Philosophy Discussion Forums

Revenge is something we feel when someone has wronged us in some way. In its self to be upset is not wrong because a bad action is morally wrong so how can you be happy at the event. If you thought nothing of it I think you wouldnt care about others or your self. Are prisons based on revenge I dont think so, revenge is spontanous and from the victim The idea of prisons is to prevent people commiting crimes or becoming a residivist they upholding moral codes of the society ie not stealing, raping etc.
If you take revenge you bring yourself down to the same level as the person who has wronged you. That is you start using immoral actions/ways. Reduced to the same level of living or believe. Anger is not the same as revenge, revenge is what action you take anger is what you feel inside I can be anger without contemplating revenge. Have you ever asked the question why did I get anger? I think anger is what happens when can't control a sitution (the dog, child, husband isnt doing what I would like - lose of control) If my friend was beaten up I would be anger at the immorality of the other guy. So if beat the bad guy up I am acting just like him and my anger released. Are bad guys inscure along with a host of others things - I dont feel I have to shout at people, lash out victimize, be derogatory to others - it wouldnt make me a better person if I did either. The list of why people do negitive things to others is endless all of which I could happly live without. If I took revenge it wouldnt stop the cause of my sorrow whats done can never be undone - the knive cuts deep.

Scott wrote: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?

I haven't gone off to read your blog, but if I am offbase here, let me know and I might read it.
I would not attempt to alter the behavior of another person that way. He must do as he must do. Besides, whatever 'choice/move' he makes in this universe, he does the opposite in another, and every other possibility in others. Interference (if we had a choice!) would be futile. As there is no choice, 'interference' is mere 'appearance', and all are part of the Balanced Completeness of this Tapestry of Momentary omniverses!

Also, as all is One, whom shall I hurt? All is One Self! Shall I deliberately harm 'my'self? Whom shall i hate? What of self shall i despise?

What arguments do you have against vengeance?

It makes no difference. There must be balance.
"Nothing is true. All is permitted!" -Hassan i-Sabbah (the old man of the mountains)

What do you see as the flaws in the philosophy of an eye for an eye?

I hate to be so common, but the obvious answer is that all humanity (and probably quite a few other species as well, knowing 'man'...) will be blind!

How can we convince people not to make policy choices based on vengeance?

Education.
Here in amerikkka, our illustrious and criminally insane leadership has read their Machiavelli (those who can read) and know that a relatively illiterate and poorly educated (especially in the area of critical thought) public makes for an easily manipulated electorate. That helps keep those in power in power come election time. Also, keep em afraid of their own shadows and they are willing to give up every 'right' and 'freedom' for a healthy infusion of the 'feelings of security'. And will, of course, 'vote' for those who can 'provide' the happy feelings.
When people go to a science class (from kindergarten on) and learn that physics finds it impossible, at the moment, to locate any definitive place where you leave off and I begin! All is One! Teach the younguns about 'spacial extention' and the interconnectedness of all things. Science. They might find/understand for themselves that when we hurt another, we are also hurting 'our'selves.
World-views change, one educated and thinking mind at a time. The atavistic notion of 'never let an enemy live' will die with the notion of 'enemy'. 'Vengence' will fall like the 'flat earth'.
It'll take about 245 years to be a relatively worldwide Perspective.

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.

With the understanding of the interconnectedness, Oneness, vengence will no longer obscure Compassion.
"Compassion means that we recognise their (being 'Self' -n) need for their present condition, and give them our love and understanding."

But I want to know what arguments you have against vengeance.

I have none. Philosophically and experientially, I understand that killing a 'demon' makes a 'saint' disappear as well as killing a 'saint' will likewise make a 'demon' vanish. If I were to kill, what difference who??
From this Perspective, at this moment, vengence is futile and ignorant.
I seem fortunate to live a life where people do not seek me for vengence.
Peace

Thanks Scott. I agree with all you have said.


Millie wrote

If I took revenge it wouldnt stop the cause of my sorrow whats done can never be undone - the knive cuts deep.

Tit for tat may be a solution for the uncomfortable feeling of unfairness, and fairness seems to be part of every human person's psychology although moderated in its details by particular cultures of belief.

