Justice or revenge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 06:56 am
@Sevis,
Sevis;159248 wrote:
In response to the original post:

In my eyes, the man is seeking revenge, and that is the only thing he can possibly seek. When a person feels wronged he cannot possibly act in a way that would be just because he has emotional attachment to the situation which would make any decision he makes unjust. Even a perfectly calculated reaction would end up not fitting, as one cannot find all the consequences of it, and cannot know how the other would react.

Thus, any reaction, no matter intent or severity, is revenge. This does not make it inappropriate to take such action at certain times, I find it entirely normal for people to react to offences. However, if one wants justice, one must wait until all is said and done and then look back in hopes of finding it: and only then, when nothing more can change, can one decide if things were just or not.

Revenge is not justice, but it is driven by the need for justice, because no person has honor who has not justice, and the ancients, like many people still alive today, realized that justice and honor were essentials of life, that no person without honor should be tolerated, and that no person without a claim to justice had any defense against aggression... When a person takes what is yours, even to taking the lives of your family; that one is taking your honor with them, and to have honor you must have justice, and if not justice, then revenge...
 
Sevis
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 08:10 am
@Fido,
Fido;159276 wrote:
Revenge is not justice, but it is driven by the need for justice, because no person has honor who has not justice, and the ancients, like many people still alive today, realized that justice and honor were essentials of life, that no person without honor should be tolerated, and that no person without a claim to justice had any defense against aggression... When a person takes what is yours, even to taking the lives of your family; that one is taking your honor with them, and to have honor you must have justice, and if not justice, then revenge...


The bold part is interesting. We seem to have different definitions of justice, mine being nothing but an afterthought, never a goal: I feel that when one does something ``for justice'', one does it because one has been wronged, and thus out of revenge. Thus, justice can only ever truly be a result, never a goal, for humans are too flawed to worthily pursue it.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 12:02 pm
@awoelt,
GOOD JUSTICE IS LOVE

GOOD LOVE IS JUSTICE


REVENGE OF LOVE $:bigsmile:$
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 03:51 pm
@Sevis,
Sevis;159296 wrote:
The bold part is interesting. We seem to have different definitions of justice, mine being nothing but an afterthought, never a goal: I feel that when one does something ``for justice'', one does it because one has been wronged, and thus out of revenge. Thus, justice can only ever truly be a result, never a goal, for humans are too flawed to worthily pursue it.

All moral forms are subjective, and that is why in the ideal, two people in any dispute over justice work out for themselves what it is...and this is because, what it is for one, if it is just, is just for the other...In that sense justice is a form of relationship...

And justice is never more important to people than it is in an honor society... Now; for example, When the Trojan war was fought it was for honor... Helen did not have a face that launched a thousand ship, or a fine behind neither, and i can see that even at this distance...Those who pursued her had made a common oath, and it was for that honor that they went, and even for that reason that Achilles stayed when he justly felt dishonored...Honor was an economy just as money is today, and people were forever weighing intangibles, and no small numbers lost their life because they had their fingers on the scale...

It is wrong to think we can live without it, but it is accepted that in large societies and in the complexity of relationships that we may at anytime find ourselves short of justice, but we do not need it as primitives did, measured against an ideal...Instead, everyone needed enough...Even in the Illiad it is unlikely that what was portrayed was fact... Attila is Described, as an example, as having no expensive trapping on his horse, and nothing to mark him out as being special...Lawrence said as much of the Arab chiefs...

They took no more than was honorably theirs, and they erred on the side of modesty, giving spoils to their men, and credit to Allah....But vengeance only became necessary if other methods of finding justice failed... If a person killed one of yours, and escaped hot blooded justice, he might well survive with his life...The same was true of Germans, Native Americans, Anglo Saxon, and Celts... When two family groups or communities met to decide such issues, the peace of the two groups was on the line, and this was essential since feud violence invariably injured the innocent more than the quilty...Blood money was paid, and if a death for a death was required, then none but the killers own kin would crack his skull...And that avoided the need for further vengeance...This is why Electra told Orestes that if he did not Kill his mother that she would, to have peace and honor in the community...

It is something that cannot be understood and isolated outside of its milieu...Money changes everything... Before that, the need for justice and honor was balanced by the need for peace, and allies, and was moderated by the notion of fate, that no one could be struck down before his time, which led to mercy...
 
Sevis
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 01:46 am
@Fido,
So, you say justice is a relationship that can be broken, and honour is the desire to restore it. I disagree on the very core of that: I see neither the Ancient Greeks, nor any other society, as truly striving to react to merely balance things. To me, they all are merely cultured, vengeful men: they have good taste, they do not stoop too low, but the restore of things to justice would not please them. They do not wish to fix the matter and forget it: for books aren't written about fixing.

In short: the people then were just as forgiving after they 'restored the justice' as a person now who was compensated with money -- that is, not at all. They would not actively seek more `revenge', but merely due to it not being practical: and would they get another chance to punish the offenders for the same deed, they would take the chance. The often used finale with the offender being stripped of everything and then let free is just another example of this: an end as this, in those times, was far worse than death, and only through our modern eye do we mistake this ridicule for mercy.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 04:17 am
@awoelt,
awoelt;106505 wrote:
A man loses his wife to a thug who tried to steal her purse. he then devotes his wife to having this man found and executed. Does he do this for justice. Or maybe revenge. I mean no disrespect to families who have been through a situation like this. I know nothing of the subject. it is just a thought that has been bugging me.


:shocked:<-I SAW UR MOM NAKED.


I will not harm the thug` s family. Family is sacred. I will capture those that are responsible, keep them alive for as long as i can, and cut them up into pieces, cook their meat, and feed it to them. The problem with this plan is that i don ` t know how to keep them alive long enough to have them eat themselves. I imagine i would start feed them their fingers, eye balls, penis..... in that order. I will leave his family out of it. I am sorry, i am evil.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 04:35 am
@Sevis,
Sevis;159492 wrote:
So, you say justice is a relationship that can be broken, and honour is the desire to restore it. I disagree on the very core of that: I see neither the Ancient Greeks, nor any other society, as truly striving to react to merely balance things. To me, they all are merely cultured, vengeful men: they have good taste, they do not stoop too low, but the restore of things to justice would not please them. They do not wish to fix the matter and forget it: for books aren't written about fixing.

In short: the people then were just as forgiving after they 'restored the justice' as a person now who was compensated with money -- that is, not at all. They would not actively seek more `revenge', but merely due to it not being practical: and would they get another chance to punish the offenders for the same deed, they would take the chance. The often used finale with the offender being stripped of everything and then let free is just another example of this: an end as this, in those times, was far worse than death, and only through our modern eye do we mistake this ridicule for mercy.


Also Nordic Law was important. Heiligeneiland (DU) is famous for it. Like now The Hague is ...Laughing
 
Abeydube
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 10:19 am
@awoelt,
Justice is a very subjective term and if it wasnt for such a term we wouldnt have wars or such things.In any event revenge is a natural response to believing that you were wronged in some sort of way. If everyone got what they wanted the world would be much worse off!

Revenge on fuels hate...Which fuels more revenge and so on and so forth.Like stated earlier Justice must come with peace only then can hate be quelled.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 02/24/2020 at 02:18:10