The Morality of Revenge

[hue-man]

When, if ever, is revenge morally justified? Please explain why or why not in your response?

[salima]

i dont believe revenge is ever morally justified under any circumstances. it serves no purpose other than to gratify personal feelings that are negative. it generates more violence thereby propagating what it might purport to prevent.

i believe it was suggested in judaic and islamic scriptures to be meted out in equal measure, an eye for an eye, as an alternative to the way revenge was being carried out historically. even then in the qur'an it points out that restraint would be better. when one family would exterminate another for the crime of an individual, the tribe of the murdered family would take revenge on an entire tribe, and there was no end to it, no hope of resolving the issue. it was cited as a means of introducing a system of ethics that would evolve over time , in my opinion.

[richrf]

Hi Hue-man

Heck, almost everyone knows has chanced revenge sometime in their life. . Sometimes lots of times in their life. It is an emotion that is part of us, and I don't try to suppress it or even hide it. Now, I don't go overboard, but I don't deny what is a natural aspect of human nature. I am aware and accept my dark side. My girlfriend is reading the Count of Monte Cristo right now. She use to be the champion of that revenge stuff. Very subtle mind you - and sometimes not to subtle.

This is the problem. Once you have your taste of revenge, what normally happens is that the other person seeks revenge. And it spirals - sometimes out of control. It is tough to stop the cycle once it starts. So, sooner or later, people learn (most of the time), that revenge ain't where you want to go. Too many headaches. Just walk away from it. But normally you only come to this after trying it out a bit.

Rich

[Khethil]

I heard once, a fantastic saying that was - at the time - attributed to native American culture. It said, "Before setting out to get revenge, before departing, dig two graves"

[deepthot]

Originally Posted by hue-man

When, if ever, is revenge morally justified? Please explain why or why not in your response?

Welcome back, hue-man!

Did you happen to read http://www.philosophyforum.com/philo...e-justice.html
where I defined the term "revenge" as "the transposed value of justice".
I explained that transposed value means confused - or incoherent - value. Revenge is worth only a tiny fraction of value. (This conclusion follows from the rational assignment of the basic dimensions of value to this category, to the concept 'justice'. Each dimension has its own measure.)

The kind of justice that is highly worthy - i.e., give us back a lot of value in our lives - is the kind that results in rehabilitation, reconciliation, and redemption. {We may speak of them as "the 3 Rs."}

At that site I defined "justice." Revenge is only one type of justice, a very chep, stupid, and narrow species of justice. Why would anyone who had any intelligence settle for that when s/he could have one of the "three Rs" instead?

[hue-man]

Let's say that someone rapes and murders little children. The rapist goes to jail and a fellow prisoner murders him for his crimes. There are no retaliation killings for the murder of this killer, and the families of the children are happy that the rapist is dead. What's morally wrong with this scenario?

[richrf]

Originally Posted by hue-man

Let's say that someone rapes and murders little children. The rapist goes to jail and a fellow prisoner murders him for his crimes. There are no retaliation killings for the murder of this killer, and the families of the children are happy that the rapist is dead. What's morally wrong with this scenario?

Very often it is discovered that the wrong man is convicted of crimes. In teh U.S. there is a bias against the poor and against minorities. In this case, an innocent many may have been brutally killed. Maybe time for someone else to take revenge for the revenge?

Rich

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by richrf

Very often it is discovered that the wrong man is convicted of crimes. In teh U.S. there is a bias against the poor and against minorities. In this case, an innocent many may have been brutally killed. Maybe time for someone else to take revenge for the revenge?

Rich

OK, let's say that there is evidence that leaves no shadow of a doubt that the man accused is the child rapist/murder. What's wrong with that scenario?

[richrf]

Originally Posted by hue-man

OK, let's say that there is evidence that leaves no shadow of a doubt that the man accused is the child rapist/murder. What's wrong with that scenario?

Most people on death row are convicted based upon the above scenario. The problem is that humans see what they want to see, and they can convince each other of that. There is simply no way to divorce actions from the subjective judgments that created these actions. There is always doubt. I don't know how many people have been legally murdered/executed based upon the judgment of people who were sure beyond a shadow of the doubt.

Rich

[captpicard12]

In my opinion it depends on the broader definition of morals. Are morals those key values that define what the human civilization considers good, something that must be strived for and cultivated? Or are morals those traits born within humans, which each of us has if they only choose to use them? Although I personally think that humankind is inherently good, I think a lust for revenge still exists inside of each of us, built in. And within my definition of morals as striving to take the inherent good in each of us and build it up to a set of personal goals, I think that giving into revenge is going a step back in your morality. I think it is immoral, but there is much basis for others to not agree with me.