Philosophy Discussion Forums

LuckyR wrote:
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?

Correct. Justice had always been synonymous with vengeance. There is a societal notion that vengeance equates to some form of atonement. People pleading for justice typically desire some equal form of retribution as if it restors some kind of moral equilibrium. As long as that is the accepted view of justice I will not support it. I support more productive and rational measures.

Truthhunter wrote:

LuckyR wrote:
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?

Correct. Justice had always been synonymous with vengeance. There is a societal notion that vengeance equates to some form of atonement. People pleading for justice typically desire some equal form of retribution as if it restors some kind of moral equilibrium. As long as that is the accepted view of justice I will not support it. I support more productive and rational measures.

Uummm, no. The two are not universally accepted as synonymous. That may be your opinion, but you are overstating your influence. In current usage, vengeance is typically considered to refer to actions outside the area of the formal justice system.

In addition, a major goal of the justice system is to isolate troublemakers from society to protect society. Any thoughts on that goal?

I feel people are entitled to a certain sense of vengeance, that they have a right to seek revenge for wrongs that have been done to them. However, individuals must only be entitled to this, and not whole groups, otherwise it would create an unstable situation. Furthermore, an individual's right to revenge must be regulated by the law, and not by individuals.

In other words, the modern penal code (at least in western countries) is premised on two principles, that of punishing the individual for the crime they have committed, and of safeguarding the rest of society from them. But I believe that the penal code must be updated to reflect the desire for revenge on the part of the individual(s) who has/have been victimized by the perpertrator, since harm was done to them. The act of punishing the aggressor for the crime doesn't go far enough, because it involves the state acting to punish the individual, rather than including the opinion(s) of the victim(s).

Gulistani wrote: ↑December 28th, 2017, 10:58 pm I feel people are entitled to a certain sense of vengeance, that they have a right to seek revenge for wrongs that have been done to them. However, individuals must only be entitled to this, and not whole groups, otherwise it would create an unstable situation. Furthermore, an individual's right to revenge must be regulated by the law, and not by individuals.

In other words, the modern penal code (at least in western countries) is premised on two principles, that of punishing the individual for the crime they have committed, and of safeguarding the rest of society from them. But I believe that the penal code must be updated to reflect the desire for revenge on the part of the individual(s) who has/have been victimized by the perpertrator, since harm was done to them. The act of punishing the aggressor for the crime doesn't go far enough, because it involves the state acting to punish the individual, rather than including the opinion(s) of the victim(s).

So what should have been done (in addition to what actually happened) to Bernie Madoff?

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 29th, 2017, 2:05 am

Gulistani wrote: ↑December 28th, 2017, 10:58 pm I feel people are entitled to a certain sense of vengeance, that they have a right to seek revenge for wrongs that have been done to them. However, individuals must only be entitled to this, and not whole groups, otherwise it would create an unstable situation. Furthermore, an individual's right to revenge must be regulated by the law, and not by individuals.

In other words, the modern penal code (at least in western countries) is premised on two principles, that of punishing the individual for the crime they have committed, and of safeguarding the rest of society from them. But I believe that the penal code must be updated to reflect the desire for revenge on the part of the individual(s) who has/have been victimized by the perpertrator, since harm was done to them. The act of punishing the aggressor for the crime doesn't go far enough, because it involves the state acting to punish the individual, rather than including the opinion(s) of the victim(s).

So what should have been done (in addition to what actually happened) to Bernie Madoff?

Those who were scammed by him then have a right to directly determine, and not just the state who represents them.

Gulistani wrote: ↑December 29th, 2017, 4:44 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 29th, 2017, 2:05 am

So what should have been done (in addition to what actually happened) to Bernie Madoff?

Those who were scammed by him then have a right to directly determine, and not just the state who represents them.

Ah so... I get it. True vengeance. OK. So what role does the State (the Justice system) have in you alternate world?

Do the rabble determine sentence only, or also guilt and innocence?

Scott wrote: ↑March 19th, 2008, 11:19 pm How do you feel about vengeance?

The natural evidence of ignorance and a corrupt heart.

