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
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 976
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Whitedragon » August 4th, 2015, 8:21 am

Well, let me just say this. I am not for mortal retribution, but I understand the danger of oppressing and dismissing anger for individuals as well as nations. It can be very dangerous to dismiss a man’s pain and emotions. It needs to be addressed in a responsible way, and if it is not addressed in time tragedy can follow. They had a practice where people were put in blocks and vegetables were tossed at them, others who were too proud for that faced the guillotine. People need to vent in some way.
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.

Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Belinda » August 4th, 2015, 1:30 pm

Whitedragon, I wonder if you can address the question 'Is vengeance good?' In order to answer the question as philosopher you might try to be objective. If you make a claim about right or wrong you then justify your claim with reference to how your claim applies to everybody, and not limit the claim to your own experiences or perceptions.

For instance you write "I am not for mortal retribution". This indicates to me that what you are for is that vengeance be God's prerogative . If this is the case, as a philosopher your job is to argue the case for vengeance being God's alone. Your bare assertion is not philosophy.

User avatar
Posts: 976
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Whitedragon » August 4th, 2015, 2:45 pm

WhiteDragon said: “They had a practice where people were put in blocks and vegetables were tossed at them”

I think this is what I’m really trying to say. Take from that what you want; I think in fact that is both practical and philosophical.

When I refer to mortal retribution I’m not talking about God, I’m talking about people killing people to get even. This clearly creates chaos in a society for various reasons. I’m sure if everyone were to be left to their own devices retribution will pretty soon make man an endangered species. People need to vent and they need to find creative and true ways of doing so. Telling someone to forgive another person is in some cases naïve and false. I can understand psychologically why people take vengeance, but that doesn’t mean it should be allowed or excused. I’m sure two out of three people feel like murdering someone every day, and that is just the problem. Everybody is angry and everybody has lost, some in small ways, some in much more costly and painful ways.

In a society where the mere thought of vengeance is oppressed, I think we run a much greater risk for anarchy. People need to change their ways and find a means to “get even” in a way that is both just and healing. My mention of people throwing vegetables at a constrained man is just a loose example, and hopefully not to be taken literally. I think if psychology and justice could put their heads together on this I’m sure they could come up with something useful.
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
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: August 4th, 2015, 10:13 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Ranjeet » August 4th, 2015, 11:59 pm

Unconsciousness is the basement of the mind. In your unconscious many things are buried which find expression through your conscious. For example, millions of people watch boxing or football matches and really get excited; and they never think about what they are watching. In boxing they are watching sheer violence. But there is enjoyment; this is the expression of hidden violence in you. Society has managed man with an absolutely wrong strategy. The idea of the society has been, that if something is thrown into the basement, into the darkness of the unconscious, you are finished with it. That is not the case. You are not finished with it. It will come up in different form and with a vengeance. And it will go on collecting.

Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Belinda » August 5th, 2015, 4:28 am

I agree that telling people to forgive each other is useless without telling also how to do so. How to forgive is intrinsic to the philosophy of Spinoza, a pantheist. This was what initially attracted me to Spinoza and pantheism. Unfortunately the rationale is intellectual and there remains the emotional reaction to fear, which is anger , jealousy, etc.

I understand that there are teaching facilities for how to dispel one's anger. I do agree with you that repressing anger, as if trying to persuade oneself the anger or fear does not exist, is counterproductive. If you would like to know the comparatively easy and short part of Spinoza's great book "Ethics" that deals with emotions, it is called Part III .Concerning the Origin and Nature of the Emotions Ethics by Spinoza available in paperback, and very inexpensive to buy from Amazon dealers besides being in every public library.

User avatar
Posts: 976
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Whitedragon » August 5th, 2015, 7:22 am

Thank you for the information !!! And thank you for your post :)
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
Posts: 5933
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Misty » August 5th, 2015, 11:16 am

Whitedragon wrote:
Thank you for the fun link of Foamy the Squirrel, I am having fun with it!


-- Updated Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:31 am to add the following --
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.
If all people would 'Live and let live' there would be not need of vengeance.

Vengeance does not replace what was taken from one. Vengeance does not consider ALL the reasons for the perpetration of evil/bad actions of people, therefore, vengeance is a partially blind action. Vengeance can get the avenger in trouble and ruin their life further. Eye for an eye perpetuates evil.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.

Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Belinda » August 5th, 2015, 11:56 am

Whitedragon, if you rush off and read Spinoza's Ethics beginning at the beginning, and you never previously studied any academic philosophy , I fear you might be put off philosophy for life, as Spinoza is usually reckoned to be enormously difficult and not at all for beginners. I intended only to point you in the direction of that particular part of the book Ethics, the particular quite short section which I myself found easy and surprisingly in tune with modern psychology. The remainder of the book, better read secondary sources on Spinoza i.e. short introduction, before tackling the original !

Simply Wee
Posts: 428
Joined: August 27th, 2012, 2:11 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Simply Wee » August 5th, 2015, 11:57 am

Vengeance...once mastered becomes duty, and can go back quite a bit in order to correct any illusions the perpetrators may have had about offending. As much as it is a nations duty to remind other nations of the consequences of aggression toward it, so too should it be your duty to remind others why they have been duly served in accordance with their perpetrations. Not all but less is vengence, which is folly.
"Men are not disturbed by things, but the view they take of things".

User avatar
Posts: 976
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Whitedragon » August 6th, 2015, 5:26 am

Misty said: “If all people would 'Live and let live' there would be not need of vengeance.

Vengeance does not replace what was taken from one. Vengeance does not consider ALL the reasons for the perpetration of evil/bad actions of people; therefore, vengeance is a partially blind action. Vengeance can get the avenger in trouble and ruin their life further. Eye for an eye perpetuates evil.”

Hello Misty, I’m glad you’re having fun with Foamy. He is my new favourite now for a few months.

