How do you feel about vengeance?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#61  Postby Okisites » June 15th, 2015, 9:20 am

Madera wrote:vengeance is extremely immoral, but immoral people don't realize the damage to themselves.


Do you mean it is immoral to act against criminals? Do you want them to be saved?
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller
User avatar
Okisites
 
Posts: 1286 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#62  Postby LuckyR » June 16th, 2015, 5:54 pm

Madera wrote:vengeance is extremely immoral, but immoral people don't realize the damage to themselves.



Not enough information to be meaningful. What sort of vengeance are you speaking of? Why would the relative morality of an individual change their ability to monitor their health?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2152 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#63  Postby Belinda » June 17th, 2015, 4:58 am

Restitution of rights when an individual has been unjustly deprived, and vengeance as a means of social control (operating, when it does work,through deterrence) are two different considerations.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#64  Postby Okisites » June 17th, 2015, 5:47 am

Okisites wrote:
Madera wrote:vengeance is extremely immoral, but immoral people don't realize the damage to themselves.


Do you mean it is immoral to act against criminals? Do you want them to be saved?


Oh come on Madera, you must clarify, as you think that vengeance is EXTREMELY immoral, that do you think it is immoral to act against criminals? You very well know that vengeance means acting against criminals, or the one who seems to did something wrong, then why you think that acting against such people or the one who did something wrong, is immoral. Why not to kill them, punish them, you must clarify?
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller
User avatar
Okisites
 
Posts: 1286 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#65  Postby Teralek » June 17th, 2015, 7:35 am

An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ev ... ifferences

1. Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational.
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. ~Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Teralek
 
Posts: 844 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 16th, 2012, 7:20 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Favorite Philosopher: Me

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#66  Postby Madera » June 17th, 2015, 11:05 am

Okisites wrote:
Okisites wrote:(Nested quote removed.)


Do you mean it is immoral to act against criminals? Do you want them to be saved?


Oh come on Madera, you must clarify, as you think that vengeance is EXTREMELY immoral, that do you think it is immoral to act against criminals? You very well know that vengeance means acting against criminals, or the one who seems to did something wrong, then why you think that acting against such people or the one who did something wrong, is immoral. Why not to kill them, punish them, you must clarify?


Vengeance is hate . Do you call that moral?
Madera
 
Posts: 340 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 25th, 2014, 7:53 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#67  Postby Madera » June 17th, 2015, 11:19 am

Teralek wrote:
An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ev ... ifferences

1. Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational.



An eye for an eye has blinded those who seek revenge.
Madera
 
Posts: 340 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 25th, 2014, 7:53 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#68  Postby Okisites » June 17th, 2015, 12:46 pm

Teralek wrote:
An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind


That's an stupid quote by an stupid person.

Teralek wrote: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ev ... ifferences


Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational





What does it means to convey?

Does this mean to convey that revenge im unproportionate, and justice is proportionate? If so, how you measure the proportion?

What I can see with certainty is that Justice system provide very delayed justice, firstly, and secondly it is not based on how much damage is exactly done to the victim. Justice system is like a compromise, and that too in a very unwilling way, and there are too much to be desired from justice system, I suppose. Justice system lack huge many of things, and I think in such situation, saying vengeance and revenge to be immoral, is quite a misguidance and blabbering.

Consider the following example, and explain if you can explain your theory of justice as against to vengeance, revenge etc.

Suppose few people from foreign land came and started religious conversion. It had never been a problem for those who are living there since long time, or from beginning. In few centuries, they have converted majority of people, and those who once had been majority is now became minorities. Now what is happening is that, the people who had been in majority from centuries ago, are being victimized because now they are in minority and quite opposed to their ideologies. Suppose, it is taken 500 years to completely transform the land religiously, and thus culturally, linguistically etc. Now what the people there are doing is that driving out minorities (i.e. those who had been in majority, few centuries back), killing them, and asking for new country of their own, on the basis of their religion.

Now, suppose the ruler of the country, or head of the state, want to kill all of them in that region on the basis of religion the people of the region belongs to. He defending his position to kill everybody in that region that belongs to particular religion, by the argument that they are killing the minority, those who have welcomed them centuries ago. They are asking for another country for themselves, because most of the people are religiously converted, and the opinion of majority is being altered through religious conversion, over the centuries, for having another country for themselves.