How do you dissuade people from vengeance?

Why would I even try?
Every moment of existence finds us manifesting who and what we are, at this moment! No one can, or should, be talked out of being who and what they are.
Unless who and what they are is someone capable of being talked out of being who and what they are.
Nothing is that is not a feature of the overall Perfection of the Universe, Here! Now!

One moment might actually find me attempting to 'talk them out of' such a foolish act.
Another moment might find me slipping them a knife.
Another might find me just walking on by...
All depends on who and what I Am at that moment.

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

You cannot. Vengeance is of the ego, and unless someone transcends the ego into Enlightenment/unconditional Love, the fruits of life in Hell continue to display such goodies as hatred and vengeance and ignorance!

One can "be the change that you want to see", become Enlightened/unconditionally Loving, and people will come to you asking about that 'Light'!!
The need to convince someone is all ego!

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS Known by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (Charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

“Your task is not to seek for Love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.” - Rumi

tat tvam asi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

To be honest, I treat vengeance as any other thing in life; I don't care much about it. I do indeed feel that vengeance is desired at times, for faults committed against me and not compensated, but in those cases I tend to question myself: Is the vengeance worth it? Clearly sometimes wrongs can be made accidentally and without intention to harm, but harm the recipient of the wrong so deeply that one feels that revenge would be justified. In other cases, petty things are done on purposes, full of a desire to harm and to impair, but cause little damage because of unsuccessful strategies. And for many times has a person done someone harm for his own benefit, but without intending to actually produce so much distress. Must we punish for the intentions or the consequences? Should the guilty party's past behavior affect ours? Must we act in prevision of the future, or as retaliation for the past? And if the act of vengeance occurs, to what degree shall it be applied? Too many questions, with far too many possible answers, all varying alongside the circumstances and desired outcomes. Even if you limit the definition of revenge to "an act of retaliation motivated by a desire for emotional self-satisfaction", it must be noted that a desire to "get back" at another often comes with other emotional reasons, many times linked to actual material goals and preoccupations. You cannot simply trace a line between a desire for vengeance and a wish to actually produce certain results on reality, and expect things to stay where they are without crossing the dividing. Sometimes the line fluctuates and curves, and at other times it fades and shortens, becoming nothing but slim shadow, and sometimes disappearing entirely, as both borders meld and pour into each other, becoming where emotional reasons are fused with materialistic ones, and vice-versa, often obstructing each other or even smoothing the path. Say that a man hurts another on purpose, and you are the victim. Would you hurt the other if such behavior would have a price? How about if your emotions were mixed, and anger was mixed with sadness? What if you were convinced that showing the depth of your hurt would fix things, and proving that your anger was fearsome indeed would contribute towards this goal? And if certain material subjects in life troubled you, and venting your emotions on people would help? I'm sure you can imagine multiple scenarios in which really the difference between vengeance for vengeance's sake and vengeance for purely utilitarian reasons is not that distinct. You would have to first explain to me how hurting someone to show just how much pain it causes and thus be emotionally soothed is not useful. Emotions are very very important, and as long as the consequences of freeing them from a cage of logic and reasoning are not too great the act of revenge is good and useful, in that it brings happiness. And since happiness, really, is the ultimate goal of life, and both motivates and justifies everything, as long as it does not diminish the total happiness of all involved parties, revenge is, in a way, motivated by utility.

I think vengeance is all around us. Our punitive system is a good example I think. Restorative justice is just to good for some people. But what one wishes on another will reflect back some way. To get out of a vicious cycle, if nothing else, would be to desire to do no harm.

SBE wrote: ↑June 5th, 2018, 12:55 am I think vengeance is all around us. Our punitive system is a good example I think. Restorative justice is just to good for some people. But what one wishes on another will reflect back some way. To get out of a vicious cycle, if nothing else, would be to desire to do no harm.

Most would not use your definition of vengeance

Yes I believe you're right that most wouldn't. That's the beauty of having different perspectives. This isn't some thing I made up.

"Vengeance is mine saith the Lord". No human being can do it without bad karma. Only the impersonal justice/karma system of Nature/God carries it out properly.

