Whether Revenge is Just
Sometimes it happen, yes I tell about that the feeling, when you want to avenge oneself for moral pain, for all the unfair situations that happened with you by reason of another person but is it necessary? Is one can consider that it's right action -
revenge? Is one cen consider that will you behave fair?
(Excuse me for my bad english I aren't
native speaker)
revenge? Is one cen consider that will you behave fair?
(Excuse me for my bad english I aren't
native speaker)
Comments (21)
Revenge or punishment are often motivations in our approach to criminal justice--even if we don't always admit as much explicitly--but I don't at all agree with that approach.
In my view, we're only justified in separating people from mainstream society when there's a belief that they'd continue to commit some violent crime, significant property crime or contractual fraud if they were allowed to integrate with mainstream society, and we're not justified in separating people via anything like the prison system.
The person in that situation needs to "work on themselves" basically. They need to learn how to deal with that pain/torment without doing things that are just as bad morally as what put them in torment/pain in the first place. There are other ways to deal with it than revenge.
Why does revenge have to be “even more” than justice? Isnt the difference between revenge and justice a matter of motivation? In fact, I would say that justice and revenge could both be served at the same time. A satisfaction that a person suffered what they inflicted upon you AND justice being served in a broader sense.
Revenge doesnt mean excessive punishment, I think you are adding that.
Of course that 'logic' doesn't come close to adding up, so-to-speak, but it's the logic behind revenge. You transgressed against me, and I get to get my own back, plus a penalty because you did it first. So, revenge tends to be more than an evening of the score; it's an exactment of retribution and a warning that you'll do even worse if it happens again.
Justice is revenge exacted by the state, ostensibly one one's behalf. It uses the pretext that it sequesters the offender until either he has served the penalty phase and/or he has been reformed or reoriented, or 'fixed' via psychological intervention, and can now be released where the hope is that the offender will no longer be a threat to people. This is what makes the death penalty unethical. It's the eye-for-an-eye punishment from which the offender can never hope to make good or demonstrate that he is even capable of reform and a productive life.
Well to be fair to the bible I think the quote (not that you were quoting) is rather more egailtarian as it were - "an eye for an eye" etc. In evolutionary terms revenge acts as a deterrent - particularly in small communities where reputation is going to be known. What counts in evolutionary terms is the reputation of the offended - "don't mess - it aint't worth it". But in modern society revenge is only an exercise of the emotion that was so useful in past times.Nowadays it can make you feel good for a while I guess, but is ultimately futile in most cases. Also revenge tramples on forgiveness and willingness to engage with the offending party - though that is not always a viable concept.
I wasn't using "or" to suggest a synonym. It was rather two items in a list. "Bring beer or wine to the party."
Revenge is never appropriate unless you are talking about evicting a person from your circle.
And if you think you can succeed in evicting them from your business then that is also appropriate.
But nothing more personal than that.
I believe such a definition would fit this discussion better.
From that basic assumption, we can further expound on the idea of criminal justice. The concept of criminal justice is based upon the idea that the state remains neutral upon the case given and is simply the enforcer of the law. If the offender breaks the law, the state must enact the punishment. If no law is broken, then the state must remain neutral and stoic.
In comparison to this, the victimized ( like in your example, the guy whose wife got raped ) would surely be biased against the offender. The problem lies in the idea that punishment must be enacted in a neutral perspective and not in some biased outlook.
Now, this may sound legalistic, but the principle remains unmoved. Morally righteous punishments must be enacted by a neutral party, and not from a bias, to ensure the protection of the offender from excessive action.
Why is it necessary to protect the offender?
The offender is human and has rights. These rights are unalienable and thus must be upheld regardless of situation. Simply put, you wouldn't want someone to murder your entire bloodline just because you murdered some guy from this one clan. One must not exaggerate the punishment. But that's not the focus of this discussion, so let me move forward to my main problem.
Onto moral pain, I would like to ask how you would define that. Moral pain is quite a vague term. Please supplement us with an example or maybe a definition so that we may discuss this further.
In conclusion, to be morally correct in this situation is to act from the perspective of a neutral person. Like, imagine the judge to a trial. You wouldn't want to overstep the boundaries of the punishment because the other is also human. But you also want the most for you to satiate your pain and all. Always take the middle ground.
Best Wishes,
NuncAmissa