Who are suffering from the centuries old criminalistic plans? Those who are suffering is the people who welcomed these foreign religion to their land, and allowed them to preach and practice their religion. They had been good to them always. These are the people who belonged to particular country, and are patriotic, whose country is asked to be partitioned. These are the people who never did anything wrong, with respect to current situation. So these are in prosecutors side.

Who are benefitting from the centuries old criminalistic plans? These are the people who are driving out the minorities, killing and raping the minorities, and asking a change in country's integrity. So these are the criminal side.

Now suppose, a ruler trying to cross rape them, such that they cannot unite to build up strong force against the government, and forcing them to rape their own family members such that their culture should be destroyed, and they would not likely to be able to preserve their culture which is new to the land, and eventually chose to die by their own will, or live like an animal without a culture.

Now, tell us who you support for being punished, a people or a ruler? Who is wrong here?

Note that, Ruler is saying that he is being proportionate about justice, as the people who have converted , left the culture and language that their ancestors had been following. Note that, the hypothetical example covers the criteria of son being punished for father's crime, and also covers the time constraint of crime, where original criminals are no more alive. The time constrait covers centuries of criminal conspiracy, where you do not have the actual conspirators, but have those who are suffering the conspiracy. The example have those who are suffering from the centuries old conspiracy, and those who are benefitting from it.

Now, lets say that ruler is being arguing that because the people who are agreeing to reap the good fruit of their ancestor's actions, they are also liable to reap bad fruits of their ancestor's action, otherwise they must leave the good fruits they are enjoying. The idea behind this is that, if you are enjoying the good outcome of your ancestor's action, you must also suffer the bad outcome. Is that clear?

Now, considering the above i.e. (1) conspiring against a country, (2) having good outcome of their ancestor's actions, and (3) crime against the people who welcomed them, all these people are seems to having a right of all such actions, they why not ruler can be right to do what he is wanted to do? That's the question, if you can answer, on the basis of justice system and revenge.

Please, don't go against the ruler, as he is not the initial criminal, or not done the initial crime. You can never be right by going against him, no matter what he is doing with people. You must restore the justice, and there should not be any suffering to anybody. The question is how will you do that in this situation.

-- Updated 18 Jun 2015, 00:22 to add the following --

Madera, you are taking too much time to clarify your position. You must clarify your position.

-- Updated 18 Jun 2015, 16:13 to add the following --

Okisites wrote:Note that, Ruler is saying that he is being proportionate about justice, as the people who have converted , left the culture and language that their ancestors had been following. Note that, the hypothetical example covers the criteria of son being punished for father's crime, and also covers the time constraint of crime, where original criminals are no more alive. The time constrait covers centuries of criminal conspiracy, where you do not have the actual conspirators, but have those who are suffering the conspiracy. The example have those who are suffering from the centuries old conspiracy, and those who are benefitting from it.


This is such an easy example to refute or criticize.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller
User avatar
Okisites
 
Posts: 1286 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#69  Postby Teralek » June 19th, 2015, 4:16 pm

Okisites wrote:That's an stupid quote by an stupid person.


If you are referring to Gandhi, I have no reason to continue to discuss this with you.

Okisites wrote:Does this mean to convey that revenge im unproportionate, and justice is proportionate? If so, how you measure the proportion?


Yes, historically vengeance is almost every time disproportionate and often not based on facts or rationality. It is by the rule of democratic law that justice should be sought and not by the whim of any sole person.

Okisites wrote:What I can see with certainty is that Justice system provide very delayed justice, firstly, and secondly it is not based on how much damage is exactly done to the victim. Justice system is like a compromise, and that too in a very unwilling way, and there are too much to be desired from justice system, I suppose. Justice system lack huge many of things, and I think in such situation, saying vengeance and revenge to be immoral, is quite a misguidance and blabbering.


What I can say with certainty is that you seem to have a very basic and primitive sense of justice. Only a primitive specimen would think that the sole purpose of justice is to inflict pain in the same measure as it was caused.

Okisites wrote:Consider the following example, and explain if you can explain your theory of justice as against to vengeance, revenge etc.


