Is Revenge Really All that Wrong?

[TexasBEAST]

Of course kneejerk reactionary-ism/vigilantiism is bad. But what about well-planned, proportional, narrowly-targeted vengeance?

Justice.

[Skeptical Greg]

Eye for an eye?


It seems logically right to me.. Morally it leaves me uneasy..

But, I would do it, if it was for me and mine...

[MRC_Hans]

Wrong? What do you mean by wrong? As you notice yourself, according to some sets of ethics, any revenge is wrong. According to other sets, certain kinds of revenge is OK. Even in the most "civilized" countries, the penal system has definite elements of revenge.

Perhaps it is more interesting to discuss if revenge is useful?

Hans

[Yahweh]

I really dont know what the tolerance level is before I can just stop turning the other cheek...

[Samus]

Originally posted by TexasBEAST
Of course kneejerk reactionary-ism/vigilantiism is bad. But what about well-planned, proportional, narrowly-targeted vengeance?

Justice. Are you planning a massive revenge attack on someone at some point in the near future?

Should I be worried? :)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Perhaps it is more interesting to discuss if revenge is useful?

Hans

I think it depends on what one considers a good result. If people routinely were allowed to take revenge on others provided it was justified, proportinal to the original offense and targetted only the original defender (i.e. no going after his kids) then I think that would serve as something of a detterent to some kinds of bad behavior. It wouldn't be 100% effective, there would always be those who would wrong others feeling that they would never be caught or just not caring if they did. Still I think it would make all but the most serious and violent criminal think twice about what he was doing.

In short, I think it would make crime less common but more bloody when it did happen. I am not sure if people in general (including myself) would want that trade-off.

[SteveW]

I've always considered capital punishment revenge and not punishment. Why is it punishment to kill someone? That's just simply society taking revenge.

[TexasBEAST]

Well, vengeance already occurs, peeps, whether we discuss it or not. I don't think the ramblings of a few dudes on the internet is gonna have much effect on that. So I'm not swayed by "slippery slope"-type arguments.

What I'm asking is, do you as an individual find it right within your own morality to have revenge in your bag o' tricks? Basically, I do. I think the government should be there to help you out, but I don't think it should ever be able to abdicate your responsibility and right to get even. In any pursuit. Through whatever proportional means at your disposal. (I'm not just talking about violence, here. "Revenge" generally.)

One aspect of the penal system is vengeance for the wronged. Why is it any more right for the state to imprison or execute a criminal than you, if you know they're guilty and you carefully plan your actions out in great detail?

I just think the cartoonish theme that revenge is wrong or heathenishly reprehensible is nuts. Controlled vengeance is righteous!

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by TexasBEAST
One aspect of the penal system is vengeance for the wronged. Why is it any more right for the state to imprison or execute a criminal than you, if you know they're guilty and you carefully plan your actions out in great detail?


I think you've put your finger on it right here. We can't count on you to carefully plan out your actions in great detail. Encouraging revenge encourages people to acts which might have unintended consequences, collateral damage as it were.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally said by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
The best way of avenging thyself is not to become like the wrongdoer.

This is a nice, inwardly satisfying way to think about it. A more pragmatic argument against revenge is that there may be great variability in the desire of an individual to get revenge, their ability to get it, how severe they will make it, and so on. This makes revenge unpredictable, and unpredictability is generally a bad thing. This is why we hand the whole affair over to the law and have Justice instead, which is nowhere near as unpredictable.

If you want to talk about vengeance for misdeeds which are not illegal - say, non-slanderous insult, or whatever - then I'm not sure I see the point. Sure, I can accuse the guy who called me "numbskull" of being a "lamebrain"... but what, in all honesty, do I gain by doing so?

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by SteveW
I've always considered capital punishment revenge and not punishment. Why is it punishment to kill someone? That's just simply society taking revenge.

I don't feel that revenge and justice are always on a divergent path. If a person takes a life for no acceptable reason; I feel that person has relinquished all rights, and his/her own life should be forfeit either by terminating his/her life or by making that person work for the rest of his/her life.

[Dancing David]

Revnge is like sucking up poison, if you do it don't hold on to it.

