Philosophy Discussion Forums

Kinyonga wrote:

LuckyR wrote:If I am thinking about the community, part of my calculations take the negative impact on the bully into account. When I think of my family, I don't.

For me personally, I am a #2, person, but as mentioned, I have no qualms about bumping up to #1 to get an optimal outcome for my family.

Ah, I see. I suppose I don't look at things in terms of community or family, more just in terms of individuals. Of course the community has to be taken into consideration if, say, its downfall will cause more harm than good to the individuals.

Hhmmm... Sounds like we are reaching a consensus... perhaps?

LuckyR wrote:Hhmmm... Sounds like we are reaching a consensus... perhaps?

Hm, maybe. Or at least arguments are getting exhausted.
I don't really understand why you would want to be guilty of the same wrong as the bully, though. Just because he hit you/your child first doesn't mean you need to descend to his level and hit him back.

Kinyonga wrote:

LuckyR wrote:Hhmmm... Sounds like we are reaching a consensus... perhaps?

Hm, maybe. Or at least arguments are getting exhausted.
I don't really understand why you would want to be guilty of the same wrong as the bully, though. Just because he hit you/your child first doesn't mean you need to descend to his level and hit him back.

Well, for one when it concerns my family, I am ends driven not means driven. To get the optimal outcome for my family I will use any tool in the toolbox.

Sorry for my absence! Computer problems...

LuckyR wrote:when it concerns my family, I am ends driven not means driven

Yes, but what is the end here?

Kinyonga wrote:Sorry for my absence! Computer problems...

LuckyR wrote:when it concerns my family, I am ends driven not means driven

Yes, but what is the end here?

To quote myself : "To get the optimal outcome for my family..."

Scott wrote:[The following topic is featured as a leadup to the May philosophy book of the month discussion of Holding Fire.]

If you haven't already, check out this blog post I made: Vengeance, Payback, Revenge

What do you think? How do you dissuade people from vengeance? What arguments do you have against vengeance? What do you see as the flaws in the philosophy of an eye for an eye? How can we convince people not to make policy choices based on vengeance?

Like anybody, I may succumb to emotions in the heat of the moment (which is almost always regrettable), but I generally do not support vengeance and instead choose compassion. But I want to know what arguments you have against vengeance.

I don't have anything against vengeance, as long as what we do is reasonable and within the parameters of the law. I am against criminal acts and do not support any vengeance that could lead to breaking the law. Some people get away with terrible deeds and they take it to their graves; they do not pay for what they've done on earth. At the very least we should take a firm stand against such people and not let them back into our lives. Often we hope that people can change, but in fact they often don't and end up exploiting and damaging us over the years. And what they say that vengeance doesn't make you feel good, that is certainly not true. I found great release from the payback I've given others and have made peace as well.

But like I say, within the parameters of the law. We often never get justice, so we have to make our owns justice - even if it is in small ways.

Socrateaze wrote:

Scott wrote:[The following topic is featured as a leadup to the May philosophy book of the month discussion of Holding Fire.]

If you haven't already, check out this blog post I made: Vengeance, Payback, Revenge

What do you think? How do you dissuade people from vengeance? What arguments do you have against vengeance? What do you see as the flaws in the philosophy of an eye for an eye? How can we convince people not to make policy choices based on vengeance?

Like anybody, I may succumb to emotions in the heat of the moment (which is almost always regrettable), but I generally do not support vengeance and instead choose compassion. But I want to know what arguments you have against vengeance.

I don't have anything against vengeance, as long as what we do is reasonable and within the parameters of the law. I am against criminal acts and do not support any vengeance that could lead to breaking the law. Some people get away with terrible deeds and they take it to their graves; they do not pay for what they've done on earth. At the very least we should take a firm stand against such people and not let them back into our lives. Often we hope that people can change, but in fact they often don't and end up exploiting and damaging us over the years. And what they say that vengeance doesn't make you feel good, that is certainly not true. I found great release from the payback I've given others and have made peace as well.

But like I say, within the parameters of the law. We often never get justice, so we have to make our owns justice - even if it is in small ways.

While I agree that vengeance has it's legitimate place, I differ in that getting back at the perp, or making sure they pay for their transgression or making myself feel better are none of my reasoning for the action. Rather to alter future interactions for me and mine with the perp such that the risk of future issues is minimized.

LuckyR wrote:

Socrateaze wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I don't have anything against vengeance, as long as what we do is reasonable and within the parameters of the law. I am against criminal acts and do not support any vengeance that could lead to breaking the law. Some people get away with terrible deeds and they take it to their graves; they do not pay for what they've done on earth. At the very least we should take a firm stand against such people and not let them back into our lives. Often we hope that people can change, but in fact they often don't and end up exploiting and damaging us over the years. And what they say that vengeance doesn't make you feel good, that is certainly not true. I found great release from the payback I've given others and have made peace as well.

But like I say, within the parameters of the law. We often never get justice, so we have to make our owns justice - even if it is in small ways.

While I agree that vengeance has it's legitimate place, I differ in that getting back at the perp, or making sure they pay for their transgression or making myself feel better are none of my reasoning for the action. Rather to alter future interactions for me and mine with the perp such that the risk of future issues is minimized.

I am in agreement with that, but it does give a feel of release and justice.

Socrateaze wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


While I agree that vengeance has it's legitimate place, I differ in that getting back at the perp, or making sure they pay for their transgression or making myself feel better are none of my reasoning for the action. Rather to alter future interactions for me and mine with the perp such that the risk of future issues is minimized.