Luxin wrote: ↑August 24th, 2018, 5:21 pm "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord". No human being can do it without bad karma. Only the impersonal justice/karma system of Nature/God carries it out properly.

An opinion unencumbered by data

Recommended reading: Retributive Justice (in the SEP)


Robert Nozick has drawn five conceptual distinctions between retribution and revenge/vengeance:

"(1) Retribution is done for a wrong, while revenge may be done for an injury or harm or slight and need not be for a wrong.

(2) Retribution sets an internal limit to the amount of punishment, according to the seriousness of the wrong, whereas revenge internally need set no limit to what is inflicted. Revenge by its nature need set no limits, although the revenger may limit what he inflicts for external reasons.

(3) Revenge is personal: "this is because of what you did to my ___" (self, father, group, and so on). Whereas the agent of retribution need have no special or personal tie to the victim of the wrong for which he exacts retribution.
…
(4) Revenge involves a particular emotional tone, pleasure in the suffering of another, while retribution either need involve no emotional tone, or involves another one, namely, pleasure at justice being done. Therefore, the thirster after revenge often will want to experience (see, be present at) the situation in which the revengee is suffering, whereas with retribution there is no special point in witnessing its infliction.
…
(5) There need be no generality in revenge. Not only is the revenger not committed to revenging any similar act done to anyone; he is not committed to avenging all done to himself. Whether he seeks vengeance, or thinks it appropriate to do so, will depend upon how he feels at the time about the act of injury. Whereas the imposer of retribution, inflicting deserved punishment for a wrong, is committed to (the existence of some) general principles (prima facie) mandating punishment in other similar circumstances. Furthermore, if possible these general standards will be made known and clear in the process of retribution; even those who act in retribution against the guilty agents of a torturing dictatorship, keeping their identities secret, will make the principles known.

In drawing these contrasts between retribution and revenge, I do not deny that there can be mixed cases, or that people can be moved by mixed motives, partially a desire for retribution, partially a desire for revenge, or that a stated desire can mask another one that is operative."

(Nozick, Robert. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. pp. 366-8)

Consul wrote: ↑September 13th, 2018, 11:29 pm Recommended reading: Retributive Justice (in the SEP)


Robert Nozick has drawn five conceptual distinctions between retribution and revenge/vengeance:

"(1) Retribution is done for a wrong, while revenge may be done for an injury or harm or slight and need not be for a wrong.

(2) Retribution sets an internal limit to the amount of punishment, according to the seriousness of the wrong, whereas revenge internally need set no limit to what is inflicted. Revenge by its nature need set no limits, although the revenger may limit what he inflicts for external reasons.

(3) Revenge is personal: "this is because of what you did to my ___" (self, father, group, and so on). Whereas the agent of retribution need have no special or personal tie to the victim of the wrong for which he exacts retribution.
…
(4) Revenge involves a particular emotional tone, pleasure in the suffering of another, while retribution either need involve no emotional tone, or involves another one, namely, pleasure at justice being done. Therefore, the thirster after revenge often will want to experience (see, be present at) the situation in which the revengee is suffering, whereas with retribution there is no special point in witnessing its infliction.
…
(5) There need be no generality in revenge. Not only is the revenger not committed to revenging any similar act done to anyone; he is not committed to avenging all done to himself. Whether he seeks vengeance, or thinks it appropriate to do so, will depend upon how he feels at the time about the act of injury. Whereas the imposer of retribution, inflicting deserved punishment for a wrong, is committed to (the existence of some) general principles (prima facie) mandating punishment in other similar circumstances. Furthermore, if possible these general standards will be made known and clear in the process of retribution; even those who act in retribution against the guilty agents of a torturing dictatorship, keeping their identities secret, will make the principles known.

In drawing these contrasts between retribution and revenge, I do not deny that there can be mixed cases, or that people can be moved by mixed motives, partially a desire for retribution, partially a desire for revenge, or that a stated desire can mask another one that is operative."

(Nozick, Robert. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. pp. 366-8)

That was the distinction I was trying to make back on page 8 in 2016