I feel that the best revenge is to take care of yourself.

Now calling the police is not really revenge but is often considered to be revenge.

[Luciana]

The current pop culture has made it a stock character - the person who dedicates his life to getting a revenge. Along the way, he becomes bitter, resentful and after the deal is done, loses his will to live.

Hence the idea that revenge will destroy a person's life. :rolleyes: It might, if it ever becomes a monomania. But does it have to be like this? It's just another decision in someone's life. Doesn't have to be the only focus.

The justice system isn't applicable to all cases. Also, Mad Linguist, I don't agree that the law will be fair. We know it's not like that, with appalingly inadequate sentences being issued every day. We don't live in an ideal world. A young man breaks into a home to steal a stereo. He is sent to jail and, because he's effeminate, he is raped in a regular basis. (it's just an example. If someone stole my stereo, I'd call the cops immediately).

Two examples. a) a woman carries the scars for having been abused by an uncle for the best part of her childhood. Being a child, she never summoned the courage to cry for help. As a teenager, she was ashamed of it. She can't trust men and doesn't have pleasure in sex, she's seeking therapy for that. Then, out of the blue, she sees the perfect opportunity to damage his reputation and career. It won't take more than a couple of phone calls. She feels that a man like him shouldn't deserve fame and success. It won't change the past, but she will know within herself that she finally reacted. Should she do it? My take? Hell, yes!

b) A woman is a compulsive homewrecker. She seduces married men to the point of destroying their marriages. Then she moves on. Some day she comes across a wife who won't let this unpunished. This wife might get divorced because, after all, her husband cheated on her, but that's beside the point. The important thing is that she will make this homewrecker know that this isn't acceptable. Lesson learned? She can try destroying other marriages, but she will at least hesitate.

Ooops, a third example! Bullies at school. We know how often they can get away with their deeds. I believe that some of those are beyond reach; they're bad apples and will remain so. But I believe that the vast majority will stop it if they realize that there's punishment ahead.

Some people have difficulty in realizing that after a wrongdoing, punishment should follow. They don't see this link. Maybe their parents were too lenient. Maybe they got away with it so far, so why not more? So I do believe that revenge can have an educational value. Also, in the first example, who's going to deny that it would feel mighty good?

Unfortunately, there are many people out there willing to take advantadge of those who, they know very well, will never react.

Revenge is not "eye for an eye". Another Bible BS. If someone abuses your child, what do you do? Among the various options, I'm sure there isn't "abuse his child too". :rolleyes: That's why, while I do advocate revenge, I'm against capital punishment. Killing another human being is the lowest you can get, and I want no part in a society that cold-hearted plans the execution of a person.

[Zep]

Can I point out that direct "eye-for-an-eye" community sponsored vengeance has been the norm for tens of thousands of years in many societies. The result has been that these societies remain constantly at war within and indeed between each other - each revenge killing triggers a revenge killing in return, and so it goes. This can be observed in action today as the situation still exists.

I understand that one of the great leaps forward with "civillised societies" was that the rule of law did not act like a petulant child but with the Wisdom of Solomon for the benefit of the many.

So we need to be quite distinct about what we mean by "vengeance," what we mean by "punishment," and how the state fits into this arrangement.

Luciana, you give examples of "vengeance". But are they actual punishment? People routinely overcome bankruptcy, jail-terms, sicknesses, marital infidelities, etc. So wouldn't these acts of vengeance be just momentary? How do you think your situations could be handled differently so that they are both satisfyingly vengeful and yet are long-term "punishment"?

Zep

[AtheistWorld.Com]

It is irrational to want revenge IMHO.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
It is irrational to want revenge IMHO.
I dont see the reasoning of your own humble opinion... care to explain...

[AtheistWorld.Com]

I dont see the reasoning of your own humble opinion... care to explain...


No as it is off topic and unlike other disrespectful people on here I do not want to trash a thread. So leave it at that.

Max

[DialecticMaterialist]

From another post in the politics forum:

Retribution Theory


Why do we want systematized vengeance? Just because we want to take revenge, doesn't mean that we should.


No, I think now we get to the meat of your problem; the dichotomy of values and wants.