I agree whole heartedly with every word you’re saying, except for the evil part, which as you may have noticed by now, I rather not use for the sake of misunderstanding by people. It is indeed dangerous, and destructive to take vengeance. The man / woman you kill might serve an important role in society, and in addition to that, funerals cost money and ripples out to other people as well.

All I’m saying is I can understand the psychology behind it, that doesn’t mean I condone it. Please see my other posts, referring specifically to the need for creative resolve. As you might know from our private encounters when I was unstable for a while; that was not JUST due to mental illness, but also due to great hate and pressure put on me. It snapped me, and I don’t think I’m that bad a person, and I struck out in all directions. This didn’t work itself out until I rudely confronted the “correct” person. It was very traumatic for me as I’m not a man of conflict, but it released me from their power over me.

When someone does something to you they also take something from you. The only way to get it back is to at least express your discontent to the right person. But we are constantly told: “keep it to yourself” “let it be, it will fix itself; you will feel better in time.” “Forgive them” People need to be at least confronted. I cannot describe to anyone how badly the hate people were projecting at me affected me. These things do not go away.

Now I do not condone violence, or vengeance, however I know what it did to me when I couldn’t express how I feel. It creates unresolved issues which will in many cases remain forever, no matter what people say or how many times you forgive that person. It is naïve to think one can just consciously sweep such feelings under the rug in all cases. I think to expect someone to just keep quiet and forget a horrible injustice is the same as revenge, in fact I think they are two different sides from the same coin… To ask someone to forgive such cruel deeds is to traumatize that person twice. One can only forgive when there is some sort of closure.

There is a practice where some families meet the murderers who killed a family member that at least is SOME form of closure. Let’s not romanticize forgiveness, or for that matter the conscious control we think we master over our feelings.

Thank you for the information, Belinda. I’m embarking on a book called Sophie’s World, an academic book I had in my first year in university. Maybe that’s a better start ?

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.

Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Belinda » August 6th, 2015, 5:43 am

Whitedragon wrote to Misty:
Now I do not condone violence, or vengeance, however I know what it did to me when I couldn’t express how I feel. It creates unresolved issues which will in many cases remain forever, no matter what people say or how many times you forgive that person. It is naïve to think one can just consciously sweep such feelings under the rug in all cases. I think
Please don't abandon hope, Whitedragon. I know exactly what you are saying about unresolved issues from my own personal experience. Philosophy is potentially therapeutic with regard to feelings of fear and anger etc. By "philosophy" I'm not referring to platitudes I mean proper academic philosophy undertaken with imagination and rigorous scepticism. Truth and goodness are very similar concepts.

User avatar
Posts: 976
Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:12 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Whitedragon » August 6th, 2015, 8:35 am

Belinda said: “Please don't abandon hope, Whitedragon. I know exactly what you are saying about unresolved issues from my own personal experience. Philosophy is potentially therapeutic with regard to feelings of fear and anger etc. By "philosophy" I'm not referring to platitudes I mean proper academic philosophy undertaken with imagination and rigorous scepticism. Truth and goodness are very similar concepts.”

I was about to lose hope, Belinda, but now I’m strong again. Maybe you can private message me and we can get better acquainted, share some experiences and ideas.

I would also like to get in touch again with you, Misty. Life’s better now and I won’t be such a pain.
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
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: August 15th, 2015, 12:06 am

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Handreas » August 15th, 2015, 12:56 am

I'm very sorry for taking my answer from bible, but it is true for me (at least from my Point of View as a Christian). The thoughts alone relieved me from every stress that would develop from thinking about vengeance. "It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them" -Deuteronomy 32:35-

User avatar
Posts: 162
Joined: April 21st, 2013, 8:34 am
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Perth - Australia

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by Percarus » August 19th, 2015, 10:18 am

Scott on 'Vengeance, Payback, Revenge' wrote:…I do not know how to respond to people who believe they have some so-called “moral right” to vengeance. I do not know how to dissuade people from the “eye for an eye” code of conduct. I do not know how to convince people not to slap the man who has slapped them. I do not know how to convince people not to murder the man who has murdered one of their family members. …
Ok, took me a bit of enjoyed patience getting up to date with the whole thread concisely, but quickly highlighting the topic through Leland R Beaumont's words: "The passion for revenge is strong and sometimes almost overwhelming. But our intuitive logic about revenge is often twisted, conflicted, parochial, and dangerous. Revenge is a primitive, destructive, and violent response to anger, injury, or humiliation. It is a misguided attempt to transform shame into pride."

And hence many terms are related to revenge, summarizing them all (that I am aware of):
  • Atonement
  • Avenging
  • Deterrence
  • Justice
  • Reconciliations
  • Remorse
  • Reparations
  • Reprisal
  • Retaliation
  • Retribution
  • Vendettas
  • Vengeance
This in which the basis of any of the above could have been attributive to scope of emotive reasoning in human inherent instinct as a trait of evolution for a primal need of self-defence, but of notice is that behind every catalytic great 'sage' in history (Jesus being one of them) their very actions countered the process of accrued evolution [evolutionary because studies on infants show that they too have an inherent ability to attribute justice – can't find the YouTube link :-(] by a factor of instantaneous nature so as to counter this paradox as evident two thousand years after Christ's passing away (in this age of plenty) through global consensus (if at all possible and discussed more in-depth further way down) that would indicate that revenge is abused as a destructive and futile response to anger and humiliation – a sign of overruling dominance that 'sometimes' [yes, I said sometimes, watch 'V for Vendetta' – the movie :-)] can be morally justifiable if for a grand romanticized chivalrous courtly utopian ideal for it to manifest itself as factuality in abidance to 'certain' guidelines in ethics (Romanticism is not as easy a concept to grasp as one may envisage by the way).