It's not my theory. It's supported by all reasonable people. The article I provided is from psychology today which is a reputable psychology magazine unlike some of the pointless discussions here.

Okisites wrote:Suppose few people from foreign land came and started religious conversion. It had never been a problem for those who are living there since long time, or from beginning. In few centuries, they have converted majority of people, and those who once had been majority is now became minorities. Now what is happening is that, the people who had been in majority from centuries ago, are being victimized because now they are in minority and quite opposed to their ideologies. Suppose, it is taken 500 years to completely transform the land religiously, and thus culturally, linguistically etc. Now what the people there are doing is that driving out minorities (i.e. those who had been in majority, few centuries back), killing them, and asking for new country of their own, on the basis of their religion.


I am starting to see where do you come from, but I will keep it to myself until I am certain. I should warn you though that I have little regard for xenophobic and fascist ideology. Free speech should be one of the core values of human culture. If by free speech people are converted to religion so be it. Although this is unlikely to happen since, fortunately, the religion with the highest growth is atheism. I don't see how is this relevant to the topic. Ideas are spread freely and should be so as long as they do not promote hate and incite to violence, this is my opinion. Bullying is an example of hate speech. Ideas spread without resorting to violence should have free expression, but this is irrelevant to the topic. People don't like violence and so it is not a good means to spread an idea.

Okisites wrote:Now, suppose the ruler of the country, or head of the state, want to kill all of them in that region on the basis of religion the people of the region belongs to. He defending his position to kill everybody in that region that belongs to particular religion, by the argument that they are killing the minority, those who have welcomed them centuries ago. They are asking for another country for themselves, because most of the people are religiously converted, and the opinion of majority is being altered through religious conversion, over the centuries, for having another country for themselves.


Should I go get a swastika for you?!

I know! Maybe we should support the mass deportation of ethnic Europeans in the American continent and give those lands back to natives. What you are describing applies very well.

You see, killing others because they think different from you is wrong and ideas spread with the power of the word should be allowed to. Ideas spread by violence should be held of by the hand of justice.

Okisites wrote:Who are suffering from the centuries old criminalistic plans? Those who are suffering is the people who welcomed these foreign religion to their land, and allowed them to preach and practice their religion. They had been good to them always. These are the people who belonged to particular country, and are patriotic, whose country is asked to be partitioned. These are the people who never did anything wrong, with respect to current situation. So these are in prosecutors side.

Who are benefitting from the centuries old criminalistic plans? These are the people who are driving out the minorities, killing and raping the minorities, and asking a change in country's integrity. So these are the criminal side.


Can you please come out of the closet and be more specific? This is all science fiction for me. You seem to have quite a high regard for nationalism. Have you seen Star Trek?

Okisites wrote:Now suppose, a ruler trying to cross rape them, such that they cannot unite to build up strong force against the government, and forcing them to rape their own family members such that their culture should be destroyed, and they would not likely to be able to preserve their culture which is new to the land, and eventually chose to die by their own will, or live like an animal without a culture.

Now, tell us who you support for being punished, a people or a ruler? Who is wrong here?


Who's wrong where? this is science fiction story... and a bad one. If you can be more specific perhaps I can answer. But it is simple. Violence, rape and revenge is wrong. Free speech should be upheld. The law should be upheld. Those who commit crimes should pay for them even if they made them in groups.

Not even Genghis Khan hordes were this vicious.

Okisites wrote:Note that, Ruler is saying that he is being proportionate about justice, as the people who have converted , left the culture and language that their ancestors had been following. Note that, the hypothetical example covers the criteria of son being punished for father's crime, and also covers the time constraint of crime, where original criminals are no more alive. The time constrait covers centuries of criminal conspiracy, where you do not have the actual conspirators, but have those who are suffering the conspiracy. The example have those who are suffering from the centuries old conspiracy, and those who are benefitting from it.

Now, lets say that ruler is being arguing that because the people who are agreeing to reap the good fruit of their ancestor's actions, they are also liable to reap bad fruits of their ancestor's action, otherwise they must leave the good fruits they are enjoying. The idea behind this is that, if you are enjoying the good outcome of your ancestor's action, you must also suffer the bad outcome. Is that clear?


No it is not clear. What should we then do to Europeans who raped, murdered and converted native Americans?