In reality where can you find the "should" if not from wants? Ultimately how do you justify it?

The only way I can see is if you set one up arbitrarily (categorical imperative, greatest good) which itself is merely a want.

In effect you are for the most part presuming that vengeance is only an extrinsic good. I and many, many people however see it as intrinsic. If someone wrongs us, we wish to revenge.

I'm not sure of why this is. In fact most people are not. But then again most people do not know why they feel a certain way about a great many things. People in the Middle Ages did not know why they liked meats, why they thought murder is wrong, why they wished to keep on living. But that didn't stop them from pursuing their values, pursuing their wants. Wanting is in itself a justification, wanting is the end that a "should" merely proposes to help you attain. Wanting is an ultimate justification, though not a full explanation.

I should also note the case against the death penalty is also based ultimately on emotion. The emotional appeal that we not be "barbaric" (which is merely a label given to something seen as unpleasant/undesired) or that we make it so no innocent person get punished, no matter the circumstances (a bit more complex an argument then the former of course based on less value for punishing the guilty and far more for sparring the innocent). Though I don't see how the latter applies to some very clear cut cases.

I CAN go further though and explain why I believe people have come to want the death penalty (a more ultimate explanation), basically it has to do with evolution.

During evolution organisms try to exploit each other. Members of our species were no exception. Hence often times an animal had to resort to counter-aggressive strategies: fighting back. This made them less likely to be exploited. But with more complex animals its different, you can fail once and try again, especially with humans. This is where mere momentary counter-aggression is not enough. Merely stopping a guy from killing you during the act, is worthless if he simply gets to try again and again. This is where a more long-term retaliation, vengeance comes in. An organism is far less likely to attack an organism that will take vengeance, attack back, then it is that will passively either accept the assault, or defend itself till you stop.

Tell me what would you think of as more prudent to attack if you were a thief: someone who will stop you IF they catch you, or someone that will stop you and hurt you if they catch you or find out you stole?

Given a choice a prudent thief will always pick the former.

This applies to nature as well. Animals who merely defended were more likely to be exploited then animals that took vengeance.

I believe then that as animals became more intelligent, learned how to calculate odds and take advantage of others more easily, this sense of vengeance was more essential for societies where one person will quickly realize whether you will take vengeance or merely defend yourself at the moment. Hence vengeance evolved as a preventive measurement, as an extrinsic good.

But genes often times work indirectly, and extrinsic ends over times can only be consistently practiced if they are made into intrinsic values. Our enjoying foods is essential for our survival but how often would you eat if you did not enjoy the act itself? If it was neutral or considered a sort of labor? Less often then if you enjoyed the act. So the act of eating was made an intrinsic value, because it was so essential nature simply turned it on for good. Animal brains at times are also not developed enough to consider long-term goals and extrinsic values, so nature has to often time resort to emotion, making extrinsic values for the genotype intrinsic for the animal to get the animal to go for it at all.

And I believe in our complex, calculating societies vengeance was among the most important of values. If people willing to exploit others knew you were a push-over, they'd take you for all you were worth. And they would quickly find out if you were one via gossip. Hence like the thief scenerio, if you would merely defend, they would be more likely to attack you then if you didn't just stop at defense and took vengeance (especially if you were the type that took vengeance even if it hurt you as well).

Hence I believe this value, extrinsic to the genotype, by being so essential, became an instrinsic value for the phenotype, a basic emotion or desire. And there is no other basis of moral or behavioral justification then our basic emotions.

Now this theory isn't a science. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a scientific theory. It is mere conjecture, but I would say conjecture that makes sense, explains a lot about mine and apparently mankind's emotional mechanisms, and has *some* basis in scientific literature. Read Steven Pinker's the Blank Slate where he explained how our sense of retaliation evolved in order to help an organism avoid being exploited.

I'd also like to point out that the justification (in the ethical sense) for the death penalty is still raw emotion. Just as the argument against the death penalty comes down to raw emotion (or lack thereof). And my evolutionary conjecture was offered as mere explanation for why this is so. To make this point more explicit, I like playing games because its fun, not because it helped my ancestors survive. Knowing how playing games helped my ancestors survive would merely explain why I felt this way, if the game got boring though I'd stop playing evolutionary precedence or not.

