Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sometimes it's necessary to engage in vengeance. The law can only go so far.

Great one liner that sums up actual human behavior (as opposed to that loftily considered but rarely/never practiced).

Vengeance and punishment are poor substitutes for reform and restitution/compensation. Till we figure out effective methods for reform and restitution/compensation, we will continue with vengeance and punishment though neither of them serve any real purpose other than maybe some psychological satisfaction.

Vijaydevani wrote:Vengeance and punishment are poor substitutes for reform and restitution/compensation. Till we figure out effective methods for reform and restitution/compensation, we will continue with vengeance and punishment though neither of them serve any real purpose other than maybe some psychological satisfaction.

Your post would be true if "reform" actually worked. Since it usually doesn't, then here in Real Life, vengeance and punishment will have to do...

LuckyR wrote:

Vijaydevani wrote:Vengeance and punishment are poor substitutes for reform and restitution/compensation. Till we figure out effective methods for reform and restitution/compensation, we will continue with vengeance and punishment though neither of them serve any real purpose other than maybe some psychological satisfaction.

Your post would be true if "reform" actually worked. Since it usually doesn't, then here in Real Life, vengeance and punishment will have to do...

Reforms could work if we found an effect way to do it. The biggest hurdle against reform is the non-acceptance of past criminals by society which is understandable. If we can find a way around that, there might be some hope.

There are the un-reformables though. Those have to be taken out of society and isolated or eliminated not as punishment but as a protective measure.

Vijaydevani wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Your post would be true if "reform" actually worked. Since it usually doesn't, then here in Real Life, vengeance and punishment will have to do...

Reforms could work if we found an effect way to do it. The biggest hurdle against reform is the non-acceptance of past criminals by society which is understandable. If we can find a way around that, there might be some hope.

There are the un-reformables though. Those have to be taken out of society and isolated or eliminated not as punishment but as a protective measure.

Well your post is absolutely correct as written. Not dissimilar to the idea that flying cars would work great, if we could figure out a way to make them work.

LuckyR wrote: Reforms could work if we found an effect way to do it. The biggest hurdle against reform is the non-acceptance of past criminals by society which is understandable. If we can find a way around that, there might be some hope.

There are the un-reformables though. Those have to be taken out of society and isolated or eliminated not as punishment but as a protective measure.

Well your post is absolutely correct as written. Not dissimilar to the idea that flying cars would work great, if we could figure out a way to make them work.[/quote]
. Well, we are getting there with the flying cars. So maybe we will get there with reforms too.

The difficult thing with vengeance is to revenge the right person and not everyone you are in position to harm, as usually happen. Few people have the quality to resist this, the most of people fill their souls with anger and unload it to any weak person on their way, guilty for anything or not, this quality of controlling vengeance actually distinct the good from the bad people, it is the essence.

There are three ways to respond to being wronged. 1. Vengeance, which is doing wrong in response to being wronged. 2. Silence, which is doing nothing in response to being wronged. 3. Healing, which is doing right in response to being wronged. Whilst I have no set opinion yet about which of the first two options are worse, I do opine that the third option is the best way if one can manage it.

My problem with vengeance, at least the kind enacted by a human being, leaving talk of gods and the like out of this, is that I firmly believe a human being is disturbed primarily by his or her own judgements. Thus when a human being commits another wrong against the one perceived to have cause the damage, it is both ineffective and further damaging. It is ineffective because the true harm is within oneself. It is further damaging, because of the collateral damage it causes to an infinite number of by-standing forces not responsible for the original act. However, vengeance can be an act of caring and often times courage. Such are virtues who's benefits may possibly trump the damage, as they are often conducive to reparations as well.

My problem with silence, at least continued silence despite wrongs that need to be addressed, is that it tacitly gives permission for further wrong doings by the original offender and/or to would be offenders, by removing the urgency of redress. The urgency itself is built into the natural impulse for redress which is suppressed in the will to remain silent. However, it doesn't cause extraneous damage as vengeance does, nor does it distract one from self-redress.

BraveHat wrote:There are three ways to respond to being wronged. 1. Vengeance, which is doing wrong in response to being wronged. 2. Silence, which is doing nothing in response to being wronged. 3. Healing, which is doing right in response to being wronged. Whilst I have no set opinion yet about which of the first two options are worse, I do opine that the third option is the best way if one can manage it.

My problem with vengeance, at least the kind enacted by a human being, leaving talk of gods and the like out of this, is that I firmly believe a human being is disturbed primarily by his or her own judgements. Thus when a human being commits another wrong against the one perceived to have cause the damage, it is both ineffective and further damaging. It is ineffective because the true harm is within oneself. It is further damaging, because of the collateral damage it causes to an infinite number of by-standing forces not responsible for the original act. However, vengeance can be an act of caring and often times courage. Such are virtues who's benefits may possibly trump the damage, as they are often conducive to reparations as well.