Okisites wrote:Now, considering the above i.e. (1) conspiring against a country, (2) having good outcome of their ancestor's actions, and (3) crime against the people who welcomed them, all these people are seems to having a right of all such actions, they why not ruler can be right to do what he is wanted to do? That's the question, if you can answer, on the basis of justice system and revenge.


1. Who is conspiring against a country? As far as I know most countries conspire against each other.... 2. My people raped, enslaved and murdered but despite me being born there I don't belong to "them". I am a human being on top of everything else. I do not wave ANY flags but the flag of human unity. 3. This applies extremely well to Europe's colonization....

Okisites wrote:Please, don't go against the ruler, as he is not the initial criminal, or not done the initial crime. You can never be right by going against him, no matter what he is doing with people. You must restore the justice, and there should not be any suffering to anybody. The question is how will you do that in this situation.


Let's all give our praises to Hitler, after all he was not the initial criminal. "You can never be right by going against him, no matter what he is doing with people. You must restore the justice, and there should not be any suffering to anybody. The question is how will you do that in this situation."
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. ~Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Teralek
 
Posts: 844 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 16th, 2012, 7:20 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Favorite Philosopher: Me

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#70  Postby Ruskin » July 12th, 2015, 1:15 pm

It's pretty straightforward, you never take vengeance on anyone for anything. At least you don't as a Christian you can only forgive. It doesn't mean we can't have a justice system but justice isn't the same thing as vengeance.
Ruskin
 
Posts: 1576 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#71  Postby Logic_ill » July 15th, 2015, 5:39 am

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.


An argument against vengeance that comes to mind is to understand that we are imperfect humans that go through different stages in life and are pretty much influenced by our circumstances. Nobody is exempt, not even those who seek vengeance.
Logic_ill
 
Posts: 1624 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#72  Postby Okisites » July 15th, 2015, 2:57 pm

I am sorry, I haven't seen this before. I would like to continue. I may have some serious confusion that anyone would like to clear.

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:That's an stupid quote by an stupid person.


If you are referring to Gandhi, I have no reason to continue to discuss this with you.


Why you have so much respect of Gandhi, that you think it is pointless to even discuss? How it could be reasonable to leave the discussion, on the basis of someone said something objectionable about Gandhi?

The following link is about the speech of Gandhi's assassin, what he had sto say about Gandhi:

http://indiansaga.com/whoswho/godse_letter.html

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qFs ... t?hl=en_US

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Does this mean to convey that revenge im unproportionate, and justice is proportionate? If so, how you measure the proportion?


Yes, historically vengeance is almost every time disproportionate and often not based on facts or rationality. It is by the rule of democratic law that justice should be sought and not by the whim of any sole person.


Is justice proportionate?

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:What I can see with certainty is that Justice system provide very delayed justice, firstly, and secondly it is not based on how much damage is exactly done to the victim. Justice system is like a compromise, and that too in a very unwilling way, and there are too much to be desired from justice system, I suppose. Justice system lack huge many of things, and I think in such situation, saying vengeance and revenge to be immoral, is quite a misguidance and blabbering.


What I can say with certainty is that you seem to have a very basic and primitive sense of justice.


No, I have very indepth understanding of justice system, though I haven't came across the justice system anyways. I am saying this on the basis of my experience. The experience in which I cannot do anything against the wrongdoer, and if I did so court will punish me, and if I fail to do anything against the wrongdoer, I will continue to suffer. So in both ways I will suffer. I have many experiences like that, personally. This is why I think that justice system is probably established to protect the criminals against the innocents, or punish the innocents who would do anything wrong to criminals. Note that justice is done on the basis of crime done, not so much on the basis of the reason for crime done.

Only a primitive specimen would think that the sole purpose of justice is to inflict pain in the same measure as it was caused.


I think you talked about vengeance beaing disproportionate, and it is wrong. Now you are talking about disproporate behaviour of justice system. So I would like to ask you, do you find anything wrong in disproportionate behaviour of justice system?

And what is the sole purpose of justice system?

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Consider the following example, and explain if you can explain your theory of justice as against to vengeance, revenge etc.


It's not my theory. It's supported by all reasonable people. The article I provided is from psychology today which is a reputable psychology magazine unlike some of the pointless discussions here.