But tit for tat is impossible, because it is impossible to replicate the event that is to be avenged. How can you tit for tat the murder of your child? You cannot do it, all you can do to make yourself feel less bereaved is actively forgive, (perhaps by raising a fund of money to benefit some people in need).

Well, it depends on the severity of the revenge, or the action that has caused your want to revenge. I think if someone says,'' I'll help you right after I'm done with this [insert random action]." but never helps you, it's perfectly fine to reject any pleads for help in similarly serious (meaning, random not -serious things, like drawing a picture) action. But for things like murdering your brother, raping your wife (Sweeney Todd!), or more severe things like that, I think vengeance might not be a good idea. Of course, I've never been in such a serious situation, so I couldn't really answer honestly. I'd have to say it' not good to kill someone in vengeance, but, then again, if one is hurt badly enough, then they might find it ok...

Coahtemoc, that is an example of situational ethics I gather. I think I agree with the premisses of situational ethics. Please would someone oblige with a definition or description of situational ethics?

I think vengeance is empowering. It's standing up for yourself. I don't think people should kill or maime for vengeance, it's too harsh, too much distruction. But you have to make people pay for having wronged you. To a certain extent, you decide how people get to treat you. So if i take the vandal example again, the purpose of breaking his window is so that he understands that his own broken window was a consequence of his previous action of breaking my window. He'll think twice about breaking people's windows in the future.

I am a firm believer in doing good. I believe in helping people when i can, and being generally nice to everyone, and causing as little pain as i can. And i have been this way for a long time. It was only recently that someone hurt me in a deep manner. it was someone i trusted and loved. What felt worst than the actual hurt was the helplessness. I felt helpless because this person had hurt me and went on with their life without remorse or second-thought, and i could do nothing about it. It's not as though this person can hurt me again. But there is still a strong desire to get even. It's like when some one bumps you painfully on the street and walks off rudely without thinking anything of it. I'm not saying you run after them and start beating them up. But you can definitely (mildly)grab their shoulder and say, "hey you! you bumped me!"

Clearly, i'm not talking about accidents, and bad-days. And it's happened to me many times that someone bumps me and i don't say/do anything. But sometimes its a bigger hurt, a more soul-hurt, and it cannot be accidental or brushed off as the result of a bad day. For me, it's really about self esteem, and standing up for yourself. so in that sense, vengeance would make me feel better, because what hurts most right now is not that this person did this to me, but that i let them do it to me. I think it's a fundamental human right to stand up for oneself. And there is definitely a way to do it with an acceptable level of violence. my fantasy vengeance schemes (i've yet to act on one) always involve the perpetrator repenting. So if i use the eye for an eye metaphor, then the point of taking out someone else's eye is that they realize what it feels like to lose an eye, and they realize the amount of damage they did. And on the other hand, it's like ooh, if i do that again, i might lose my second eye...

But this is on a personal level. And only to be applied on a small scale. Countries, clearly involve lots of innocent people so politicians who justify their actions through vengeance piss me off.

Although i've to admit, i've always had problems with the eye metaphor. An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind if everyone goes around taking out other people's eyes. Like say if person A takes out the eye of person B, then in vengance, person B takes out person A's eye. But that's where it ends. person A doesn't have the right to take out person B's second eye. and even if he did take out person B's second eye, and person b took person A's second eye in retaliation again, it would stop there. there's no more eyes left. But the rest of the world still has eyes... Unless, say half of the world's population is into eye-popping...In which case, blindness might be the least of our problems...

Well, this is my first post and I'm rather anxious to see how this goes.
Personally, I am a very cynical person and I guess this may change my take on things, but I believe that vengence is the human way to assert oneself as a higher authority. We always have some justification, no matter how convincing it may be, all to dissillusion ourselves to how selfish and immature we are being. In some cases, our decisions to pursue revenge can be downright unmoral, but supposidly accepted based on the flimsy excuse of the need to right a wrong.
As with many human flaws, I have absolutely no right to suggest a solution as I suffer those same inperfections myself, but I would suggest trying to distract yourself if you feel this way.

vengence is the human way to assert oneself as a higher authority.