The Cycle of Indirect Vengeance

And in relations to your (I mean Scott's) inability to persuade/dissuade people away from the inherent need to see perpetrators of heinous crimes suffer as in the confines of the 'electric chair', or similar, one would simply have to know the character in question first on a personal level to understand his/her psyche—maybe this can be done by simply looking at their photo albums, hobbies, career, education, sense of décor around the house and mayhap even one's appreciation of the 'arts' or other aesthetics – this if the individual is unwilling to divulge his/her inherent moment in life in which the psychological trigger for barbarity was first implanted through some associative abstract notion whether physical, symbolic, immaterial, or through affiliations as established by disturbances as in anomalies of association. Ahem, it is only by understanding the individual for the beauty that they possess in historicity of their accrued lives that we can, to any extent, ethically influence one's established notions of morality through reason (provided your wisdom supersedes that of the incumbent) so as to make a definite impact and change their views to the more humane views of compensation (to say the least, as an example out of many) for the hurt caused rather than attributing unjustified payback, this of which I find you are having troubles with Scott. And when this objective process of rationalization gets ingrained into you your influential levels would escalate if embodied of 'authentic' status (a long essay can be put here on what 'authenticity' means) and mayhap occur on a natural level inherent to self – this could be improved further if one were to itemize an objective centred procedure for disclosure of such lore but I never have reached that far in stage of thought yet because the need to do so never presented itself to me and hopefully never will as I would hate the notion of manipulating one's distorted free-will to liberalize one's self to something else for I know not for sure if that is exactly God's overall plan for me – sounds like mind control to me but it isn't; I am not of respectful old age to attain such wisdom yet (imo).

I would argue that in relevance to Hinduism (and Greek ideals) that reason is objective in nature and is man's highest state of consciousness and the aim of his inherent heartfelt soul (in metaphor). In other traditions this state has been called Samadhi, Enlightenment, Union with God, Cosmic Consciousness. This state is achieved by fulfilling the practices of Yoga I am led to believe; and pure objective reason would dictate that the immanent being of morality itself manifests through all categories of nature (in a Theist, Philosopher or Agnostic perspective) such as to be attributive to a naturalistic ontology whose sundering nature is by a great order of magnitude greater than a world so limited by the concept of dualities when it comes to the 'humane' itemization of vengeance and be granted the status of universality in the form of a logos, an old Stoic concept (pagan in origin but of a foundation basis to secular and Abrahamic religious thought also I think). Thus also consistent with atheism as principles of values that justifies an atheistic acceptability of a rational view of terms like sacred and holy as real when pertained to mortal affairs.
MarkE wrote:…It's like being a moral vigilante to me
Ethics of vigilantism has components that account for the responsibility of 'good' people to combat the evil elements in their society as akin to Paladins in both historical and mythological role-playing games sense of reason (with most cases justified by their ethics in no limits to brutality against evil –odd uh). In the movie, 'The Boondock Saints', the monsignor concludes the homily by saying, 'Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.' In other words one has to react to villainy irrespective of the risks associated with it when imbued with good moral grounds of rationality – as is the case of my second eBook on my website on 'Morality pt.2' on page 78 of the Martell Welch case for those who kept up to date with the other morality thread the other day (thanks for reading, some ammo would be nice). 'The fact that such an obvious truth of a civilized society of rights and laws even has to be articulated, however, is troubling.', this as the U.S. does not accept anarchy (although at its best anarchy could be the best government system, 'could'…) and nor is the global empire of a nation in a state of dystopia or ever will be as akin to some Zombie movies of sorts, this where the defenders of justice are vigilantes to justice in all post apocalyptic movies.

When it comes to vengeance in a society with the rule of law, instant vigilante or mob justice can 'also' be seen as a threat to civilization, nothing less. It doesn’t matter whether the assaulting party is a protective father or how much of a pervert his victim is: inflicting physical violence when there is no self-defence involved is a crime, a serious crime, and an inexcusable crime….quite properly a felony. Ironically even passive vigilante justice is illegal, UNLESS someone is faced with defending themselves or others, taking action against a criminal just puts you on the wrong side of the law. It’s not really about ethics but avoiding serious legal problems. *sigh* the complexities of the first world nations hey… Quoting Hillel Gray from my as of recent seldom hobby of 'Quora' also:
Ethics: Is vigilante justice ever justified legally or morally? wrote: In the absence of a legal order, or when legal authorities are blatantly unjust, it can be ethically appropriate to act without authorization of the law. Here are three types:
  • There may be self-help cases where a person may enforce their rights, or defend themselves and their property, without legal authority. See Self-help (law).
  • Another category that you are probably familiari with: civil disobedience, such as the non-violent justice efforts of Mahatma Gandhi.
  • In addition, there are extreme situations (though people face these around the world) where vigilante violence may be justified, morally, such as armed resistance to tyranny or enslavement.
  • Might also includes cases of a necessity defense (though I'm not coming up with an example that isn't included above, suggestions?)
AnarchistUnited wrote:…I would truly use vengeance is out on the world's oppressors
The tendency and ability to take adequate revenge for an insult or injury inflicted in the past have been often glorified as part of a ‘just and honourable’ individual or communal character. However, the central flaw in the idea of revenge is that it is a futile attempt to remedy past suffering. The alternative to revenge, as suggested by me and my vendetta website (I have one for those that seriously did me harm in the past, I do not account medium to petty impediments on my vendetta list, lol) is not the ultimately altruistic motive of 'forgive and forget' in my books but to 'remember and resist', but granting at least a second chance for redemption. It is proved that the rage that feeds vengeance should be restrained and retrained in a positive direction, not because it is a negative emotion—some negative emotions may, depending upon the context, be healthy—but because it is an unjust, sick and self-conflicted emotion.

But in pertinence to 'AnarchistUnited' another valuable lesson can be learnt from biblical lore (whether you perceive it as real or not it does not matter, it illustrates ethics and human nature for wisdom-ly gain), ie: Isaiah 63:4, KJV—For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. – but you really should read the chapter to understand its context and I leave that as homework to you :-).

