely breaking a social norm.

BTW that is how I live my online life. I only post things I don't mind anyone seeing ie that I can defend openly, hence why I don't insult anyone who doesn't insult me first. Maybe there is something in there somewhere...

[Wilson]

Lucky, I find that I agree with a lot of what you write on various issues. I like your way of thinking.

Vengeance is built into our DNA. We are programmed to get angry when someone does us dirty. When we were becoming human back in the hunter-gatherer period, it wasn't good for one's survival to take whatever a bully (or stronger person) did to you. Retaliation might not only preserve your food or mating partner, it would also prevent future attacks.

Of course just because we have tendencies toward vengeance, it doesn't follow that vengeance is necessarily beneficial in today's world. But it's definitely normal to react emotionally in that way.

As to whether it's good or bad, whether it's moral to react with vengeance - well, there's no absolute answer to that. Morality isn't absolute and universal. One person's opinion is his own.

Certainly, depending on one's attitude toward vengeance, some vengeance is terrible. If someone cuts you off in traffic, shooting him or her is unjustified, as almost all of us would agree - even the perp after reflection, in most cases. But for most of us, some examples of vengeance are justified. If someone raped you sister, Thamior, I think it would be weird to not wish for the person to be punished - to not report the rape, for instance. If you didn't agree, I'd think you were a very strange person indeed, and I'd not respect you for that, would probably think you were mentally ill.

So obviously some vengeance is justified in the eyes of almost all normal people. The question is where you draw the line. Personally I think vengeance, where appropriate, is healthy and may have some benefits to society. We put people in prison partly to keep them from further harming the community, but also because our sense of justice demands that wilful evil be punished. If you are incapable of feeling anger toward others, you're a very different animal from most of us. And you may think that makes you a better person, but I sure don't.

[Burning ghost]

Vengeance is avoidance of learning. I do think compassion (empathy) allows you to try and understand why someone has "wronged" you. When wronged often the harmful intent you perceive may be a falsehood it may be just down to the other persons ignorance of how what they have done effects you.

That said I do believe we with in a non-ideal world and some form of punishment is required in order to show the offender what they have done is wrong. Ignorance is not an excuse it is a problem. Educate before the problem occurs in order to prevent offenses and to help people deal with offenses appropriately ... of course that is an entirely new bag of problems to deal with in application

I do find it irritating that some responses here actually go against the question asked. Why do people do that? Why ignore the question and turn it on its head. Does this make people feel special or unique? Baffling and contrary human behaviour as usual!

[Belinda]

Like Wilson, I often agree with LuckyR and the following is another point of agreement:

As to your question there are many nuances to this issue that IMO require different responses and provoke different opinions in my mind. Here are just a few:

1) Someone hurts me in a way that the Law can step in to deal with this assault. I am comfortable with this, even if the Law's outcome is not to my liking, I will be satisfied that justice was "done". I find it almost impossible or highly improbable that retaliation, where the Law has jurisdiction, can be ethically justified.

2) Someone hurts me in a way that the Law does not cover. I definitely will use this occurrence in my future dealings with this person. However, many of the ways I will use the information most people would not call "vengeance". For example, everyone agrees that if a guy punches me in a bar and I punch him back, that is retaliation and/or vengeance. OTOH, what if I cut him off on the freeway a week later just because it makes me feel better? What if I have my daughter not invite only his daughter to her 1st grade birthday party? What if I give him a dirty look the next time I see him walking down the street? The alternative is to do literally nothing, ie act like it never happened, treat the guy exactly if he never hit me. This is a really unusual response. Therefore most agree we should not treat the offender exactly normally, the question is how much different treatment is acceptable? Even preferable? Where does learning from an event (a good thing) cross the line into retaliation/vengeance (a bad thing)? I don't know the answer and if pressed would probably retreat to something like: I'll know it is an appropriate level of response if I will proudly own my actions, but if I have to lie about or hide my actions, then it is likely breaking a social norm.

This from Lucky rings true to life . One possible objection to "I'll know it is an appropriate level of response if I will proudly own my actions, but if I have to lie about or hide my actions, then it is likely breaking a social norm"
is that what is a social norm for some is always retaliate with paranoid violence .