My problem with silence, at least continued silence despite wrongs that need to be addressed, is that it tacitly gives permission for further wrong doings by the original offender and/or to would be offenders, by removing the urgency of redress. The urgency itself is built into the natural impulse for redress which is suppressed in the will to remain silent. However, it doesn't cause extraneous damage as vengeance does, nor does it distract one from self-redress.

Your comments, like many on this thread, declare that retaliation is pointless because the harm has been done and retaliation just creates another harm and does nothing about the first event. While those observations are correct, they are also incomplete. The value of retaliation is not to address the past wrong, rather to prevent the future harm of a repeated event.

Anyone with a kid or even a dog knows that if there are no consequences for performing a behavior, you will encourage more of that behavior.

LuckyR wrote: Your comments, like many on this thread, declare that retaliation is pointless because the harm has been done and retaliation just creates another harm and does nothing about the first event. While those observations are correct, they are also incomplete. The value of retaliation is not to address the past wrong, rather to prevent the future harm of a repeated event.

Anyone with a kid or even a dog knows that if there are no consequences for performing a behavior, you will encourage more of that behavior.

If you read what I wrote more carefully, you'll see that I've already acknowledged that vengeance can or might possibly have that potential value. How much of that value, insofar as it is motivated purely by vengeance, offsets the continued harm by the avenger is an open question. Further, I've also acknowledged that failing to redress a wrong act can have an equal, if not more, damaging effect. So I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is, since we seem to agree. Healing doesn't mean allowing something wrong to continue and just focusing on the victims, be they yourself or others. It means doing right as a response. Perhaps "Righteous Action" is a better term. If you catch someone committing a crime, for example, and have no means to rectify it interpersonally, the correct thing to do is report it to the police. This would not be an act of vengeance, but of righteous action.

The ethical implications of Vengeance in it of itself is difficult to defend in a strictly objective dialectical way. The common use of the word can both imply negative or positive inferences. In the article it is asked 'who has the moral right to actualize vengeance' and offers empathy or compassion as the correct course of action without justification. Its quite concerning that law is so often equivocated with justice or morality. Law as it is, is the institutional mandate of restricted actions enforced by violence, intentional violence is often the primary argument against vengeance. History and the present world state vividly shows us that often many of the most horrific acts are committed by the very institutions that represent the law or preach compassion. The most troubling difficulty in assigning moral judgement to an act of vengeance is the obvious inability to verify the intention of the act, Vengeance requires willful intention. Given the subjective nature of individuality and the absence of a concrete universal mandate of behavior it seems contention and the possibility of violence will persist as long as human individuality as we understand it persists. Who has the moral right to demand I love my neighbor ? Love and Hate are used so casually, possibly dogmatically. Love as an absolute expression of passion ought not to be given or entitled, love for a thing, an idea, a person etc is the highest expression one individual can bestow upon another. Love is duty, the object of my love is the highest ethical consideration outside of myself - if not its merely a 'pretty notion'. That duty demands of me that I do all that is necessary to protect the object of my love, even if it requires my life, my freedom or harder still to commit an act that instills in you the worst terror, guilt or anxiety. With that said, it also requires an understanding and critical thought of the situation as it is. Do reject vengeance universally is no different then to embrace passivity. When conditions arise that would merit violence or vengeance it may be ethically necessary to act. Much of the discussion presupposes an obligation to all humans, Why ?

The notion of rehabilitating prisoners and abolishing prisons is a fallacy. Pedophiles, sociopaths, various ethical systems in contention with society etc
will not be dissuaded, often they are genetically determined. logically it would only require a single individual to manipulate such a system. Intentional violence is may or may not be a moral right (define) but I would argue its possibly an ethical necessity.

At 87 years old I have been here long enough to appreciate the good bits and to suffer the bad bits. I shall leave sometime soon. What I most want to do is to understand what has happened to me during the short time of my existence. I may arrive at an understanding only with help from others who freely share their experience, feelings, perceptions with me. The human is not an individual. He/she can only arrive at completeness surrounded by others.

Widdums wrote:At 87 years old I have been here long enough to appreciate the good bits and to suffer the bad bits. I shall leave sometime soon. What I most want to do is to understand what has happened to me during the short time of my existence. I may arrive at an understanding only with help from others who freely share their experience, feelings, perceptions with me. The human is not an individual. He/she can only arrive at completeness surrounded by others.

Welcome, please share your accumulated wisdom, especially as it pertains to the issue of vengeance.

I have not read through the whole topic, so perhaps someone has already said this, but food for thought: "An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."