Well, anyway, of what may be interesting to 'AnarchistUnited' is the fact that Afghan women are the worst placed in the oppressive regime in this entire blue magnificent planet (still filled with too much misery for our liking though). There is targeted violence against female officials in the nation, and the derelict healthcare and deliriously unbelievable desperate abundant poverty makes the Afghanistan country the MOST DANGEROUS place to be born a woman – if you genuinely care about the nature of oppressors then I would recommend you, AnarchistUnited, to focus on your civil duty of charitable donations to focus on wise investment or charity funding to organizations that bolster women's right in that nation and in addition; The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Pakistan, India and Somalia! This as a starting point… The obtained information was from the 'Thomson Reuters Foundation that marked a launch to their website 'TrustLaw Women', check it out. A US study found that more than 400,000 women were raped there each year, the UN called Congo the rape capital of the world (funny how TV media hides the nature of our world from us). These also include acid attacks, child and forced marriage, and punishment or retribution by stoning or other physical abuse – mainly all acts of vengeance as attributed to the topic title and probably not mitigated to the levels of tolerable sentimentality in 2nd&1st world nations simply because, I can only presume, the technological revolution of the internet has not quite yet manifested itself in such nations in a liberalized manner to say the least if at all to any significant extent (what are their literacy rates one wonders). Ahem, I am not going to mention almost equally troubled India but Somalia there is only a 50% chance a woman survives if going pregnant because there is no antenatal care at all!

If, however, you have an inherent patriotic pride to look after your country's borders (as do I in relations to Australia) but also less of a sense of duty towards outsiders/aliens and desire to support something closer to home (I presume the US), you may find consolation in this eBook in *.pdf file format I found on the following link (I barely skimmed it but it seemed relevant) @ ... ressed.pdf — The oppressor is solidary with the oppressed as an abstract category and sees them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their labour—when he stops making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love. True solidarity is found only in the polenitude of this act of love, in its existentiality, in its praxis. If you believe that men/women should be free (as I gathered) and yet do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, you indeed are just a farce [sorry, just typing for typing sakes :-D]. Moral: BE ELEEMOSYNARY BEFORE THE END OF YOUR DAYS… I shall try my best as well…

Over the desolate mounds lays ahead great hope of civility & decency…

Sadly, in accounting Theist fundamentalists in America in gist, they often participate in the democratic process in pursuit of their own ends, but their ultimate goal when they enter the political arena is the elimination from power and influence of other political interests in opposition to their own. This in contrary to principles of democracy and the very rational reasoning of humanity in the face of desire of God I am led to take a guess (NB: The Catholic Church is not this sinister, they are ethical and recent research that I found is that they ALSO account for secular morality in their fundamentals, akin to Sikhs – I did not know that on part-1 of my eBook on morality).

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”— Karl Marx (1818-1883 AD)
Daniel Owen wrote:…vengeance is pretty healthy and normal. Tit for tat. … Mutual aid and vengeful justice are different sides of the same coin.
Again I see someone else commit themselves to the fallacy of restricting oneself to a world of dualities (ethical and sensible from an Occam's Razor point of view). One can also account for the hexagonal partiality of; vengeful justice, mutual aid, due neutral process, ethical integrity, 'authentic' honesty to oneself and to others, and communal obligations as pertained to the same genus of the species or inter-relatedness between living beings (this could have been expanded a lot more).
Scott wrote:…I'm talking about vengeance for its own sake (e.g. going and breaking the window-breaking vandal's window as revenge). Why do you all support it?...
Well, I have an interesting story. A fair tad ago I was working as a tiler's assistant and after six months work (I think) he simply decided not to pay me the last two weeks worth of wages of which I worked minimal hours since there was no work at the time, and I planned on resigning since he re-obtained his driver's license and did not need me anymore (I was merely helping him essentially). My much more senior recruitment consultant heard of this as I discussed the nature of my 'clandestine' based work, and you know what this wise individual said..? He told me I should go to his house and slash his tyres – but you had to know the guy, my consultant was a saint and for someone of his stature to say something like that to me made me really think if I was being normal by letting this incident slide by. No matter, I had my fun in gossip on Facebook at his expense.
MarkE wrote:…my personal preference involves 1-upping anyone who wrongs me.
I hope you don't mean 'selfish egocentrical upping', lest it be by sheer accidental nature alone deriving from a non-sinister first cause of events that led to an 'effect' like-so. A simple altruistic revenge would involve simple disclosure of the incumbents in question to members of society (could be friends or broader) which would warrant retribution in grand association as, mayhap not humans, perhaps higher life forms overshadowing us from the 'Unseen World' could in turn attribute justice on your own behalf as a law of karma that works both ways, one for a positive effect for the individual and the other as a negative effect for the culprit, which in turn supersedes sole secular thinking on the morality of justice in a double whammy, especially since there is no associative act of misdeed attributed as sin to the disclosure of the culprit's sins to specific bodies provided enough sentient wisdom is inherent on the victim so as to warrant that one's life (the culprit) does not get utterly destroyed and instead they grow in moral character serving a triple/quadruple whammy bonus.

I would like to relate the story of Prince Harry's nude photo scandals, whom, of which I was led to believe, came to fruition simply because he was oblivious to the harshness of 'commoners' (the girl that betrayed him I presume if I can remember correctly) and mayhap the lack of valid codes of Ethics and proper conduct he may have abstained from being taught as preference for such teachings would have gone to his older brother William who is next to the throne after the grand King Charles to be (even William offended New Zealand by refusing to eat the typical lamb dish of the nation and opting for specially catered for Salmon (as future King one should respect different cultures with good sense). But what I am trying to get at, regardless of all that, is the need of 'upping' (the necessity rather) in order to warrant a justifiable revenge for any wrong doings to royalty for the upholding and establishment of human ideals that warrants, a dignitarian, a blessing of a perfect life without ill-retribution because the prince (Harry in this case) probably never had experienced pain and embarrassment before – by this I mean is that pain is not a necessary an attribute needed to be experienced by the severely educated (he should never have suffered if raised like a proper potential monarch through accrued wisdom by mentors). And equally well said Prince Harry could have learnt humility and proper codes of conduct had the British crown educated him wisely on the first place (who knows, maybe the photo scandal was orchestrated by the parliament or other royal family members to teach Harry a noble virtue of some sort?) – I highly doubt they would be so crafty and resort to such archaic outdated standards of making a real man out of a boy; it is irrational with so many other peaceful alternatives.