The rule of law may itself be unjust to certain minorities. It often is. Social norms are usually unjust to minorities.
I quote Lucky's earlier "Teaching children not to have a victim's outlook, that they have worth and value that deserves to be defended is a potent life lesson". This is where it's at. Self defense is often the soft answer that turneth away wrath.*

* Proverbs 15

There are justifiable occasions for aggression but vengeance is never such an occasion. Retaliation is not vengeance although it might be . Deterrence and protection of the peaceful and the weaker people (alluded to by LuckyR)is not vengeance.

[LuckyR]

Like Wilson, I often agree with LuckyR and the following is another point of agreement:

As to your question there are many nuances to this issue that IMO require different responses and provoke different opinions in my mind. Here are just a few:

1) Someone hurts me in a way that the Law can step in to deal with this assault. I am comfortable with this, even if the Law's outcome is not to my liking, I will be satisfied that justice was "done". I find it almost impossible or highly improbable that retaliation, where the Law has jurisdiction, can be ethically justified.

2) Someone hurts me in a way that the Law does not cover. I definitely will use this occurrence in my future dealings with this person. However, many of the ways I will use the information most people would not call "vengeance". For example, everyone agrees that if a guy punches me in a bar and I punch him back, that is retaliation and/or vengeance. OTOH, what if I cut him off on the freeway a week later just because it makes me feel better? What if I have my daughter not invite only his daughter to her 1st grade birthday party? What if I give him a dirty look the next time I see him walking down the street? The alternative is to do literally nothing, ie act like it never happened, treat the guy exactly if he never hit me. This is a really unusual response. Therefore most agree we should not treat the offender exactly normally, the question is how much different treatment is acceptable? Even preferable? Where does learning from an event (a good thing) cross the line into retaliation/vengeance (a bad thing)? I don't know the answer and if pressed would probably retreat to something like: I'll know it is an appropriate level of response if I will proudly own my actions, but if I have to lie about or hide my actions, then it is likely breaking a social norm.

This from Lucky rings true to life . One possible objection to "I'll know it is an appropriate level of response if I will proudly own my actions, but if I have to lie about or hide my actions, then it is likely breaking a social norm"
is that what is a social norm for some is always retaliate with paranoid violence .

The rule of law may itself be unjust to certain minorities. It often is. Social norms are usually unjust to minorities.
I quote Lucky's earlier "Teaching children not to have a victim's outlook, that they have worth and value that deserves to be defended is a potent life lesson". This is where it's at. Self defense is often the soft answer that turneth away wrath.*

* Proverbs 15

There are justifiable occasions for aggression but vengeance is never such an occasion. Retaliation is not vengeance although it might be . Deterrence and protection of the peaceful and the weaker people (alluded to by LuckyR)is not vengeance.

Thanks Belinda and Wilson for the kind words. As many have noted I tend to use the practical life experience as a guide to both what is right and what is "right now".

I think that the red comment is probably closer to the answer to the question I was asked, namely do words like vengeance, retaliation etc have very specific meanings such that their casual use contributes to miscommunication? Is every retaliation vengeance? Why not?

I agree that it is natural to "get back" at folks who wrong us. Heck, how many of us have kicked a chair leg that we stubbed a toe on? That makes no logical sense, in fact we are likely to stub another toe, while the chair leg cares not a whit. It is definitely natural.

I don't disagree that one person's norm could be out of step, but then that would not be a social norm, by definition, right? Similarly, if a rapist of a black woman gets 5 years in prison and the rapist of a white woman gets 15 years in prison, to me that does not justify stabbing the black woman's rapist while he is on parole. From my personal viewpoint justice was "served". True the justice system is unequal but that is a different topic. OTOH if the rapist is a judge's son in a small, rural county and his uncle, the sheriff sweeps the case under the rug, that is a different story and one could make the case for vengeance, since if there is no Law to provide justice, then I can step in to provide justice in it's absence. This is not true in the previous case.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

The alternative is to do literally nothing, ie act like it never happened, treat the guy exactly if he never hit me. This is a really unusual response. Therefore most agree we should not treat the offender exactly normally, the question is how much different treatment is acceptable? Even preferable?

