In this case, we now only have two injurious - and likely unethical - actions, and two wrongs, if we've indeed judged them as such, don't make a right.

That's the thing; I don't see anything being inherently wrong with killing someone who kills an innocent victim. What if killing the killer saves five more innocent lives? Is that not justified?

Do you know this person is guilty? What happens if you're wrong? Does he come back? Or is that that the accusers are never wrong, because in that scenario that's what it'd take.

How would we know that five more innocent lives were saved? Is this a "maybe" thing? Can I justify such an act on a maybe? What's more, assuming we could respond to the positive on these two questions; how might we go about compute what is proportional? Do we have a suffering meter on what might happen? In your example of the killer; might we then computer human life on a scale where the loss of 1 is ok to save 2 (or 1.3), 5 is worth sacrificing for 10? See what I mean?

I don't dismiss your point completely - I get it - and from a certain utilitarianistic point, I'm with you. But this goes down some spurious ethical ground, wouldn't you say?

Thanks

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.

in my opinion killing of any kind or description is wrong because it can only be a logical act as a matter of survival of the individual or another individual or the species.

I completely disagree with that assessment! What about killing in the name of self-defense or to save innocent lives?

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.

That's the thing; I don't see anything being inherently wrong with killing someone who kills an innocent victim. What if killing the killer saves five more innocent lives? Is that not justified?

it is your anger not justice that drives you to slaughter/execute another human being.

Gotcha - and I can empathize. But the other questions/concerns I posed still stand (at least for me).

Thanks

When a person, lets say a man, kills and violates a child I would feel that the only way to equate suffering of the child and his/her family with the killers is to not end his life instantly but to make the killer suffer for years and years and years and I would look into his eyes to see it and would I feel pity? I doubt it.

Rationally, killing the man for killing your child is morally wrong. You can attach all the horrendous names you want to the man and make the child as sweet and innocent as you would like, but there is nothing in the universe that says:

1) It is wrong for the man to kill your child (even if he is a child rapist murderer).
2) The child is worth more than the adult.

To say otherwise is attaching and enforcing an irrational value on the situation. And none of the above changes after you add the apathy of others.

What I take your argument to say:

A kills B. C kills A for killing B. And we say B is completely innocent of everything.

A kills B: B is an innocent victim
C kills A: A is a guilty victim

The difference of the (non)innocence of the victim is where, I take your argument to lay.

However, there is still the matter of the (non)innocence of the killer.

A kills B: A is guilty of killing B
C kills A: C is guilty of killing A

The lack of difference between the non-innocence of the killers was where my argument lay.

By your definition of revenge (equal return for an injustice done), the injustice in this instance was killing (forcibly taking the life of someone against their will) of an innocent B. For sake of argument, we will say B did not wish to die. But now we see that the C killing A may be a completely different crime(?). The crime(?) that C is committing is killing (forcibly taking the life of someone against their will) of a guilty victim A. For sake of argument, we will say A did not wish to die. So,

Let's grant to you that C killing A is an equal return for A's crime of killing innocent B.
What about C's crime(?) of killing guilty A?
Is there a just return awaiting C?
Or is C morally off the hook?

And it is here where now the answer to the question of whether revenge is morally justified is not the answer you seek, but whether corporal punishment is morally justified.

but there is nothing in the universe that says:
1) It is wrong for the man to kill your child (even if he is a child rapist murderer).

2) The child is worth more than the adult.

Or is C morally off the hook?

Yes, you, the child, his/her parents, human laws and the, perhaps, the Bible (depends on the passages you are looking at) are things in the universe that say that it is wrong to kill the child. But, what I meant was 'there is nothing in the universe that makes killing the child wrong in truth'.

I mean that you can say that it is wrong, but that does not make it true.

In fact, we are looking at a direct illustration of this. I had said that there is nothing wrong with it and you said that there is. Both cannot be true.

Originally Posted by Myself: 2) The child is worth more than the adult.

That is part of what I am asking Hue-man. This is better directed toward him (her?).