Ok, I was a bit all over the place with that last paragraph… I wanted to mention that revenge should have been appropriated to the 'causes' of such furores (the incumbents that took photos and distributed it) but in an utterly wise manner fitting of nobility and consideration for the individual embodiments known as the 'culprits' in action – such revenge should have been designed and completed by the very ordained knights of the royal crown for such is their duty to uphold the status of nobility so not a single person dares mess with royalty (within reasonable sense of course – by mayhap 'upping' with crafty wit).

If the need of revenge, however ethical, is carried to extremes then you may not realize at first, but mayhap the Devil has crawled its way into your innards too deep!

In other words now… I read Scotts blog of 'my favourite quotes about vengeance and revenge' in post #10 and Jesus' one was definitely the most noble one it seemed (logical since he was a pure altruist). I will try to spontaneously derive my own quote on revenge so let's see what I come up… Ie:

"Revenge is best made with an 'appreciated' 'dish' best served cold that when served right manifests itself in a plurality of levels whose best ends meet serves you a warm cosy 'roast' of a banquet that can be shared by all involved parties where the pure of heart gets the best cut out of the deal." – Percarus
Scott wrote:…Also, peaceful communication between people lets them get out there emotions without vengefully attacking each other. …
Yes, but the problem facing MOST politicians throughout the course of history is that a methodical, universalized in maxim, objective conduct of peaceful communication has never manifested itself in history as of yet. Of course, in this case it is entirely dependent on the will of the underclass of any given nation who in turn are generally not educated sufficiently enough. It is only in this new era of the internet (if reached globally one day with full liberty) that mayhap we stand a chance to standardize a moral code for the establishment of definite consensus when the premises of syllogism (as attributed to my favourite philosopher Aristotle), used as a foundation to philosophical and theoretical conduct in the modern world, gets expanded so as to include factors of consideration of every imaginable human cultural sect (inclusive of the micro unbeknown to the upper levels) gets itemized through a code of 'loose' rules (akin to virtues) that we shall have a universal basis for effective disclosure of peaceful communication and agreement.
nameless wrote:…'Vengence' doesn't exist in 'my' worlds as I don't 'believe' in 'free-will' or 'choice' or 'cause and effect', hence there can be no personal 'responsibility' for one's behavior. I am more inclined to determine and offer 'healing' rather than 'retribution/punishment'. The 'win/win' concept is growing and the win/lose is dying. Good riddance. …
Pretty bold claims that I guess I believe at face value as one would not state they are capable of providing 'healing' unless granted the wisdomly lore to do so; I guess you must be gifted then, but there is such a thing as 'free-will' by placating boundaries to the very conceptualization of it in relations to one's intellect and that of the probability statistics as imposed objectively so, onto humanity in this case in contrast to the other living beings residing on this Earth. I am not going to argue with 'choice' or 'cause and effect' as we each are granted a freedom of choice and opinion and we can agree to differ in notions of established truths. But in relations to revenge one can learn from the acclaimed best English literal mastermind of the language that at this point in time harbours all civilizations, ie:
  • "…In the Shakespearean play Hamlet; Shakespeare illustrates how the morality of revenge leads to the downfall of Hamlet and Laertes and the success of Fortinbras. The benevolent character of Fortinbras demonstrates how his good moral decisions leads to his success. Fortinbras’ decision to follow his uncle’s orders not to attack Denmark shows to the audience that he is a very moral character. …"Ref.1
I do not know why, but something just jogged my memory that I was going to give a tribute to the understanding of the very nature of vengeance as an attributable memoir of David E. Rosenbaum whom I know nothing about, who died at the age of 63 and was a reporter for 'The New York Times' and wrote about politics and human nature as encompassed through everything (ie: economics as a tool) but I forget what because my file + link became corrupt. If anyone knows anything of relevance to him let me know (I hate losing facts I deemed valuable at one stage). But on a similar agenda, maybe it was Jonathan Rosenbaum I wanted to refer as he covered in the article, 'All and Nothing', coverage of the docudrama as set down in Irreversible's press book which was devised by 'Gaspar Noe' whom by blasphemous nature desired to demonize 'France' by initially wanting to feature 'I Stand Alone (1998)' as named by the pre-mentioned country in title and in the feature of 'Irreversible' illustrated very grotesque lessons that also encompassed a desire to display the very concept of 'vengeance' as a natural impulse where; time destroys everything, some acts are irreparable (even before God!), man is an animal, that most crimes remain unpunished, that the loss of a loved one destroys like lightning and it in itself is the source of life (this somewhat rational), that all history is written in sperm and blood (grotesque), that premonitions do not alter the course of events (an affirmation of fate), that times reveals everything (disturbing for some), and that ultimately it all conveyed a message of the best and the worst juxtaposed together in complete satirical irony to decency. I think Noe in fact had no sense of patriotism to his adopted new homeland of France (being born in Buenos Aires, Argentina) and so defiled its very grand heritage and in this process almost destroyed conventionalities of France it being an epitomic centre of chivalric and noble ideals by simply trying to project a different outlook to the French cinema scene in order to make a quick buck from the semi-enviable Americans who sought to appease their sense of identity as superior by creating a demand for humour associated with vulgarity as per pertinence to the country of France mocked by many Americans alike. I have to be honest, I do not know much about the guy, but what I do know is that he betrayed his adopted country's sense of decency – no patriot would mock his motherland that way and really he was a Latino American at heart kind of guy I 'guess'…