Those are some interesting questions. I suppose this is where we differ, you and I. I see no reason to even change my behaviors, but that is my response and mine alone. I understand that vengeful attitudes are natural, but I am also one that hates natural attitudes and emotional responses such as rage and vengeance.

It seems as though we've reached an impasse. I can't think of any arguments against vengeance beyond my original example of the arbitrary "harm units". I'll have to think about your responses and get back to you at a later date.

Until then, cheers!

~ Thamior

[Belinda]

LuckyR wrote:

I don't disagree that one person's norm could be out of step, but then that would not be a social norm, by definition, right? Similarly, if a rapist of a black woman gets 5 years in prison and the rapist of a white woman gets 15 years in prison, to me that does not justify stabbing the black woman's rapist while he is on parole.

One person's norm is usually a social norm by which I mean that what the person does is usually what that person's peer group leaders, religious superiors, bosses, or political masters have decreed is the norm. This behaviour may or may not coincide with the social norm of the wider society, and may even be blatantly illegal.

The wider society in the cases of Lucky and me (US and UK) decrees 1. rape is bad 2. sentencing weighted against black people is bad 3. violent aggression as retaliation is bad. In the USA and in the UK all of those are illegal .

However there are subcultures in the wider society that heave with beliefs and practices that are contrary to the above and some of those are very difficult to contain by laws. In the US for instance I understand that black slave consciousness is alive and shows itself as silly and transient euphemisms, and sometimes outright unfairness and even
violence. Skin pigmentation together with facial features and even hair styles, social class, level of education, religious affiliation, gender, and ancestry, all of them mark divisions in the wider society to the effect that as well as the law of the land and the received morality there are constantly-jostling subcultures e.g. African Americans, 'Hispanics', Jews, Original Americans, American Africans, American Irish, White Northern European Americans, all mixed up together with gender and age variants which the super -culture and the subcultures themselves arrange in a hierarchy of stereotypes.

The real and practical effect is one of unfairness which the law can only partly address. Some subcultures e.g. gangs and some religious cults, are blatantly criminal subcultures which actually support rape etc. Subcultures exist within all societies except those very small and stable ones in which traditional values are unquestioned.

True there are social loners who break moral and state laws, but the great majority of law breakers do so because of their implicit allegiance to some alternative code and culture of belief. There is a great need to articulate the existence and perspectives of subcultures within larger societies as otherwise there can be little advance towards that fairness which underlies the laws of any democratic nation.

[Boots]

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?

I'm not stringing you along. I'm not sure why you think I am.

One does not HAVE to live by the rules of society. Many don't. And what rules are you talking about? Legal rules? Moral rules? Rules of decorum? I'm not sure that chaos would ensue if we did not all agree to abide by the laws. Prehistoric humans did not have official laws. The western frontier was not as lawless as depicted in film. It was more civilized, peaceful, and safe than America is today.

If the law is unjust, then one is not justified in seeking justice? I don't think our present 'justice' system is all that just.

Have you seen the movie 'A Time to Kill?'

-- Updated March 19th, 2016, 8:45 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


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.

Very well said. I had just such an incident occur to my daughter when she was younger. An older boy touched her inappropriately on her way home from school. No witnesses. She was terrified. I did not even bother to go to the administration having had the experience of he said/she said before (a bit of a rough school). I went into the school at lunch time, had my daughter point out the boy in the busy hallway, and proceeded to 'school' him. Upshot being he never bothered my daughter again and did his best to completely avoid her. I say he's a rapist in the making.

[Mo_reese]

What I hear you saying is that if subjected to bullying, find a bigger bully and exact vengeance. If the bully believes in your philosophy, they will then find a bigger bully and seek their vengeance. That's what's happening in the middle east. You say the point of vengeance is to remedy the effects of harm. It isn't a remedy. And what level of vengeance would you recommend? Do equal harm or double the harm? A young kid broke into a man's garage for a smoke and got shot dead. Do you think that vengeance was justified? Maybe the shooter should have held the family of the boy accountable and exacted harm on them. These things really happen because people rationalize that they can met out the harm if they believe they were harmed. Back to the wild west.