And this is where the government comes in, as a force that allows us to attain our values in a more organized and efficient manner.

The government protects our most core extrinsic and instrinsic values: education, knowledge, progress, freedom, life, peace and prosperity.

And this goes the same for justice, vengeance. The government in demanding we cannot be allowed to pursue such a strong and universal value ourselves has to give us something in return if it is to retain legitimacy to deprive us of our personal vendettas. What the government gives in this respect is social justice, the fact that it will take vengeance for us, since it demands we do not do so for ourselves.

This has the advantages of keeping order, allowing the weaker party to attain justice, and enforcing justice more efficiently (by making sure less innocent people are harmed; which benefits both parties, etc.).

This is why for example we go after Holocaust criminals, even though it is unlikely to benefit our society in any other way, to bring back the victims, or even to prevent another genocide. Even IF they could prove that punishing such or any authors of genocide is unlikely to prevent genocide again, I and many others (I day say even those against the death penalty) would still probably want such people punished. Purely out of our sense of retribution.

This is thus why we want systematized vengeance, answered in the area of justification and (to a limited extent) in the sense of explanation.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com



No as it is off topic and unlike other disrespectful people on here I do not want to trash a thread. So leave it at that.

Max
I agree that it is not your duty to explain your opinions. But as far as offtopic, hardly. "Is revenge really all that wrong?" and "This is why I believe revenge is immoral" are pretty well complimenting.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by TexasBEAST
Of course kneejerk reactionary-ism/vigilantiism is bad. But what about well-planned, proportional, narrowly-targeted vengeance?

Justice.

Of course revenge is wrong!

When one engages in revenge, then one is giving permission to everyone else to revenge themselves on the one who started the vengeance. At that point, the odds are no longer one to one, but one against many.

That is why it is best to allow the judicial system to do the work for you. In that way, if the offending person wishes to continue the cycle, then they will have to contend with society as opposed to a single individual.

[Gregor]

Crossbow

Don't assume that revenge means only actually breaking the law.

Revenge can be simply refusing to invite someone to a party in response to some prior slight.

As with most philosophical questions, defining the terms and scope takes the first two chapters of a book.

I think we have to first define revenge. I think that we might want to eliminate killing or grievously injuring someone in revenge, destroying valuable property, and etc. This may be viably discussed elsewhere, but it gives rise to claims of vigilantism.

If we define it as taking some legal act to damage another in business, profession, or the like in retribution for prior conduct, we can move on to definition two - 'good.'

Do we mean good for the person - i.e. bringing closure, mental stability, etc. This is too individualized to really argue.

Do we mean good for society - i.e. turn the other cheeck vs. do unto others? This is more easily discussed.

The "love your enemies, don't seek revenge" position is espoused in some portions of the NT. It is espoused by other thinkers - although I'm not conversant enough in eastern philosophies to really discuss it. In contrast, the revenge card played well in the OT and in some western philosphy - ref. Machiavelli/Nietzche.

I won't concede that 'revenge' as I've defined it is might not have some good qualities for both individuals and society.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Zep

Luciana, you give examples of "vengeance". But are they actual punishment? People routinely overcome bankruptcy, jail-terms, sicknesses, marital infidelities, etc. So wouldn't these acts of vengeance be just momentary? How do you think your situations could be handled differently so that they are both satisfyingly vengeful and yet are long-term "punishment"?


First of all, who said they should be "long-term"? They must be correspondent to the damage they caused. What lies behind my logic is that once a person understands that his actions might bring some trouble ahead, s/he will think twice before doing it again. It should act as a deterrant.

Of course revenge is wrong! When one engages in revenge, then one is giving permission to everyone else to revenge themselves on the one who started the vengeance. At that point, the odds are no longer one to one, but one against many.

Let's look at the other side of the coin? What do you propose: that wrongdoer gets away with it?

Do you think that the judicial system is suitable for each and every case? I gave a few examples that, in my opinion, demonstrate that's not true.