I am not talking about the link you gave. I am only talking about the following example of myself.

Okisites wrote: Suppose few people from foreign land came and started religious conversion. It had never been a problem for those who are living there since long time, or from beginning. In few centuries, they have converted majority of people, and those who once had been majority is now became minorities. Now what is happening is that, the people who had been in majority from centuries ago, are being victimized because now they are in minority and quite opposed to their ideologies. Suppose, it is taken 500 years to completely transform the land religiously, and thus culturally, linguistically etc. Now what the people there are doing is that driving out minorities (i.e. those who had been in majority, few centuries back), killing them, and asking for new country of their own, on the basis of their religion.


I am starting to see where do you come from, but I will keep it to myself until I am certain. I should warn you though that I have little regard for xenophobic and fascist ideology. Free speech should be one of the core values of human culture. If by free speech people are converted to religion so be it. Although this is unlikely to happen since, fortunately, the religion with the highest growth is atheism. I don't see how is this relevant to the topic. Ideas are spread freely and should be so as long as they do not promote hate and incite to violence, this is my opinion. Bullying is an example of hate speech. Ideas spread without resorting to violence should have free expression, but this is irrelevant to the topic. People don't like violence and so it is not a good means to spread an idea. [/quote]

I am not talking about fascist ideology, Teralek, I am talking about the idea of Justice. I am proposing the example as an perplexing question, if you can answer in order to do justice, or how justice system works for doing justice.

Secondly, Xenophobia is far from the example, as the example given is about many centuries, when the foreign culture mingled into local culture, among the same people who are always living there. Which means those who are living there are the same people from millenia, but adopted the foreign culture, religion and killing, raping those who haven't adopted. I hope this is clear that the example is not aout xenophobia.

If by free speech people are converted then be it. Agreed. But what if they changed their ancestral language, culture and adopted foreign culture, would you still say "be it"? And the main problem is what if the converted people are killing, raping the people from the culture who are still following their ancestral language, culture, religion, and driving them out of their land, and asking for different country? That is the thing to understand in this example.

Whose crime is that the people are suffering, being killed and raped, being driven out from their own land? How to restore the justice? Who is more liable for punishment?

I think you see killing, raping on the basis of race/religion as an act of hate and inciting violence. I hope you see the act of asking for another country, as unpatriotic and crime against nation. I hope you understand that those who are supporting all these are those who have to be considered as criminals. In such case how you will do the justice, or what is your idea of justice?

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Now, suppose the ruler of the country, or head of the state, want to kill all of them in that region on the basis of religion the people of the region belongs to. He defending his position to kill everybody in that region that belongs to particular religion, by the argument that they are killing the minority, those who have welcomed them centuries ago. They are asking for another country for themselves, because most of the people are religiously converted, and the opinion of majority is being altered through religious conversion, over the centuries, for having another country for themselves.


Should I go get a swastika for you?!

I know! Maybe we should support the mass deportation of ethnic Europeans in the American continent and give those lands back to natives. What you are describing applies very well.


I am talking about the ongoing process of such kind, where you can see things of such kind happening, and judge about them, and do the justice, not about where this process is finished and people moved forward. However I agree, if somebody came up, and did the same to European Americans, as European did to natives, then he will be more correct than Europeans back then. The reason is, he will be taking vengeance, quite frankly.

From my perspective, there are two initial or basic division of crime, one which is done without any reason, and the other as crime against the criminal, where the later is vengeance, but seems more moral and reasonable than the former. What do you think?

See, I am asking quite a difficult question, which I believe that no intellectual can ever answer without agreeing to my ideology, seriously. If you can answer it against my views, then I will applaud for you. And this is quite logical and just, if you can keep your heart shut and aside, and use only and only mind.

You see, killing others because they think different from you is wrong and ideas spread with the power of the word should be allowed to. Ideas spread by violence should be held of by the hand of justice.


My example is about those who are killing, raping, are against to freedom of speech, do not argue, do not spread their agenda through words, not about those who are killing, raping, or disallowing freedom of speech, argue, against the innocent.

I am talking about killing the criminals, not about killing the innocents.