(xXkan)

Yes, the will to power is a main motive.The way I feel about vengeance is twofold. I sometimes feel that my integrity is in danger, and then I want to assert myself. I also feel that vengeance is wrong, because if everybody acted out of vengeance all would suffer including the avengers, society would collapse.

There was once a vendetta system of controlling people and making them work for the common(very small, family ,group) good, instead of individual gain but this was abandoned when some main religion was invented as a more efficient way to make people work for the common good.

nameless, was Machiavelli like saying that? I thought that Machiavelli was like 'get the people to love you then you will be able to rule them more easily than if they fear you'.

(For instance colonise another people by peaceful economic means instead of ruling over them with expensive armies of occupation)

Belinda, I was always told that Machiavelli's message was "Strive to be feared, but not hated." This way, you have command, but no threat of being overthrown by mutiny. Oh, and let's not forget "The ends justify the means!" XD

Why is it that there are people who still adhere to a very archaic code (an eye for an eye) carved on two tablets more than 4,000 years ago, when a much later prophet was given an upgrade by God, no less – also in two tablets (in the form of "commandments") which said among other things, "Thou shalt not kill." Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The same could be said to the other religion that derived from this one, who up to now, still adhere to the concept of "retribution" masquerading as "justice", when their messiah's main teachings were more advanced, more evolved than this old edict.

Ask the followers of this religion what their founder's main teachings are and most will reply the "Ten Commandments", although their founder's main teachings were the "Eight Beatitudes". Also known as "The Sermon of the Mount". Which, by the way, was prefaced by the ethic of reciprocity that says, "Do unto others what you want others do unto you."

It is clear then, that these great teachers in history shared their experience and wisdom according to the level of language, level of logic, and level of comprehension of the people of those regions and its historical moment.

Let's see. Why was the concept "an eye for an eye" formulated if not to stop people from meting out disproportional punishment. Which, by the way, is also saying, "a life for a life". Why? Because, prior to this edict or law, it was "the whole tribe for one life". Meaning, if you kill a member of my tribe, my tribe will kill every single member of your tribe.*

So every tribe was killing every tribe, until a wise man came along and said, "Hey, if we continue along this path, we all die!" So, the wise man convinced Hammurabi, the king of Babylonia, to include an item in his "How to Live in My Kingdom User Manual" that said, among other things, "an eye for an eye". Meaning, if you kill a member of our tribe, we kill you – just you.

So, it went. An eye for an eye. A life for a life. It was much better. It was more just, more equitable. Perfect. At least for that time.

But, of course, we know about the upgrade version, which was even more improved -- that said "Thou shall not kill". Period. Meaning, no more killing whatsoever. Still, we know of some so-called advanced societies where the death penalty is still very much alive.

godi,is it that before the Hillel pharisaic tradition as usually now represented by Jesus , Muhammad and most of modern Judaism, societies were so lacking in central control that vendetta was the only social control available? The central controls of the Greeks and Romans were not available to the nomadic tribe from whom issued the Ten Commandments. Moses actually made a good stab at what central social control could be in the nomadic circumstances.

But why do moderns cling to vendetta and personal revenge? The lack of adequate central control in the Congo is probably the cause of the present tragedy in spite of the presence of the huge peace-keeping force.Religion has little to do with the Hutu massacres or the Tutsi massacres, and violence itself and the legacy of violence *is the cause.Any of the main religions, including Christian fundamentalism or even Islamic Wahhabism, if they could take control of food distribution and safety ,would be better than the lack of social control now prevailing in the Congo.

As for the death penalty in the USA, it is among human rights derelictions of the developed world to which which Amnesty International is presently opposed and is trying to eradicate.


*The cruel colonialism of King Leopold and the Belgians began the circles of violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3516965.stm

Revenge in my eyes is an expression of psychological damage dealt by another human, as well as a biological reflex. It is illogical and weak.

From where do you think the reflex stems? I think it may be from an egotistical need to always come out on top, have the last laugh, all that.

Comes from fear. Fear and love, there is nothing else.