[LuckyR]

LuckyR wrote:

I don't disagree that one person's norm could be out of step, but then that would not be a social norm, by definition, right? Similarly, if a rapist of a black woman gets 5 years in prison and the rapist of a white woman gets 15 years in prison, to me that does not justify stabbing the black woman's rapist while he is on parole.

One person's norm is usually a social norm by which I mean that what the person does is usually what that person's peer group leaders, religious superiors, bosses, or political masters have decreed is the norm. This behaviour may or may not coincide with the social norm of the wider society, and may even be blatantly illegal.

The wider society in the cases of Lucky and me (US and UK) decrees 1. rape is bad 2. sentencing weighted against black people is bad 3. violent aggression as retaliation is bad. In the USA and in the UK all of those are illegal .

However there are subcultures in the wider society that heave with beliefs and practices that are contrary to the above and some of those are very difficult to contain by laws. In the US for instance I understand that black slave consciousness is alive and shows itself as silly and transient euphemisms, and sometimes outright unfairness and even
violence. Skin pigmentation together with facial features and even hair styles, social class, level of education, religious affiliation, gender, and ancestry, all of them mark divisions in the wider society to the effect that as well as the law of the land and the received morality there are constantly-jostling subcultures e.g. African Americans, 'Hispanics', Jews, Original Americans, American Africans, American Irish, White Northern European Americans, all mixed up together with gender and age variants which the super -culture and the subcultures themselves arrange in a hierarchy of stereotypes.

The real and practical effect is one of unfairness which the law can only partly address. Some subcultures e.g. gangs and some religious cults, are blatantly criminal subcultures which actually support rape etc. Subcultures exist within all societies except those very small and stable ones in which traditional values are unquestioned.

True there are social loners who break moral and state laws, but the great majority of law breakers do so because of their implicit allegiance to some alternative code and culture of belief. There is a great need to articulate the existence and perspectives of subcultures within larger societies as otherwise there can be little advance towards that fairness which underlies the laws of any democratic nation.

Very well said. There is certainly a depth to this nuance of the greater subject, as you demonstrated.

Bringing it full circle back to the topic, I think that most would agree that the known imbalances in the societal application of the Law is a "work in progress" and bears a certain amount of understanding and patience in the sense that almost everyone does NOT feel either compelled or even allowed to apply vengeance to compensate for the imbalances in the actual application of the Law. In other words the imperfections do not rise to the level of injustice or lack of justice where crossing the line into vengeance is defensible.

-- Updated March 19th, 2016, 11:32 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


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.

Very well said. I had just such an incident occur to my daughter when she was younger. An older boy touched her inappropriately on her way home from school. No witnesses. She was terrified. I did not even bother to go to the administration having had the experience of he said/she said before (a bit of a rough school). I went into the school at lunch time, had my daughter point out the boy in the busy hallway, and proceeded to 'school' him. Upshot being he never bothered my daughter again and did his best to completely avoid her. I say he's a rapist in the making.

Wow, I am impressed. I don't doubt that your commentary is completely accurate, but I would have set up some defensive positions should my actions be questioned. Good on you, sir. Your daughter is extremely well served.

[Wilson]

What I hear you saying is that if subjected to bullying, find a bigger bully and exact vengeance. If the bully believes in your philosophy, they will then find a bigger bully and seek their vengeance. That's what's happening in the middle east. You say the point of vengeance is to remedy the effects of harm. It isn't a remedy. And what level of vengeance would you recommend? Do equal harm or double the harm? A young kid broke into a man's garage for a smoke and got shot dead. Do you think that vengeance was justified? Maybe the shooter should have held the family of the boy accountable and exacted harm on them. These things really happen because people rationalize that they can met out the harm if they believe they were harmed. Back to the wild west.

My view is that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. Each of us has his own criteria and will decide for himself whether an action was justified or not. You seem to feel that there must be hard and fast rules to follow, never seek vengeance, otherwise chaos and brutality. By my standards some vengeance is laudatory, some is excessive, and it's on a case-by-case basis. I don't know if Boots used physical violence, threats, or intimidation in response to his daughter's problem, but since the perp survived the encounter and the problem was solved, how can anyone feel that it was the wrong thing to do? That's the problem with rule-based morality (as opposed to morality based on empathy and conscience) - there are too many exceptions for any rule to apply 100% of the time.