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Who are suffering from the centuries old criminalistic plans? Those who are suffering is the people who welcomed these foreign religion to their land, and allowed them to preach and practice their religion. They had been good to them always. These are the people who belonged to particular country, and are patriotic, whose country is asked to be partitioned. These are the people who never did anything wrong, with respect to current situation. So these are in prosecutors side.

Who are benefitting from the centuries old criminalistic plans? These are the people who are driving out the minorities, killing and raping the minorities, and asking a change in country's integrity. So these are the criminal side.


Can you please come out of the closet and be more specific? This is all science fiction for me. You seem to have quite a high regard for nationalism. Have you seen Star Trek?


I am saying as per my example, that innocents are being victimized, they are forced to partition their country, they are being killed, raped, expelled from their own land, by the majority converted to another religion. Here majority is doing crime, and minority is being victimized, those minority who are once majority in the same region and welcomed the people from another religion/culture and respected their culture/religion and allowed them to preach, are being victimized. For example, you welcomed me and my family of 10 and WE kicked you out of your house of 2, then whether we are to be punished, or you are to be punished for going against the majority?

So do we killing majority are wrong, or the majority expelling from our land should be given our land is wrong? Those who welcomed the people to live with them is wrong, or those who have eventually expelled the owner from the land is wrong?

What if this is applied to whole nation, and the centuries old criminal approach? How would be your idea of doing justice, in this situation? This is quite a critical question, you need to understand. It covers the initial criminals died, their made up situation still in existence, people are still suffering, some people who are initial criminal's offspring (metaphorically) enjoying the fruits of their ancestor's crime, refusing to be criminal, but supporting the criminal plan of their ancestors. So their is lot of thing to be understood.

It is like a national approach of individual thing.

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Now suppose, a ruler trying to cross rape them, such that they cannot unite to build up strong force against the government, and forcing them to rape their own family members such that their culture should be destroyed, and they would not likely to be able to preserve their culture which is new to the land, and eventually chose to die by their own will, or live like an animal without a culture.

Now, tell us who you support for being punished, a people or a ruler? Who is wrong here?


Who's wrong where? this is science fiction story... and a bad one. If you can be more specific perhaps I can answer. But it is simple. Violence, rape and revenge is wrong. Free speech should be upheld. The law should be upheld. Those who commit crimes should pay for them even if they made them in groups.

Not even Genghis Khan hordes were this vicious.


Who's wrong where? who is wrong where majority killing minority on the basis of race/religion? The minority, who never did wrong towards the people now being the majority, who are only suffering for their goodness did in the past.

The minority who is suffering, is perfectly respect freedom of people, and freedom of speech, and always allowed it without any objection, and free speech is upheld by the minority, when they were in majority in the past, but those who have majority right now disallowed freedom of speech, and power of words and doing their acts in extremists ways. What to do with this majority, as per the idea of justice?

See Teralek, those who are more logical are more vicious, as they are more robotic, more about right and wrong then good and bad, more emotionless and logical, thus are more perfect and vicious. You seems to forgot about the people who are doing wrong are being destroyer of culture, identity, nation, that is why the example is given for destroying the culture, identity and very surely the nation. IMO, this is very logically constructed example.

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Note that, Ruler is saying that he is being proportionate about justice, as the people who have converted , left the culture and language that their ancestors had been following. Note that, the hypothetical example covers the criteria of son being punished for father's crime, and also covers the time constraint of crime, where original criminals are no more alive. The time constrait covers centuries of criminal conspiracy, where you do not have the actual conspirators, but have those who are suffering the conspiracy. The example have those who are suffering from the centuries old conspiracy, and those who are benefitting from it.

Now, lets say that ruler is being arguing that because the people who are agreeing to reap the good fruit of their ancestor's actions, they are also liable to reap bad fruits of their ancestor's action, otherwise they must leave the good fruits they are enjoying. The idea behind this is that, if you are enjoying the good outcome of your ancestor's action, you must also suffer the bad outcome. Is that clear?


No it is not clear. What should we then do to Europeans who raped, murdered and converted native Americans?


However I am not arguing taking the Europeans and Americans in the view, and only wanted you or other people talk in the matters of justice in this situation. This is actually very common situation in Individual's life who are being victimized.