Scott! Tell me, do Americans hate the French? Is it Quebec the cause of it and its colonial affiliations from the past? I need to know from an American. Is such cultural political vengeance justified? I am somewhat guilty too with an YouTube video I made as a parody to someone else's video.
mark black wrote:…Tit-for-tat is essentially vengence written small - where one cooperates until the other defects, then defect in revenge, before returining to cooperation. It's an extremely sucessful strategy - related to evolutionary biology.
Sorry, but even a Tit-for-Tat computational analysis does seem erroneous as it does lead towards the ill-adjusted atheist mind-frame of Richard Dawkins, whom I make loads of jovial good spirited jokes in my latest small treatise of "What Creates Morals? pt.2". The ideal scenario would involve a process of evolution, not quite genetically but by inherited memes that could be self derived given our own uniqueness to have the capability to construct rational roadways towards original new abstract thought as nature itself necessitates of us in times of urgency. A survival inherent instinct as attributed to the innate nature, that ironically enough, may be present within every human's genetic code makeup (simple pseudo 'common' reasoning would indicate this as mayhap being a factual concept).

Preliminary Intermission
My Spontaneous Definition of Justice

"Justice is about having an objectified principle of incontestable virtue as encompassed by inherent sentient conformable passion guided by the principle of the 'Benevolence Oneness of the Good' with full respect to the authentic impartial inner nature of 'natural' motives and intuitive sympathetic obligations of consequentialism as constitutional to ultimate conscientiousness of what is obligatory for the establishment of self-sustainable moral eudaimonic values as imposed by deeds of sheer blissful rationality." – Percarus

Intermission End

So I guess that my derivation of Justice can be co-related with Teralek's (post #65) as he quoted from a website: "Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational". Hmmm, I guess I have something to dwell on for a while in inherent differences and similarities of both my derivation and Leon F Seltzer's (whom the latter has a Phd and I only a Masters). Maybe Occam's Razor is indeed a sign of greater intellect because after typing so much on my time off from work this last odd month I seem to have come close to abusing the English language to convoluted levels (PS: Personal Note in order to 'NB' for the far future through act of self control when attributing revenge to some).
Dreamshift wrote:…Better to substitute Vengeance with Justice. …
If it only were that easy at times, lest we take it at face value and assume Justice as an element pertaining to a world of dualities which is not quite the case. Once justice is delegate authority over the appeasement of human sentimentality and a comforter of emotions we may, by fundamental nature, be destroying a fragment of what constitutes the very inherent nature of humans to experience emotions – well, nothing that extreme but nevertheless we would be confining our intellectual capacity to consideration of no higher truths as encompassed by the realm of vengeance whose hierarchy, skipped a few steps above its branch, 'could' ultimately lead to an evolving branch where morality and ethics holds valid, and like a genealogy tree, a given branch prolific of leaves or fruits of abundance may not be reachable ought we have taken the easier road of postulating ahead given the mere sakes of sequential conventionality as opposed to foreboded predictive postulation given a manifestation of predictive reasoning through notions of envisaging possibilities instead of readily choosing one path of evolution in contrast to taking into account plausible 'possibilities' – as in a probabilities chaos-theorem-like scenario that can be put to good use as a pre-emptive measure by just thinking ahead!

For instance, take into account we take the branch of justice as we seek the rewards of which whose fruits of abundance may lay at the end of this particular chosen branch of the tree of morality, Justice that is… There are three types of moral Justice, and the last one on the list being an immoral one (I certainly hope so for as long I am alive anyway), these are:
  1. Distributive Justice – in case of substantive differences, people should be treated differently in proportion to the differences among them.
  2. Procedural Justice – Rules should be clearly stated & consistently and impartially enforced.
  3. Compensatory Justice – Individuals should be compensated for the cost of their injuries by the party responsible: this latter being my favourite if one is to account for degree of pain inflicted given consideration of an estimated postulate guess of the incumbents liability of importance to specific matters by considering one's inherent identity as a 'whole' for a moral compass-like referential basis node of reference.
  4. Retributive Justice – This works on the principle of punishment, and what constitutes fair proportional punishment is widely debated and it involves an immoral means to give satisfaction to the victims through vindictive aspects associative with evil itself as they in a way take pleasure in a slightly related sense to Hume's concept of 'tragic drama': pretty self explanatory, aka. this is the revenge/vengeance branch which really should not belong on this side of the analysis as it is just a different name for the same means for ends meet.
The deviating branch of revenge (aka. retributive justice) has already been highlighted in the near beginning of this philosophical treatise as being 'The Cycle of Indirect Vengeance', however simplified, but could be further expanded in significance by highlighting the differences between; retaliation (a form of defensive revenge), reprisal (when there are existential inherent differences in morality between parties as ascertained by culture, as an example), animus (action attributive to threat but not necessary action other than just fear imposed), counterplay (the establishment of an evil deed of retaliatory pre-emptive revenge given greater knowledge ahead of time), malevolence (a characteristic that when in pertinence to the vengeance branch can be equitable to the notion of benevolence as attributed to God but this to a theoretical hypothesis as an attributable element to an alleged anti-thesis of God, aka. the Anti-God, a purely mythical concept that nevertheless is understood by ultimate attributors of justice such as judges, alleged angels, Paladins, and is encapsulated in fairy tales of chivalric nature also for greater sentient wisdom as to the beneficence of greater capability to appreciate aspects of the 'good/God' through gratitude that things 'could' theoretically be worse), and the rest remaining few have already been covered in this thread as tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye, aspects of measure against irrational dogmas/doctrines misinterpreted by fundamentalists by attributing evil deeds as belonging to a distorted higher truth which in turn encompasses many more terms as these very elements belong on other branches altogether which could be neutral in nature, lawfully or chaotically inclined, bizarrely constructed so as to fit a given sentience's quasi-logic, elements attributive through narratives in addition of consideration of differing aspects of significance to attributes as confined by preferences in limits to; spacetime itself, synchronicity vs fluidity, algorithms, and various other concepts that may seem altogether alien to human sentiments or altogether very abstract in thought whose by very nature may only manifest themselves into practicality eons ahead in the evolutionary gradual change/improvement/refinement or distortedness of humanity's concept of reasoning as exemplified by higher moral truths we may come across assuming humans supersede the global dilemmas to come through overpopulation, a exponential growth in technology (ie: quantum computing ~ AI, & etc…) and the fact we survive without significant change to the very basis of rational morality given the impact global warming may have on a world wide scale as well as scarcity of resources and an overpopulated Earth if a two child 'contemporary but generalized' policy is not implemented sometime in an unforseen/unpredictable future outside of my domain of knowledge because I just choose not to think about it (but you can!).