[Sy Borg]

Interesting. For me, this conversation is leading to the question "what is vengeance for?". What is its evolutionary lineage?

For simplest organisms "vengeance" was simply a reflex lashing out at a perceived threat, no hard feelings (no memory). The next level up from that is an in-the-moment decision to lash out or not. In nature, this decision is generally based on size and weaponry. Just pragmatic defence - fight or flight.

Then there is human-style vengeance, which can extend the "lashing out" over extended periods, so it involves time, memory and premeditation. In evolutionary terms, the point of revenge is to nullify an identified threat. Obviously it's better for survival to stay on the case of hunting down a danger to the community than to simply fend of their threat in the moment and then forget about it.

So that's how we got here. The blind fury that leads people into so much strife is an evolutionary mechanism to keep us motivated to take a longer term approach to threats. We have many such features and it's the role of civilised society to bring these impulses under control so we behave like "proper human beings", rather than simpler animals unable to control their impulses.

Of course, not all of us are evenly developed, and not always able to control our emotions. When it comes to being wronged, ideally it's an issue of justice rather than vengeance. Where justice is clearly not done, and the situation is extreme such as harm done to one's child, then few would judge a grieving parent for dispensing rough justice to the perp. Only a few other situations will evoke the same understanding to a person acting as a vigilante. Generally the expectation is to allow due process.

[LuckyR]

Interesting. For me, this conversation is leading to the question "what is vengeance for?". What is its evolutionary lineage?

For simplest organisms "vengeance" was simply a reflex lashing out at a perceived threat, no hard feelings (no memory). The next level up from that is an in-the-moment decision to lash out or not. In nature, this decision is generally based on size and weaponry. Just pragmatic defence - fight or flight.

Then there is human-style vengeance, which can extend the "lashing out" over extended periods, so it involves time, memory and premeditation. In evolutionary terms, the point of revenge is to nullify an identified threat. Obviously it's better for survival to stay on the case of hunting down a danger to the community than to simply fend of their threat in the moment and then forget about it.

So that's how we got here. The blind fury that leads people into so much strife is an evolutionary mechanism to keep us motivated to take a longer term approach to threats. We have many such features and it's the role of civilised society to bring these impulses under control so we behave like "proper human beings", rather than simpler animals unable to control their impulses.

Of course, not all of us are evenly developed, and not always able to control our emotions. When it comes to being wronged, ideally it's an issue of justice rather than vengeance. Where justice is clearly not done, and the situation is extreme such as harm done to one's child, then few would judge a grieving parent for dispensing rough justice to the perp. Only a few other situations will evoke the same understanding to a person acting as a vigilante. Generally the expectation is to allow due process.

The idea that wrongs need to be dealt with is universal, even the most ardent unbeliever of vigilante justice believes in the rule of Law. So punishing evildoers is not the crux of the issue. Folks differ radically if in a society with Laws, whether an individual can mete out street justice in areas where the Law does not cover. Vengeance (controversial) differs from the justice system (universally supported) in a number of ways: 1) dispassionate and therefore supposedly 2) unbiased. 3) Codified punishments less subject to whim and 4) gives the defendant an opportunity to plead their case.

To my eye, #s 1 and 3 could possibly be accomplished in a vengeance setting, but #4 is going to be a huge stumbling block in theory. However in practice it is commonly moot ie I saw you punch me in the face.

The other side of the same coin is the reality is that every single person on this thread (and on the planet, essentially) treats those who harm us differently than we did before they harmed us. Though the majority of those differences are of a passive nature (avoidance) than an aggressive nature (a physical attack). Thus the idea of treating evildoers absolutely normally is a nonstarter. What is the boundary line between universally accepted behavior such as avoiding a guy who punched me in a bar, which almost no one would label "vengeance", receive that label? When I don't buy Girl Scout cookies from his daughter? When I cut him off on the freeway? When I blast my stereo during his garden party? When I steal his electric bill out of his mailbox three months running?

At this point it is just quibbling about the details. The central concept of learning from new information: "this guy is dangerous, he just punched me", is laudable, ubiquitous and does not require explanation nor much thought.