I am in agreement with that, but it does give a feel of release and justice.

I don't dispute the accuracy of your observation, but I consider it a minor set of side benefits

LuckyR wrote:

Socrateaze wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I am in agreement with that, but it does give a feel of release and justice.

I don't dispute the accuracy of your observation, but I consider it a minor set of side benefits

The first and foremost, like you say, is to get people to back off and no longer abuse you, in that we are in agreement. But the weight and injustice one carries around is just as important. Don't misunderstand me, if I can resolve something peacefully, I would; I am talking about that special kind of fellow or girl that set their perpetual motion on you and the only thing that can stop them is their own medicine.

Sticky subject, vengeance. I for one am ambivalent. On the one hand, a measured response is satisfying only when you have the last word or you throw the final punch or whatnot. On the other hand, pacifism has the advantage that you only get insulted or clobbered once.

This is my first post here on these forums, but I've read quite a few. I think some actions that might be considered vengeful would not actually be, depending on the anticipated or desired outcome of the action. When I was in elementary school, many decades ago, we had bullies. I was a small, skinny geek with glasses, so was occasionally a victim of one or more bullies about twice my weight. Several of us put up with it for the first few weeks of school, and then decided to gang up, at least six to one, on these bullies one at a time, and we eventually convinced them that picking on us was a bad idea. While I am not certain of the other kids' motives, I was willing to be a part of a gang beating in order to stop being a victim, and retaliation was probably not high on my list of concerns. Was this vengeance? Personally, I don't think so. I am not a person to hold a grudge, and I tend to forgive those who have wronged me. I tend to be more leery of them in the future, but retaliation is not part of my nature.


Based entirely upon my personal experiences, I would have to say that vengeance has no place in society. Retribution, fairly administered, is necessary for the redress of grievances. Removing a person from society because he is a danger to others is often necessary, but should we put him in a situation that could be considered inhumane, or even dangerous to him? I don't think so. When we find it necessary to do harm to someone just because they did harm, real or imagined, to you, we have a serious moral problem. Vengeance is what allows us to shun or lock away those who believe differently from us. It may seem oblique to some, but the Jim Crow laws were based on vengeance. A group of people, formerly downtrodden, came into their own, and certain other groups saw this as a major threat. When 'getting back at someone' becomes the primary concern for any actions by society, we need to reconsider how we view whatever is being decided. Recently, we have had a spate of news articles about unlawful activities, such as planting drugs, shootings, etc., by officers of the law. Now we have a backlash of actions hamstringing our police, all based on retaliation, not on each case. Many of the investigations focus on a 'systemic problem' within a particular police force, rather than just focusing on the officer that made the bad judgement call. I do not think this is the correct approach. Focus on the individual. If there is a systemic problem, it will come out eventually.

LuckyR wrote:To quote myself : "To get the optimal outcome for my family..."

Oh, yes, sorry! I shouldn't go on the computer when I'm exhausted
I agree with getting the optimal outcome for one's family, but to me there's a limit to that, which is causing physical/moral harm to someone else.


Welcome to the forum, Ratwrangler, and thank you for your interesting post! I certainly agree with what you said here:

Ratwrangler wrote:Removing a person from society because he is a danger to others is often necessary, but should we put him in a situation that could be considered inhumane, or even dangerous to him? I don't think so. When we find it necessary to do harm to someone just because they did harm, real or imagined, to you, we have a serious moral problem. Vengeance is what allows us to shun or lock away those who believe differently from us.

Vengeance is the nature of the human condition. A primitive vestigial survival mechanism that has no place in the modern world. It accomplishes nothing. That said, defensive and prohibitive measures to protect others, say through a penal system, can often come across as a force of vengeance. To me the term justice is synonymous with vengeance and the penal system rather then being a force of deterrence and rehabilitation instead represents a system of vengeance. While tactical and systematic measures are necessary to maintain the equitable law and order of society it is necessary to ensure that such forms of "people herding" are developed through a critical analysis of the factors contributing to deterrence and rehabilitation rather then vengeance aka justice. Those who write the laws of a "justice system" should possess an understanding of the human animal of which behaviors they wish to steer. For those with such power should be the teachers of the situation. Only those who have risen above then human condition and its shackles should be able to assert such authority and control of others. Without such a high perspective they too drown in the sea of human primitivity and fall victim to its fallacies and to vengeance.

Truthhunter wrote:Vengeance is the nature of the human condition. A primitive vestigial survival mechanism that has no place in the modern world. It accomplishes nothing. That said, defensive and prohibitive measures to protect others, say through a penal system, can often come across as a force of vengeance. To me the term justice is synonymous with vengeance and the penal system rather then being a force of deterrence and rehabilitation instead represents a system of vengeance. While tactical and systematic measures are necessary to maintain the equitable law and order of society it is necessary to ensure that such forms of "people herding" are developed through a critical analysis of the factors contributing to deterrence and rehabilitation rather then vengeance aka justice. Those who write the laws of a "justice system" should possess an understanding of the human animal of which behaviors they wish to steer. For those with such power should be the teachers of the situation. Only those who have risen above then human condition and its shackles should be able to assert such authority and control of others. Without such a high perspective they too drown in the sea of human primitivity and fall victim to its fallacies and to vengeance.

So if I understand you correctly, you feel there is no role for vengeance in the modern world, also justice equals vengeance, so is there a role for justice in the modern world?