Let's play a game… Confucius says: 攻乎異端,斯害也己。– The End... On a contrasting perspective I would like to highlight a snippet from username "literaturenerd's", as being one of divine wisdom as attributed from the bible on the aspect of morality as ascertained by the justifiability of revenge as akin to justice, this as follows:
…Given that some could qualify that their right for revenge is Biblically based, they could justifiably make the revenge a sole purpose in life.

This being said, on the flip side of this, one could also become obsessed by their revenge and fail to adhere to another quote from the Bible:

Thou shall not covet. (Exodus 20:17)

Loosely translated, one who covets (yearning to possess) revenge fails to adhere to the same standard which allows them the right of revenge (Biblically). Ref.2
Sunshine wrote:…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. …
Wow, totally impressive… 'Standing up for oneself', a noble and virtuous trait epitomic and symbolic of the very inherent nature of humanity as a species. Validated by both ancient Eastern and Western lore of the Ancients, and let us not forget the middle Orient in this big picture too whose causes, like the West's association with martyrdom as being the ultimate ideal for establishment of 'order' in the Utilitarian sense (and to a great degree Deontological & Virtue Ethics sense too) and the very divine right for personal liberty as warranted by both secular and religious ethical protocols unmentioned. The building of self-esteem is also pivotal as to the establishment of eudaimonia and hence attributive to LOVE, associated where wisdom ends meet; one can only hope to make the best out of a bad situation and magnify the blessing of the experience many times over the culprit through personal success that also changes the inherent evil nature of the perpetrator of injustice by utilizing one's natural God given wisdom to the extent as situational opportunities arise that once sighted must be seized for such is the way of disciplining of a plausible theoretical (to say the least) provincial higher life form (aka. God/Allah) so as to grant justice to those who are brave enough to cross and surpass newly presented ethical frontiers by sheer volition of free will so as to remain true to one's best traits associative with the 'good' as manifested.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." – Aristotle
Okisites wrote:…How OP or other similar people expect that there will certainly be a situation to successfully stop criminal to commit crime forcefully, and there cannot be such a situation where victim cannot do anything and is helpless?

What such people think about the inability of police and court to timely punish the criminals, or simply punish the criminal, and how they see what these impotent people should have to do if luckily they caught the criminal and proves them to be actual criminal. … So imo you have to develop the respectful ideology of respect-disrespect to make anybody understand about crime, criminal attitude and vengeance.
I do not know why but 'Judge Dredd' came to mind as a morally binding adhesive glue that mends together the fallacies presented by your point of view, of course, the imposition of such a law abiding task force is just so wrong in so many levels, and I find it disturbing that indeed you may be quite right, so therefore I should use Occam's cutthroat blade instead of razor for this scenario… Whatever that may be, so I will just type and see if nature grants me yet another miracle in definition at conclusion's end as is often the case.

Justice is not to be seen as a process of duality as can be seen it is part of a much broader picture!

It’s so simple really, the problem of violence: Hurt people hurt people. The motivation is revenge, not because human beings are fundamentally evil, but because vengeance is part of the innate survival mechanics of a complex social species. The desire for vengeance is as old – or older – than humankind and to understand this complex and ancient response, we need to push aside our socially developed notions of revenge and look for its roots. The desire for revenge is an evolved outgrowth of our human sense of unsatisfied reciprocity, what today we consider a desire for justice, but such notions of justice itself may be twisted for ends meet unless we are to attribute objectifiable utter truths to light that once established should be adhered as akin to a religion – so indeed a global collective pool of wisdom is necessary for such a feat. Criminals, as portrayed by 'Okisites' and others, are trying to exact revenge for past injuries and injustices that have not been rectified. And again quoting Sandra L. Bloom in this snippet of a treatise:
For the Greeks, revenge was a constant in the moral universe, but there were powerful social controls placed upon the exaction of revenge. Human beings were relatively helpless in relationship to the forces of the gods and nature. Blood cried out for blood and the gods were vengeful gods. Revenge was justice, but revenge had to honor certain social principles of constraint. Ref.3
Sandra also highlights a certain extent in which the ideology of respect-disrespect becomes an imperative tool to examine as a study looking at infidelity and revenge motives demonstrated that people feel less guilty about intentionally hurting others through actions motivated by what they consider to be justified revenge, than they feel when they hurt others unintentionally. When people become convinced that they have a right to seek revenge, the normal prosocial effects of guilt cease to operate, making it less likely that they will seek forgiveness, grant forgiveness, or reconcile. Ahem, a preoccupation with seeking vengeance is not a sign of good mental health, but to some entities it may manifest as a purpose to the very establishment of divine order for an Utilitarian ideal if granted the correct leeway in perspective, mayhap not an attribute that humans possess given our limited capacity for sheer intellect unless divinely bestowed as a manifestation of a paranormal gracious miracle of an extraordinary event – whatever that may be.

