The Morality of Revenge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

polpol
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:14 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;152587 wrote:
When you are a country, and someone launches an attack, you must protect your national prestige by exacting revenge, not because the damage is high, and you think it will happen again, but you need to show an attck doesn't go unpunished, such as 9/11, or like in Russia where the minor states will claim independance, you have to uphold the soveren national integrety.

What about resistance people in WW2? Would you as a french accept germans to invade your country? Or as a german officer, would you accept french resistance to kill your soldiers?


I am not a country, I am a woman. National prestige does not mean anything to me. Sovereign national integrity means nothing more to me than the territorial instinct of apes.
And sorry but I could never imagine myself as a German officer nor a soldier of any kind. Wether German, French or Chinese I would probably have gone underground engaging into resistance against war, trying to help women and children, the main victims of all wars. In my book, patriotism is a dirty word that should be banned. As a woman I do not identify with phalocratic ideologies and there is no way a bunch of cowards who have trouble dealing with their penis and their levels of testosterone will have me beleave I need their protection. But why do you ask hypothetical questions when we are in war presently. If you want to know how I feel about the Afghan war check out RAWA. These are the real heroes of our times.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:57 am
@polpol,
polpol;152803 wrote:
I am not a country, I am a woman. National prestige does not mean anything to me. Sovereign national integrity means nothing more to me than the territorial instinct of apes.
And sorry but I could never imagine myself as a German officer nor a soldier of any kind. Wether German, French or Chinese I would probably have gone underground engaging into resistance against war, trying to help women and children, the main victims of all wars. In my book, patriotism is a dirty word that should be banned. As a woman I do not identify with phalocratic ideologies and there is no way a bunch of cowards who have trouble dealing with their penis and their levels of testosterone will have me beleave I need their protection. But why do you ask hypothetical questions when we are in war presently. If you want to know how I feel about the Afghan war check out RAWA. These are the real heroes of our times.
You take things too litteraly, and are ruled by emotion, I hope you will become something importaint some day.
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:34 am
@hue-man,
Justice is balance and fair
Revenge is unbalance and unfair

Justice is balance and fair because : all is equal
Revenge is unbalance because : making things equal has a disadvantage
just like you sell your soul to a demon in order to get what you want to get.
(they kill your wife, but you kill the killers, the side effect on killing the killers is that police haunts you which make things unfair)

in case of war, justice is given by FORCE or withdrawal, if a country attacks you, you can get justice by FORCE or if they give up and brings you back justice, if they continue, then just continue seeking justice, even it cause great destruction, you just getting in what you seeks to them, you just making things fair.

if you give more on what they give to you we can call it revenge, since it make things unfair
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:51 am
@Wisdom Seeker,
Wisdom Seeker;152847 wrote:
Justice is balance and fair
Revenge is unbalance and unfair

Justice is balance and fair because : all is equal
Revenge is unbalance because : making things equal has a disadvantage
just like you sell your soul to a demon in order to get what you want to get.
(they kill your wife, but you kill the killers, the side effect on killing the killers is that police haunts you which make things unfair)
That's why judges always was fair in state of Mississippi? And always make a "just" ruling for the white accused supremesists?

What about Rodney King? That was fair too?

What you speak of is an unrealistic ideal scenario.

Wisdom Seeker;152847 wrote:
in case of war, justice is given by FORCE or withdrawal, if a country attacks you, you can get justice by FORCE or if they give up and brings you back justice, if they continue, then just continue seeking justice, even it cause great destruction, you just getting in what you seeks to them, you just making things fair.

if you give more on what they give to you we can call it revenge, since it make things unfair
Thought there was an international justice organ to judge. The germans would use the 88 AA gun as tankdestroyer in the African war, which the british would complain about, being unfair and what not, but they were overruled and the germans was free to use it as tankdestroyer.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 12:41 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;85866 wrote:
I'm presenting a scenario where the culprit has been positively identified. For example, a video is found where the man is committing the crime, or the avenger has witnessed the crime being committed first hand in the brightest of lights.


Why not turn that video over to the District Attorney? Woulldn't the legal system, and the justice system of the authorities handle the case adequately? Don't they want to stop a child-murderer?

{Re-read Dr. Karl Menninger's classic, The Crime of Punishment for some recommendations for revising the Justice System, two of which the U.S. Supreme Court just adopted, as seen in its most recent rulings.}

I note you keep adding conditions to make the scenario more and more pessimistic. Why is it so hard to accept that vengeance and vigilanteism are very, very low forms of justice unworthy of a society that aspires to be moral ?!!

The question for all of us basically is: do we want to be good? Is ethics a goal worth working for? Do you want to help people, folks, or just enjoy the feeling of vicarious power when you see someone punished or treated violently?

[The latter is what kept some people re-electing Dick Cheney for 2 four-year terms]


See the analysis on pages 8-13 of the paper, a link to which is available below. It says something unique, something new and different, about justice. If it's a good argument then it should help to solve the problem raised in the o.p. of this thread. It concludes that revenge is NOT philosophically-justified.
Check it out:
 
hsrhowar
 
Reply Wed 30 May, 2012 03:55 pm
@hue-man,
Though I agree that it is almost impossible to retain morality and take the higher ground all the time, I honestly think that the best revenge is to leave the culprit ultimately feeling worse about themselves for what they did.

I think that the worst feeling a human can have is regret. I've been betrayed, sucker-punched and the rest of it, but I feel worst about myself when I have done something that I regret.

I used to be the kind of person that would immediately retaliate when somebody did something to me, but I've learned over time that if I get hurt or somebody does wrong by me, that I can turn it into a quest and use that moment as motivation to become something better.

If I get hurt by somebody else, I pick myself up, work my a** off and come back a better person, having achieved something great. That is the perfect revenge. Surely.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/18/2014 at 01:43:12