Philosophy Philosophical Question Number 9

[TheKansaiKid]

speaking from an entirely intellectual stance

revenge is wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right and a dozen other similar cliches apply here. However, on an emotional level sometimes revenge is so satisfying. If instant revenge is meted out like a verbal attack immediately rebuffed with a well placed sarcastic comment, it can make you feel better and put the incident behind you quickly. Where we have to be careful is that the desire for revenge can fester over time. Consuming our time, and generally putting us in a bad mental state.

I used to really get upset at idiot drivers,(there has to be a thread on that somewhere I'm sure) I would just get so angry and yell and honk. I had a girlfriend who had a wonderful peaceful zen way about her and she told me that I was letting someone make me feel badly for an hour while they forgot about me instantly. I have tried to take her advice to heart and find that if I just let irritating things pass my whole life is generally better. This goes for many aspects of life not just driving. (not gettting upset about online posts is the latest aspect of life I am working on)

 

[Index]

Intellectual stance, or (subjective) opinion?

revenge is wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right

Prove it.

I would just get so angry and yell and honk. I had a girlfriend who had a wonderful peaceful zen way about her and she told me that I was letting someone make me feel badly for an hour while they forgot about me instantly.

That's pragmatic, but does it work or everyone? Might be just as pragmatic to do something else too however, depending on your situation and point of view. What is wrong and what is right?

As an aside, I don't think the idea of revenge is really related to time; who said it means you must react immediately for it to be called that, or in an emotive way for that matter? Some would say 'revenge is a dish best served cold'. On the other hand Nitobe in his book Bushido suggests it should be done whilst one is still fuming, for once one calms down the desire for vengance usually dies also; he proposes revenge as a principle that is to be supported in order to uphold honour and status rather than to satisy one's self.

 

[IncipientClarity]

Hmm. I never believed in vengeance as it only propagates the problem further and the parties concerned often end up in a vicious cycle of revenging past grievances caused by vengeance. However, I do believe in retribution in that you reap what you sow and your actions will result in repercussions.

I don't know but I personally feel that right and wrong is purely subjective rather than objective. To someone who has suffered some form of injustice, revenge may seem proper and justified but to a person watching from the sidelines, the pros and cons of revenge may result in either view that revenge is right or wrong. In a sense, there is no hard and fast rule as to whether revenge is right or wrong because I believe that the truth is as we perceive it. If we adamantly refuse to believe that revenge is wrong, then it will never seem wrong to us. And vice versa.

 

[Void]

It is also said that revenge is for children and mentally retarded...

Don`t know. I guess, as a up-to-the-minute emotional impulsion it will satisfy you... for a while... but the one you loved is gone and act of vengeance just can`t fill the abyss within you... And mocking that person in a jail will be even more destroing...
You`ll just have to learn to live with it ( or better say without... ), starting from the very beginning

 

[Index]

It is also said that revenge is for children and mentally retarded...

Wow, I haven't heard that one before. Is it a Russian proverb?

 

[Duo]

It is also said that revenge is for children and mentally retarded...

Don`t know. I guess, as a up-to-the-minute emotional impulsion it will satisfy you... for a while... but the one you loved is gone and act of vengeance just can`t fill the abyss within you... And mocking that person in a jail will be even more destroing...
You`ll just have to learn to live with it ( or better say without... ), starting from the very beginning

You have a good point there, but that doesn't mean that those that are guilty of crimes and atrocities should be allowed to get away with it. Sometimes revenge is also justice depending on the circumstances and the actions of the people involved in a particular situation.

 

[lexico]

An eye for an eye is how a lot of Islamic law is based.

You're making me work too hard, Mycernius.
Now I have to fill in by asking myself, "Is the idea of equal retribution primitive and uncivilized ?" (Is that what you are saying ?) See I have to ask so many questions just to follow your line of reasoning. "And is it more so becuase the Islamic law uses that as a principle ?" I believe your terse argument is begging the last assumption which can be heavily coloured by the recent indicents of 9-11, the beheadings, and the suicide bombers. Can we set aside for this argument the so-easily prejudged Islam, please ? The extremists hardly represent all of Islam. Neither does my saying so make me an anti-Semite, or an anti-American for that matter.

It would depend on what had been carried out against you. For petty little things like getting water thrown at you, you would exact a revenge on the person who did it to you, I would. For more serious crimes such as murder I would leave it up to the courts.

What is really different between throwing a bucket of water on a person and killing a person except the degree of action, when both are based on neglect (absence of respect; disregard for the next person) ? The essential fact remains unchanged that the perpetrator didn't give a damned thought whatever happened to the victim. If a bucket of water can be thrown back, the murderous disregard for another person's life should be returned with all due respect.

I do not believe in state sponsored revenge in the form of the death sentance. As far as I am concerned humans are supposed to be an intelligent animal that should be able to rise about such things not get dragged into a similar blood lust. Because state justice is impersonal it is also impartial and not subjective and free of the emotional baggage that can cause rash actions.

Intelligent, yes, and animal, yes also. According to the social contract, the state cannot sponsor anything because it has only borrowed the rights of the individual collectively. Whenever the citizenry at large are dissatisfied with the state's behavior, they are fully justified in moving on to the alternative, either at the next election, or immediately by taking to arms in civil disobedience. Being impartial and non-subjective are indeed qualities to be admired; the problem I find with such an artificial construct as "abolishing capital punishment" is that while

1) the perpetrator had the option to kill
2) the state was incapable of preventing that particular act of killing

the victim is now without life, and without any chance of being recompensated. So the next of kin & the state step in to bring justice to the victim. Although the dead do not speak and cannot know whether he is given justice, it is still a major problem for those close to the victim. The moral problems involved are;

3) the victim who is now dead cannnot seek retribution as a living person.
4) the state protects the basic rights of the murderer who lives on fed & sheltered by state, while the victim has no recourse to justice for the simple reason that he is dead.
5) the victim's next of kin & friends are not allowed to seek retribution, nor will the state restore the dead's honor by equal retribution.

What's wrong with the picture ? The victim has become the ultimate loser, the killer the winner The state, negligent of it's duty to those who gave it power in the first place, has failed to excercise its leased power as expected. The state's treachrous nature/behavior is has now become two-fold.

6) As an accomplice before & during the fact, albeit non-premeditative
7) As an accomplice after the fact, albeit there is no common interest

If that's the only kind of justice the modern state has to offer, I'd say (imagining myself as either victim or next of kin) forget the state. Go the American way of bearing arms, and save myself the agony of chasing after the state for justice that will never come, by principle.

My verdict: kill the incompetent state in place of the killer.
Then I'll agree to abolishing capital punishment.

 

[ralian]

Revenge is wrong.
Some years ago, someone did terrible thing to me. He asked for money, and I didn't give it to him, so he tried to destroy me. He did terrible thing to me and to my family. It was his revenge. I was so angry and hurt, I wished him dead. Then I became ill. I had to have a surgery. I was saved from cancer.
I realised that my negative thoughts was actually destroying me.
So I prayed that I will be free from such negative thoughts.
Now I'm free from those netive thoughts. And free from him.
As long as we keep negative thoughts, we are controlled by them.
Revenge is not good.
I've heard someone said, "if you want to hurt someone, help the person. If you can hurt the person, instead, help the person"

Love & Peace

 

[Index]

I think there is a problem of definition going in this thread, in regard to the word 'revenge'. One one hand there is 'revenge' as an egoistical reaction to having one's feelings hurt, resulting in a desire to 'hurt' the original perpetrator in order to satisfiy one's own self in a psychological sense. I think that this process, as pointed out most recently by ralian and others earlier, is unhealthy from a psychological perspective because it's a reaction related to emotional immaturity and an inability to distance one's self from the actions and thought of others. It might indicate that the person seeking revenge has not been able to separate his/her own sense of self from that of other's, which means they are not yet an autonomous being who is able to create and control his own sphere of existence/world. No doubt other analyses are possible, but the point is that this kind of revenge is different to what others such as myself or Lexico are suggesting (if I understand him correctly); this is revenge as principle or right, where one exercises one's right to set one's own boundaries as to what is 'right' or 'wrong'. Following from this, incursions in to this zone of personal ethics result in action which can be described as revenge, or perhaps punishment (if one has a sense of community or social responsibility in mind like Doc), as a matter of principle . As Lexico pointed out, when there is dissatisfaction in regard to what one's representative governing body has to offer, this principle becomes more salient. In the end, we are born free, and the government is there to represent us, not tell us how to live and what ideas are acceptable.

In regard to psychological health, there is an interesting book entitled The Art of Lying written by a Japanese psychiatrist and businessman, Kazuo Sakai and Nakana Ide, which suggests from a particularly Japanese perspective that those who are not able to lie are also not able to tell the truth because they can not see the various versions of reality that exist and therefore do not know the 'entire' truth. A simple analogy might go along the lines of 'how can you understand "hot" if you have never experienced "cold"?'. Revenge therefore, might for some serve as a tool for psychological and philosophical liberation which allows one to see reality from another point of view-ie. freedom and perception.

NB: Whilst Sakai and Ide recommend small exercises in developing one's skill in lying as a vehicle for understanding, there is an emphasis of responsibility and empathy for those who serve in our own self exploration and develpment. The same would go for notions of revenge I'm sure.

 

[InnerVision]

"if you want to hurt someone, help the person. If you can hurt the person, instead, help the person"

Agreed !!!I do believe in Biggest revenge is to forgive also , but still i'm used to take revenge by giving the person the respect he/she doesn't deserve at all ( provided the person's conscience is alive ) as psychological revenge is more rewarding as compared to physical in this case ...

Yet in some cases (eg. Of DEAD CONSCIENCE) 'Physical Revenge' becomes the necessity of time ,like in cases when the other party is taking ur forgiveness as weakness.

In cases where i can't take any of the above routes i have to rely on another ... that is known as Pull-Siraat(the path which everyone has to take before he enters paradise or otherwise ...) The CONCEPT is that while I'll be on that path I will be questioned by those who were wrongly tortured by me in this world & being unable to take revenge from me back in world those guys will then be grabbin' my collar ... God will decide among us Similarly , I'll be taking revenge from those who are unreachable now provided I'm right. <<< 'guess administrative staff will have a hard time there >>> anyway ... as u can see how relieving this CONCEPT( or aspect) is which doesn't let me get frustrated ... >>> All I need is to be good. Thats it.

 

[lexico]

Biggest revenge is to forgive also , but still i'm used to take revenge by giving the person the respect he/she doesn't deserve at all ( provided the person's conscience is alive ) as psychological revenge is more rewarding as compared to physical in this case ...

If motive counts more than (or as much as) the action itself, I really don't think the supreme judge (or jury) will take that favorably, sad to say, although excercising retrainst should also count as a highly redeemable way of conduct.

Yet in some cases (eg. Of DEAD CONSCIENCE) 'Physical Revenge' becomes the necessity of time ,like in cases when the other party is taking ur forgiveness as weakness.

O, you've opened up a bagful of fruies, now, haven't you ? What to do when good intentions are manipulated towards further injuries ... there's no law to protect you from the 2ndary injury, is there ???

Similarly , I'll be taking revenge from those who are unreachable now provided I'm right. <<< 'guess administrative staff will have a hard time there >>> anyway ... as u can see how relieving this CONCEPT( or aspect) is which doesn't let me get frustrated ... [/i]>>> All I need is to be good. Thats it.

In the absence of a perfect (not even close to practically approximating the goal of) justice, given the ultimate fallibility of the justice system, I agree that it provides peace of mind and forsters restraint ... although some might object to the idea from ground up. Nice humor about your concern for the 'administrative staff.' I would say 'humor' is often the great panacea when all else fails. Let's try to be good, like the good doggies that are infinitely positive. (I hope that's not misunderstood as an insult. ?)

 

[InnerVision]

If motive counts more than (or as much as) the action itself, I really don't think the supreme judge (or jury) will take that favorably,

You must have heard of 'Mens-era'( edit : Mens-rea) & 'Actus-reus' . It is Usually the later which is answerable before law & before God .... ( as i lost the count the last time when i did it with Laetitia Casta .... *Geez* ) No doubt 'Mens-era' is bad but still we are not going to be asked about that ...

well actually I was just trying to give basis of 'biggest revenge is to forgive' >>> one ideally doesn't have to think in these lines ... ( everything happens all by itself ... ) 'think i made some sense.

O, you've opened up a bagful of fruies, now, haven't you ? What to do when good intentions are manipulated towards further injuries ... there's no law to protect you from the 2ndary injury, is there ???

Whats your plan then ... ?? :romance:
If you are trying to be Kind enough to forgive the person & he/she is considerin' you helpless ... what would you do ... ?? 'Guess replying the agression isn't that bad even if brings injuries to few as it definitely acts as a step to hinder 'bad guys' further advancements ... 'wonder why don't u agree ... :souka:

by administrative staff i meant , the people Governing something like medical superintendentof my hospital , Ministers , Presidents etc. whose actions are directly or indirectly transmitted to people under them <<< Just elaborated it>>> :bluush:

 

[lexico]

You must have heard of 'Mens-era' & 'Actus-reus' . It is Usually the later which is answerable before law & before God .... ( as i lost the count the last time when i did it with Laetitia Casta .... *Geez* ) No doubt 'Mens-era' is bad but still we are not going to be asked about that ...

well actually I was just trying to give basis of 'biggest revenge is to forgive' one ideally doesn't have to think in these lines ... ( everything happens all by itself ... ) 'think i made some sense.

You overestimate my learning. My education doesn't go that far; please tell.

Whats your plan then ... ?? :romance:
If you are trying to be Kind enough to forgive the person & he/she is considerin' you helpless ... what would you do ... ?? 'Guess replying the agression isn't that bad even if brings injuries to few as it definitely acts as a step to hinder 'bad guys' further advancements ... 'wonder why don't u agree ... :souka:

I have no idea; and I am not objecting to your idea. I merely agree that it is a difficult problem that you pose, and fully agree that the 'ways of reality' sometimes check and balance even when there is a mix of violation and retaliation, but not always. Many violated are either too weak to strike back, either physically or mentally pacifist. Sometimes rataliation will futher more violation in succession dragging in everone near into an ever scaling conflict as WW or other... But sometimes they do work; mostly between individual equals with clear understanding of what's been mishandled. About groups, I think the picture is muddy in a lot of cases. Still it works in certain cases; Yes !

by administrative staff i meant , the people Governing something like medical superintendent of my hospital , Ministers , Presidents etc. whose actions are directly or indirectly transmitted to people under them <<< Just elaborated it>>> :bluush:

Thanks, I'm impressed with your passion to explain and elaborate, and I think it shows genunine regard for others, that helps to understand each other. Are you a medical doctor ? I've seen judges and lawyers working so hard to bring angry litigants to a peaceful (minimum) compromise ... definitely a job I would NOT like to get into. :relief:

 

[InnerVision]

Most probably these are greek words , used in some legal stuff as in Forensic Medicine.

Mens Rea = bad Intentions =Guilty Mind
Actus Reus = bad actions

Mens rea alone is not answerable before law & before God ; if its not associated with action.

or Actus reus is not considered as 'bad' if its not manipulated by 'Mens rea'.

Now apply it above, it should make some sense.