As for perpetual vengeance against each other... it reaches a point where nothing is accomplished, except destruction on both sides. It must be avoided. But I dare say this is not the norm. In an individual against individual basis, people prove to be major cowards.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
The justice system isn't applicable to all cases. Also, Mad Linguist, I don't agree that the law will be fair. We know it's not like that, with appalingly inadequate sentences being issued every day.

Luciana, I wasn't claiming that the law is fair. I was claiming that the law is predictable. If it is unfair, then it is predictably unfair. Predictability helps stabilise society and benefits us all. The goal is for the law to perform Justice; clearly we aren't there yet, but where we are strikes me as a lot better than leaving matters to private vengeance.

In the three examples you give, it seems to me in each case the action taken against the wrongdoer (child abuser, homewrecker, bullies) is justifiable in terms of reducing the likelihood of future offence, thus helping other potential victims. I would think that this can be usefully distinguished from pure revenge, whose only purpose is to satisfy the original victim.

In other words I think it's a good idea to draw a line between "He must pay for what he did to me!" and "He must not be allowed to do that again!" Of course, many victims will have both these feelings, which is where things get fuzzy...

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by TexasBEAST
Of course kneejerk reactionary-ism/vigilantiism is bad. But what about well-planned, proportional, narrowly-targeted vengeance?

Justice.

2 quotes come to mind

When setting out upon the course of revenge dig 2 graves – Confucius

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind—Gandhi

[Frostbite]

Vengeance is a vicious circle. Let the police and justice system do their job.

[Ricomise]

I think that "revenge" (as defined in the OP anyway) is morally neutral. Given that it is proportianal and narrowly-targeted, I don't think I could claim it to be "morally wrong."

However, I would question the desirability of allowing individuals to determine what is proportional and narrowly-targeted.

Individuals are (perhaps rightly) concerned primarily with their own welfare. This being the case, the proportionality of any act of revenge is bound to vary widely from person to person based upon the perception of the wronged individual.

The purpose of a legal system is to attempt to replace the judgement of individuals with the judgement of society. The hope is that society, collectively, will be able to better determine what "justice" is proportional and narrowly-targeted.

As I generally approach morality from a "golden rule" standpoint, it seems to me that even small acts of revenge are, while not perhaps "immoral," undesirable. If I would wish to be forgiven for a mistake I had made that wronged someone, or not to be punished out of proportion of an intentional act that may have wronged someone, then I believe I should strive not to take revenge on others just because I think it appropriate.

I guess this boils down to giving others the "benefit of the doubt."

[Zep]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
First of all, who said they should be "long-term"? They must be correspondent to the damage they caused. What lies behind my logic is that once a person understands that his actions might bring some trouble ahead, s/he will think twice before doing it again. It should act as a deterrant. Aah! You have raised what I feel is the more important issue - deterrence! It would seem, then, that your intention is not so much to see acts of pure "getting back at someone," but to create a situation where the person intending to "misbehave" would think REALLY twice or more before engaging in the nasty behaviour in the first place.

I happen to agree with you, which is why I am opposed to the death penalty. The prospect of a short and usually painless demise would seem to be hardly any deterrent to murderers or rapists. In fact, many gun rampages end with the perp killing him/herself anyway - so death is hardly a deterrent.

Instead, I do feel there needs to be punishments that would be "worse than death" for such crimes - complete isolation from all society for life, for example, perhaps by transportation to a place where they could never be found and could never return to civilisation. Your example of gross child-abusers is such as these.

For the minor crimes, or indeed crimes of low stature but of high personal insult such as wanton adultery that you mention, I personally feel that public humiliation just might well be the way to go. Bring back the stocks in the town square, say I!

I have a personal favourite deterrent for drug dealers, by the way - a nice tattoo of the word "DEALER" on each cheek! (The face cheeks, not the butt cheeks)

For the bullies at school, or elsewhere for that matter, this is a different matter, I feel. Recent research has shown that bullying usually stems from a psychological problems in the home. And people who get bullied often become bullies themselves in some form. So perhaps "punishment" and "vengeance" is not necessarily appropriate deterrence because it simply perpetrates the problem rather than solving it.