Quoting Sandra: "Acts of revenge can be viewed as much a failure of the social group as a failure of the individual. Revenge is 'wild justice,' justice gone wrong. Revenge takes over when laws – and the institutions that support those laws - fail. As was the case of my warranted lawsuit against the University of Western Australia of which I was not fully informed of my rights for appeal and instead was lied and misled about my available options by which time I found out the truth a certain legality in the code of laws here warranted the state Ombudsman to reject my pleas for a pro-bono lawyer on the grounds I was one year too late in applying for one (I couldn't exactly sue them whilst I still had a year to go in studies could I?).

Some place a moral equitability to Justice instead of revenge, as quoted:

That's what President George W. Bush told the nation shortly after 9/11. "Ours is a nation that does not seek revenge, but we do seek justice."

But the distinction between justice and vengeance is false. A call for justice is always a cry for revenge. By placing their faith in the law, those who justifiably wish to see wrongdoers punished are not disavowing vengeance. If anything, they are seeking to be avenged by the law. Ref.4
Atreyu, post #56 wrote:…One need not feel any hatred, anger, or "vengeance" when divorcing a wayward spouse, or not tipping a crappy waiter.
I completely agree with Atreyu, this as some actions are validated with equitable reason due to daily indoctrinated formalities of social etiquette.
Keiran wrote:…Though if somehow killed my whole family, I'd not have any doubt about the need to seek vengeance. I'd kill the killer myself. There's nothing wrong with immorality, after all.
You got me there Keiran. If someone murdered my mother or did seriously ghastly things to both family or friends alike (in contrast to the passiveness I would attribute to the culprit if the victim was myself) I very much would like to unethically deviate from the confinements of the bounded sense of being I am encapsulated by as imposed by ethics – this so as to mayhap even be granted the chance to brutally stab the culprit with a nice sharp stiletto knife for I hate evil at its core, especially when imposed on the kin-folk that makes my life worth living for. The only thing that is the problem is that I would lack the courage at this point in time and I would also have to justify the means as an ethical viable alternative within the local/pertinent judicial system whose locale I would have to abide to – as Jesus indirectly said, 'follow the laws of the land'. Give me courage Jesus! In fact, save all of us from such direful calamities from ever manifesting themselves on the first place!
Teralek wrote:…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. …
I agree with you fully… I was going to devote a non-fictional satirical poem about the hand of justice to your blog excerpt but I am tired and its late, so my apologies.
Okisites wrote:…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. …
It does not have to be perceived as vengeance but merely as a moral conduct to set an example that intimidates away criminal activity from manifesting into society through aspectual notions as derived from fear of the final effect as attributive to any potential causality of criminal immorality that may have first been born as a plausible eventuality considering the nature of certain individuals in society.
Whitedragon wrote:Well, let me just say this. I am not for mortal retribution, but I understand the danger of oppressing and dismissing anger for individuals as well as nations. …
As marginalised people, we only have to look at our own histories to see the truth in that. We are absent from the historical narrative to a very large extent; sometimes there are obscure glimmers of proof of our previous existence, but most often even those of us who achieved a place in the historical hall of fame have been bleached with the ideals of the dominant groups that did the writing. It is in the scope of micro-communities that the oppressed dwell for the sanctity of their own sanity and perhaps the detriment to those around them and that of his/her inner nature. Life at times does not seem fair to some and that is why we ought to indeed pray (for the disbelievers) that indeed God does exist, even if so as just a sign of desperation that something out there, a force, a field, a being, a manifestation of living energy does indeed exist and may be of capable sentience to understand our language as expressed in every manner and way of living. It is not a futile exercise to pray as an atheist for however improbable it may seem the odds that there may be such a deity/entity there nevertheless remains a chance, however trivial it may sound, and as akin to gambling this process only costs a few moments of reverence that in actual fact serves as a bonus process of mental conditioning to warrant one's sanity for the hardships of the current state of life or what may potentially lay ahead. Oppressing and dismissing anger is dangerous but one can free oneself from the chastises of anger by simply conversing with this seemingly imaginary being (atheist perspective) who in turn at least manifests itself as a REAL entity within your very own subconscious as a process of communication to one's own intrinsic listening mind to say the least that through a natural process of mental reasoning paves credence the notion that by praying you are in a way becoming more self aware of your own being, psychologically to say the least, as things said emanate from the heart whose inner nature is usually hidden from thine own self unless projected outwards in the form of communication by which your very own brain can then interpret, analyse, and come across a suitable elemental aspect of justice and code of action to partake in through reason by self volition. Believe! Image

Miscellaneous References Used but by All Means Not All the Read Ones of Mine:
  2. ... ve-reason/
  3. ... ock-Saints
  4. ... n-the-u-s/
  6. ... lif-402297
  7. ... 1g3qb.html
  8. ... say02.html
  11. ... =Australia
  12. ... index.html
  13. Various Wiki Sources Read
  14. ... oid=911453
  15. ... ion-making
  16. ... ustice.htm
  17. Confucius
  18. Lady Justice
  19. http://www.nonviolenceandsocialjustice. ... evenge/75/
  22. & some missed ones that I just read a long time ago and that attributed to my knowledge.
-- Updated August 19th, 2015, 11:19 pm to add the following --

Sorry, I only half proof read this, I was too blimin' tired. I learn't a bit from this thread.

User avatar
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 19th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Re: How do you feel about vengeance?

Post by SapphireSpire » November 19th, 2015, 3:29 pm

Vengeance is punishment without due process. I disagree that people who seek vengeance are inherently irrational and reckless. It depends on the individual; their intelligence, level of education, and sense of ethics. The lower the scores the greater the risk that individuals operating alone may target innocent people, punish people excessively, or cause collateral damage. On the other hand, while the justice system benefits from the separation of powers, I have the same concerns about police officers, judges, and prison staff.

Post Reply