What to do to Europeans who raped, murdered etc.? I would say do the justice if you can, or explain your idea of justice in this situation, or at least explain what the nation should do when having this process ongoing at present?

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Now, considering the above i.e. (1) conspiring against a country, (2) having good outcome of their ancestor's actions, and (3) crime against the people who welcomed them, all these people are seems to having a right of all such actions, they why not ruler can be right to do what he is wanted to do? That's the question, if you can answer, on the basis of justice system and revenge.


1. Who is conspiring against a country? As far as I know most countries conspire against each other.... 2. My people raped, enslaved and murdered but despite me being born there I don't belong to "them". I am a human being on top of everything else. I do not wave ANY flags but the flag of human unity. 3. This applies extremely well to Europe's colonization....


No, you belong to them, but only refusing to yield the bad outcome of your ancestors deeds, though you are very well enjoying the good fruits of your ancestor's deeds.

You are only waving the flag of human unity, because your enjoying the good fruits of criminal behaviour of your ancestors, quite frankly, though it is not a part of our discussion.

Teralek wrote:
Okisites wrote:Please, don't go against the ruler, as he is not the initial criminal, or not done the initial crime. You can never be right by going against him, no matter what he is doing with people. You must restore the justice, and there should not be any suffering to anybody. The question is how will you do that in this situation.


Let's all give our praises to Hitler, after all he was not the initial criminal. "You can never be right by going against him, no matter what he is doing with people. You must restore the justice, and there should not be any suffering to anybody. The question is how will you do that in this situation."


See Teralek, my friend, this is the universe governed by the universe, on the basis of universal law. One must yield bad outcome of every bad he did, no matter if he yields it after 1000 years. Let me tell you everyone has to yield all the good and bad for their deeds. This is called Karma. You must pay, no matter what is the means.

This is the technologically advanced world, and it is hypothesized that overly technological species cannot survives. I believe it is because of unsettled issues, that people are not paying much attention to resolve. Better you should resolve all such issues before we get overly technological. Otherwise nature is free to give the outcomes of all good and bad. I hope you got it.

Please explain, how is my view, and what is wrong with that.

Thank you.

Okisites.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller
User avatar
Okisites
 
Posts: 1286 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#73  Postby Harbal » July 15th, 2015, 4:41 pm

The trouble with vengeance is it can easily get out of proportion. But, like they say, it can be sweet.
Harbal
 
Posts: 1560 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#74  Postby Whitedragon » August 4th, 2015, 5:37 am

I was told by an academic that “an eye for an eye” means balanced retribution. In other words if someone stepped on your toe, step on his toe, don’t chop off his hand. Certain condensed forms of retribution is liberating to the individual: such retributions usually hold no judicial or psychological danger, which are important things vengeance should conform to.

I believe in justice and that people should not be allowed to murder or commit serious acts of vandalism, etc. However I also understand why people murder, and that their anger is not something that can be switched on or off. I think people can actually get very sick if they don’t have the ability to express or quench their hurt and ire and when committing crimes of passion and vengeance their minds and feelings are already taken over.

People so very often excuse sexual passions, and debate in favour of its liberties, should we not give those who are wronged the same understanding if not liberties ?
We are a frozen spirit; our thoughts a cloud of droplets; different oceans and ages brood inside – where spirit sublimates. To some our words, an acid rain, to some it is too pure, to some infectious, to some a cure.
User avatar
Whitedragon
Moderator
 
Posts: 842 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post Number:#75  Postby Belinda » August 4th, 2015, 8:05 am

The problem with retribution as reasonable punishment is that it's literally impossible to match crime and punishment. For instance the eye of a young mother is more valuable to herself and to others than is the eye of the young mother's seventy year old grandmother. But perhaps not. Perhaps the seventy year old grandmother has some skill or knowledge which alone can save the whole family.

To found social control or a criminal justice system upon retribution is therefore unjust. Social control has been founded upon vendetta as we see from the Biblical Old Testament. The advent of the Biblical prophets improved upon the vendetta system by the institution of social control founded upon justice and laws founded upon the authority of justice.

The OT prophets were not the only more advanced moralists . There were the ancient Greeks, the Persians, the Indians, the Chinese and centuries later in Arabia ,Muhammad.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to Ethics and Morality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST