The Morality of Revenge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

salima
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:20 pm
@hue-man,
to me, revenge and retaliation have no relation to justice, nor does punishment. i also find the concept of punishment for breaking the law immoral. again, this does nothing but satisfy ego concerns. i dont see justice as something we make or serve, it is something that happens whether we like it or not. we wont always be able to identify it, but it is there. i define justice as consequences of action. this is another issue entirely of course.

why would you want to see a person 'rot in prison' if they could be educated or rehabilitated? or even if not rehabilitated, put into community service? and all these ideas have nothing to do with justice-they are only questions of law and order and illustrate society's dilemma in dealing with its members who disrupt and impair the likelihood that the species will continue successfully.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:56 pm
@hue-man,
Quote:
to me, revenge and retaliation have no relation to justice, nor does punishment. i also find the concept of punishment for breaking the law immoral. again, this does nothing but satisfy ego concerns. i dont see justice as something we make or serve, it is something that happens whether we like it or not. we wont always be able to identify it, but it is there. i define justice as consequences of action. this is another issue entirely of course.

why would you want to see a person 'rot in prison' if they could be educated or rehabilitated? or even if not rehabilitated, put into community service? and all these ideas have nothing to do with justice-they are only questions of law and order and illustrate society's dilemma in dealing with its members who disrupt and impair the likelihood that the species will continue successfully.


Well said, and something I actually agree with you on. I would like to add that I watched a video showing a guy having his hand cut off to uphold sharia law after he was convicted of stealing.

The part that is so absurd about using this sort of punishment for stealing is that the person can NEVER rectify their actions EVER. Where ever they go, everyone will know they were convicted of stealing. It would be like wearing a sign that says, "I am a thief." for the rest of your life. This is constant punishment for the crime, or reoccurring sentencing in a sense because the reminder is always evident. Now imagine how a person is treated when they show up in shops with their missing hands and foot. Do you think they will ever get respect?

The other aspect to punishment is that the theory is to have it in place as a deterrent for crime. But this seldom ever works because typically the person willing to do the crime in the first place, doesn't care about the law because they are under the impression they will not get caught, so they don't care about the law in the first place. Just like all murderers believe they won't be discovered and that is why they go through with the act of killing.
 
Shadow Dragon
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 08:29 pm
@hue-man,
One thing to remember though is that not everyone can be rehabilitated or make amends for their crime. Particularly for the harsher crimes. How do you make amends for murder or rape? Plus there are those who simply don't want to make amends.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 07:39 am
@salima,
salima;84079 wrote:
so there are two points of contention:
first, what is natural to people. (and animals in general for the most part). and second, what is the ego.

i say murder and rape are not natural, but people have come to use the excuse that it is natural in order to justify it. animals do not kill for revenge, do they? they kill for food or territory, to mate, or to protect their young. this serves their self and their species. i would say animals have no ego, which is why they are incapable of being immoral. i have heard that animals actually rape, but only certain ones which i believe would have no alternatives, or some other reasonable cause to resort to that, some circumstances that are exceptional that would not apply to either other animals or humans.

i believe animals and human beings have a self-the ego is not the self, it is a tool like the intellect. the ego does not serve the self, the ego has become the master of the self, that is part of the malfunction of human beings.

i believe people are going against their true nature when they behave in a manner that is unethical. the reason they do that is because they are not aware of their true nature-they believe their ego is the self and try to please it at all costs.

murder and rape do not serve or exalt the self in any way at all.


The term natural is more ambiguous than many of us would like to realize. Essentially, everything is determined and governed by natural lawlike functions, including malevolence; in this sense, everything is natural. Some people confuse the term natural with ordinary, while others believe the term natural only refers to instinctive behavior, or survival instincts. This is why I don't like to use the term 'natural' in a discussion of ethics.

I don't like to speak of non-human animals as if they are horrible, lowly creatures, but you're putting them on a pedestal. Animals rape as a show of dominance and because they're horny. Rape in the wild is observed all of the time. Animals also frequently maim and kill for territory and minor disputes, not just for food. Trust me on this, I watch nature shows.

My point is that nature has nothing to do with right and wrong; and what is natural is not synonymous with what is right or what is wrong. Moral judgments transcend nature.

---------- Post added 08-19-2009 at 09:45 AM ----------

salima;84202 wrote:
i also find the concept of punishment for breaking the law immoral. again, this does nothing but satisfy ego concerns.


So you believe that it's immoral to throw someone in jail for violating the rights of others? Law is simply an extension of the reward and punishment system, a system that is enforced from childhood to adulthood in order to encourage good behavior.
 
salima
 
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 09:56 am
@hue-man,
I agree that the term natural is ambiguous and also that it has nothing to do with ethics.

in the case of animal behavior, I only recently heard about animals committing rape, and I would have to look into it to be sure what was going on. but I can hazard a guess that it is possible the observer is anthropomorphizing the situation. are there social groups of animals where one or two members consistently force females? or is it the behavior of all the males in some groups of certain species? there may be some conditions prevailing that have caused it to be arrived at as a solution through the process of natural selection. I have also heard of adult female members of species banding together to protect the younger ones from ambitious males since they are too young to survive it. is this compassion?

and the matter of territory is a major one to animals, though it may seem trivial to human beings. they would be only following what they must do in order to survive when they kill or maim (they would only have maimed by accident, the intention would be to dominate for the sake of territory by overpowering or killing I would think) human beings in a sense are still doing this by going to wars where land has no water or is unsuitable to sustain livestock or crops, etc. if there is no alternative it cant be immoral. but where there is technology to improve unusable territory, voluntary relocation or any other means of dealing with the problem, violence becomes illogical because it is self defeating.

I do not advocate allowing everyone to behave as they please-it is the issue of law and order, protecting the weak, that brings in the need for the justice system in government or ruling councils. the system of rewards and punishment is a failure in raising children and also when it is used as an artificial consequence in the attempt at correcting the behavior of adult criminals. if a society has reached a consensus of what it will tolerate and written laws to define the limits, then the members who break the laws must be given consequences in the hopes of their understanding why what they are doing is against the laws within their society. it is not enough to apply corporal punishment, to hope that shame or fear will prevent them from repeat offenses. the idea is to restore them to being a productive member of the society in which they live. they need to understand why it is not beneficial to commit the actions that have been illegalized in the sense of 'transcending nature' as you very aptly stated it. they can be given community service to perform, they can be introduced to yoga or other self improvement techniques, they can be put into group counseling. rehabilitation is the only sensible goal when someone breaks laws. if they have done so repeatedly and show no hope of change, they may be incarcerated for life solely as a means of freedom and protection for the rest of society.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 10:05 am
@salima,
salima;84334 wrote:
I agree that the term natural is ambiguous and also that it has nothing to do with ethics.

in the case of animal behavior, I only recently heard about animals committing rape, and I would have to look into it to be sure what was going on. but I can hazard a guess that it is possible the observer is anthropomorphizing the situation. are there social groups of animals where one or two members consistently force females? or is it the behavior of all the males in some groups of certain species? there may be some conditions prevailing that have caused it to be arrived at as a solution through the process of natural selection. I have also heard of adult female members of species banding together to protect the younger ones from ambitious males since they are too young to survive it. is this compassion?

and the matter of territory is a major one to animals, though it may seem trivial to human beings. they would be only following what they must do in order to survive when they kill or maim (they would only have maimed by accident, the intention would be to dominate for the sake of territory by overpowering or killing I would think) human beings in a sense are still doing this by going to wars where land has no water or is unsuitable to sustain livestock or crops, etc. if there is no alternative it cant be immoral. but where there is technology to improve unusable territory, voluntary relocation or any other means of dealing with the problem, violence becomes illogical because it is self defeating.


I see a pattern here. You only assume the best intentions or innocent intentions when judging the behavior of animals, but you assume the worst intentions in humans. When animals do something that we would usually perceive as bad or unappealing, it's because they had no other choice. If humans do something bad it's because we're just these violent, malevolent creatures that do bad things for no reason at all. There's one key detail that I believe you're overlooking here - humans are animals as well, subject to the same evolutionary psychology and deterministic 'laws' as other animals. To believe otherwise is to believe in some supernatural conception of human nature and behavior.

Like many other animals, territory is very important to humans. Humans rely on territory for natural resources, shelter, and protection. Psychopaths have a brain structure abnormality that predisposes them to violent and malevolent behavior. I can go on and on about that social and biological causes of human behavior. I'm not, however, absolving human beings of moral judgment.

Now I don't make moral judgments of non-human animal behavior, but I don't pretend that they're some innocent creatures that should be free from blame when they cause harm to someone or something. The definition of rape is forced sexual intercourse without consent. Animals have been documented violently assaulting and sexually penetrating the opposite sex. Sometimes an animal is approached and sexually penetrated while it appears to not want it and tries to escape. The matter of territory being an important to animals does not absolve them from blame. Animals also kill and maim over minor disputes and as a display of dominance. Some dogs (man's best friend) have such a violent temperament that they maul and kill little children. Sure some animals are capable of compassion, but many are also capable of violence and malevolence; to ignore one and recognize the other is just hypocritical.

---------- Post added 08-20-2009 at 12:10 PM ----------

salima;84334 wrote:
I do not advocate allowing everyone to behave as they please-it is the issue of law and order, protecting the weak, that brings in the need for the justice system in government or ruling councils. the system of rewards and punishment is a failure in raising children and also when it is used as an artificial consequence in the attempt at correcting the behavior of adult criminals. if a society has reached a consensus of what it will tolerate and written laws to define the limits, then the members who break the laws must be given consequences in the hopes of their understanding why what they are doing is against the laws within their society. it is not enough to apply corporal punishment, to hope that shame or fear will prevent them from repeat offenses. the idea is to restore them to being a productive member of the society in which they live. they need to understand why it is not beneficial to commit the actions that have been illegalized in the sense of 'transcending nature' as you very aptly stated it. they can be given community service to perform, they can be introduced to yoga or other self improvement techniques, they can be put into group counseling. rehabilitation is the only sensible goal when someone breaks laws. if they have done so repeatedly and show no hope of change, they may be incarcerated for life solely as a means of freedom and protection for the rest of society.


On the contrary, the reward and punishment system has proven useful for humans and non-human animals alike. It probably works better on humans because of our ability to reason, but it works on all animals to some degree. For example, if a cat put its hand in fire, it quickly learns that the fire is bad. Children have to have some set of rules and regulations to abide by or they will behave in any which way they want. They have to learn that there are consequences for bad behavior. The criminal justice system is just a more sophisticated manifestation of that. I do, however, agree that the criminal justice system needs to focus on psychological rehabilitation more than punishment.
 
salima
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 06:48 pm
@hue-man,
hue-
the difference in human beings and animals is that animals have no ego or power of reason. i am not suggesting there is a difference due to spirituality or anything other than physical brain makeup.

it is not to me an indication of malevolence when animals exhibit behavior like murder and rape. as i said i havent studied that, and i was guessing. i also guess that their behavior may in some cases be a result of malfunctioning of mental faculties. i am not suggesting animals can be psychotic-but they may have some gene or chemical imbalance that causes asocial behavior.

when i asked the question about animals being compassionate i was not clear enough. i didnt mean to imply an argument, i actually dont know if examples like the one i gave can be called compassion. i am suspecting it is part of their (and human beings have the same) instinct that causes them to do what is necessary in order to preserve the species.

animals when they behave destructively cannot be rehabilitated or reasoned with-they should be destroyed. i would say they are innocent creatures who cannot be held accountable, but if they become a threat to human beings we have no other logical alternative.

human beings on the other hand have very high levels of sophistication in their intellect and ego as well as more complicated emotional reactions compared to animals. human beings are capable of screwing up their own minds and not even know they have done it. there are mental disorders that come from physical origin i am sure, but many come as a result of a human being impairing their own thought processes in order to cope with something in their lives. this is learned behavior and can be unlearned.

animals can learn behavior such as do tricks-that is all that is accomplished in the rewards/punishment method. human beings need to understand why they get in trouble when they make certain decisions.
 
Mnemosyne phil
 
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 09:08 am
@hue-man,
Hue-man,

I attempted to understand by what you mean when you say the word 'revenge'. The posts I thought were key to this were as follows:

In post #12, "Revenge is simply a retaliation for a previous injustice."

In post #14, "I think that revenge is wrong most of the time, but I don't think that it is wrong all of the time."

In post #17, "I'm simply speaking of the role that self-interest plays in moral decision making."


However, I am still uncertain as to the definition of revenge you are working from. Whether I have chosen the wrong phrases to extrapolate your meaning or I have misunderstood completely, may I ask you to, please, provide a working definition of what you mean...?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 05:40 pm
@salima,
salima;84604 wrote:
the difference in human beings and animals is that animals have no ego or power of reason.


Non-human animals are not capable of the logical, analytic thought that we equate with human reasons, but they do have choices. The ability to reason has little to do with deciding between right and wrong. Emotion is more important than logic when it comes to morality; however, our emotional responses to our experiences are shaped and molded by our societies and cultures. Our behavior is just as free as the behavior of other animals, and it is shaped by the same natural lawlike regularities.

Please explain what you mean by ego, because I have a hard time believing that animals aren't naturally self-interested.

salima;84604 wrote:
it is not to me an indication of malevolence when animals exhibit behavior like murder and rape. as i said i havent studied that, and i was guessing. i also guess that their behavior may in some cases be a result of malfunctioning of mental faculties. i am not suggesting animals can be psychotic-but they may have some gene or chemical imbalance that causes asocial behavior.


If murder and rape is not an indication of malevolence then what is it? If the intent is to harm, even for reasons of self-interest, it is malevolence. Cruelty and violence committed by animals is not a result of some mental malfunction, it is caused by the evolutionary rule of survival of the fittest, and the same goes for humans, except in cases where there is a 'mental malfunction' like psychopathy.

salima;84604 wrote:
animals when they behave destructively cannot be rehabilitated or reasoned with-they should be destroyed. i would say they are innocent creatures who cannot be held accountable, but if they become a threat to human beings we have no other logical alternative.


What makes non-human animals more innocent than humans? The ability to reason is not a valid reason because it is subject to the same deterministic laws that all cognition and animal behavior is subject; and reason isn't the most important ability to have when it comes to moral decision making. A psychopath can be the most reasonable person on earth, capable of intelligent analytic skills, but it is his inability to feel another person's pain and his lack of inhibition is what makes him prone to immorality.

salima;84604 wrote:
human beings on the other hand have very high levels of sophistication in their intellect and ego as well as more complicated emotional reactions compared to animals. human beings are capable of screwing up their own minds and not even know they have done it. there are mental disorders that come from physical origin i am sure, but many come as a result of a human being impairing their own thought processes in order to cope with something in their lives. this is learned behavior and can be unlearned.


Even though animals are not as sophisticated and intelligent as humans, they can learn and unlearn certain behaviors. Your argument for the innocence of animal behavior seems to be rooted in the idea that it's just in their nature and they can't help it. Well I could argue the same for human beings.

All of this is rooted in the idea of a indeterminate human soul that is not subject to the same laws of nature that other animals are subject to. It's a subconscious attempt to hold on to the idea of a transcendent human nature.

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 07:41 PM ----------

Mnemosyne;84930 wrote:
Hue-man,

I attempted to understand by what you mean when you say the word 'revenge'. The posts I thought were key to this were as follows:

In post #12, "Revenge is simply a retaliation for a previous injustice."

In post #14, "I think that revenge is wrong most of the time, but I don't think that it is wrong all of the time."

In post #17, "I'm simply speaking of the role that self-interest plays in moral decision making."


However, I am still uncertain as to the definition of revenge you are working from. Whether I have chosen the wrong phrases to extrapolate your meaning or I have misunderstood completely, may I ask you to, please, provide a working definition of what you mean...?


By revenge I mean retaliation for a past injustice.
 
salima
 
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 05:58 pm
@hue-man,
dear hue-
if not for that last paragraph, from your post i would have deduced you were trying to understand something another person thought.

i know myself quite well in some areas, and i can assure you that i dont care whether or not a person is transcendent and if they are one day proved to be, i would say that animals and human beings share the same transcendent nature. i most definitely believe that humans and animals are subject to the same laws in nature whatever they are. i dont see human beings as having 'dominion' over the rest of the creatures on the earth. i feel there is as much soul in a rock as a human being and the only reason i would save the life of a human being over a cockroach is because i happen to be a human being myself, and that behavior is inbuilt into every species. that is self interest-ego is something else.

i also have some experience with subconscious attempts to cling to ideas...and your valiant attempts at protesting against things i am not even saying may be one on your part. perhaps it is you that wants desperately to believe there is a soul because you feel lost and devalued without one. methinks thou dost protest too mucheth...l

i do say this with all due respect and would never make such a personal remark except that you opened the door by trying to analyze my motives. and i am sorry if i hurt your feelings.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 06:08 pm
@salima,
salima;85037 wrote:
dear hue-
if not for that last paragraph, from your post i would have deduced you were trying to understand something another person thought.

i know myself quite well in some areas, and i can assure you that i dont care whether or not a person is transcendent and if they are one day proved to be, i would say that animals and human beings share the same transcendent nature. i most definitely believe that humans and animals are subject to the same laws in nature whatever they are. i dont see human beings as having 'dominion' over the rest of the creatures on the earth. i feel there is as much soul in a rock as a human being and the only reason i would save the life of a human being over a cockroach is because i happen to be a human being myself, and that behavior is inbuilt into every species. that is self interest-ego is something else.

i also have some experience with subconscious attempts to cling to ideas...and your valiant attempts at protesting against things i am not even saying may be one on your part. perhaps it is you that wants desperately to believe there is a soul because you feel lost and devalued without one. methinks thou dost protest too mucheth...l

i do say this with all due respect and would never make such a personal remark except that you opened the door by trying to analyze my motives. and i am sorry if i hurt your feelings.


You seem to have taken personal offense by my attempt to analyze your subconscious motive to withdraw from condemning animal behavior. If I have misunderstood you it is only because I find your conclusion on this matter to be nonsensical. If indeed you do recognize that human beings are animals, subject to the same deterministic laws as other animals, then how is it that you can condemn bad human behavior as being malicious, and yet absolve non-human animals of malice by considering them innocent when they do bad things? It's a contradiction, and that is my disagreement with you. I'm not asserting that you believe in a transcendent soul; I'm saying that your contradiction can only be salvaged by the belief in a transcendent soul.
 
salima
 
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 06:33 pm
@hue-man,

"If indeed you do recognize that human beings are animals, subject to the same deterministic laws as other animals, then how is it that you can condemn bad human behavior as being malicious, and yet absolve non-human animals of malice by considering them innocent when they do bad things? It's a contradiction, and that is my disagreement with you."


i am not clear on the meaning of 'deterministic laws'. this is a definition taken from an online dictionary: Determinism=1 a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b :
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 08:56 pm
@salima,
salima;85041 wrote:

"If indeed you do recognize that human beings are animals, subject to the same deterministic laws as other animals, then how is it that you can condemn bad human behavior as being malicious, and yet absolve non-human animals of malice by considering them innocent when they do bad things? It's a contradiction, and that is my disagreement with you."


i am not clear on the meaning of 'deterministic laws'. this is a definition taken from an online dictionary: Determinism=1 a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b :


Seeing that we seem to agree on determinism and human/animal behavior, let's move on and get back on topic. I do, however, suggest that you look into animal behavior a little bit more, especially in regards to emotions causing conflicts in animal behavior. I believe that your statements show how distorted our view of our own behavior and the behavior of non-human animals has become.

I do believe that revenge is not always the good thing to do, but sometimes I think it is. The example I gave of a man being tracked down and killed by the father of one of his victims, while illegal, doesn't seem wrong to me at all. When I say wrong, I mean from a moral point of view, not a logical point of view, as vigilantism can land you in jail.
 
Darkpoet
 
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 09:25 pm
@hue-man,
Revenge is justified, but only depending on the situation. e.g. if student A cheated on student B, then student B told on him(which I think is like revenge, on a small scale basis), then it is justified, because student A is punished for what he done wrong. But if student A punched student B on the face because he told on him, then it is morally wrong, because student B did what is basically right, and student A was just wrong...
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 12:12 am
@Darkpoet,
Darkpoet;85067 wrote:
Revenge is justified, but only depending on the situation. e.g. if student A cheated on student B, then student B told on him(which I think is like revenge, on a small scale basis), then it is justified, because student A is punished for what he done wrong. But if student A punched student B on the face because he told on him, then it is morally wrong, because student B did what is basically right, and student A was just wrong...


i have the same conclusions but in the first case for different reasons. when someone cheats in school, his punishment is that he hasnt learned anything. the reasons it is immoral are many; if he gets a diploma that way (in india they can be bought) he will be put in a job where he is unable to properly execute his duties, causing not only his own suffering but that of his co-workers and customers. it even takes away from the entire species in the sense that it is removing the value of an education which could have advanced the functioning and capability of society. it is up to society to decide how to deal with the situation, but i would say expulsion from school is sufficient.
to me this is not revenge, however, if that is what motivated the person to turn in his classmate it is ok-because he did an ethical thing that was beneficial to a lot of people anyway. his bad intention (revenge) would only distort his future decisions and cause him to become increasingly farther away from a sense of reason and true ethics, in my opinion. but it doesnt change the ethical value of his act, which is separate from his character.
great example, thanks!

and hue-man:
you are right, i definitely need to llook into studies on animal behavior. a lot of what i am thinking depends on my understanding of it which is apparently scanty.
 
Mnemosyne phil
 
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 11:23 am
@salima,
No no, Hue-man... what I am asking you for is a working definition of the term revenge. I understand that revenge is a retaliation but...

Does it mean merely an equal (or as equal as one can get) return for an injustice committed?

Does it mean an act or set of actions that go beyond an equal return?

What does the term mean to you as you are using it?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 11:48 am
@Mnemosyne phil,
Mnemosyne;85381 wrote:
No no, Hue-man... what I am asking you for is a working definition of the term revenge. I understand that revenge is a retaliation but...

Does it mean merely an equal (or as equal as one can get) return for an injustice committed?

Does it mean an act or set of actions that go beyond an equal return?

What does the term mean to you as you are using it?


An equal return for an injustice committed. For example, a man kills my child, and I retaliate by killing him.
 
Mnemosyne phil
 
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 05:06 am
@hue-man,
If, than, you mean by 'revenge', an equal return for an injustice committed, than I would say that it is always justified. By your definition of 'revenge' you mean 'justice'.

Though, the example you gave,

"...a man kills my child, and I retaliate by killing him"

... I would argue, is not an act of 'revenge' by your definition. As the retaliation you are imposing, does not appear, to me, to be equal to the crime.

The man kills your child. You kill the man. If it is just to kill the man for killing your child, than it is just to kill you for killing the man. And it goes on, ad absurdum, till everyone is dead.

If this is an equal return, than your example fits your definition. But, if it is not an equal return, than some revision of your definition, your example and/or what it is your are attempting to get at requires revision in order to gain then answer you seek.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 09:19 am
@Mnemosyne phil,
Mnemosyne;85505 wrote:
If, than, you mean by 'revenge', an equal return for an injustice committed, than I would say that it is always justified. By your definition of 'revenge' you mean 'justice'.

Though, the example you gave,

"...a man kills my child, and I retaliate by killing him"

... I would argue, is not an act of 'revenge' by your definition. As the retaliation you are imposing, does not appear, to me, to be equal to the crime.

The man kills your child. You kill the man. If it is just to kill the man for killing your child, than it is just to kill you for killing the man. And it goes on, ad absurdum, till everyone is dead.

If this is an equal return, than your example fits your definition. But, if it is not an equal return, than some revision of your definition, your example and/or what it is your are attempting to get at requires revision in order to gain then answer you seek.


I would argue that it's not just for me to be killed for killing the man. The only way I can see that as being just is if you believe killing the man for killing my child was morally wrong, which I would disagree with.

Also, let's say the man is a child rapist murderer, and nobody cares about the man to retaliate against me for his murder. That ends the whole never ending cycle of killing that you proposed.
 
TheSingingSword
 
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 11:07 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;83358 wrote:
When, if ever, is revenge morally justified? Please explain why or why not in your response?


Revenge is morally justified for the simple reason that it is a deterrent to crime in the first place.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/21/2014 at 04:05:30