revenge

i'm having somewhat of a moral dilemma. i have a sort of innate feeling that revenge is a mistake...but at the same time, i've seen a lot of a movies that glorify it, can think of some reasons why it's not that bad, and haven't really suffered that much as a result of exacting it in the past. i believe in a kind of karma--not really in the mystical sense--but just a kind of general universal law that seems to exist in most situations...but in those situations where it might miss out...is it okay to help it along?

i believe there are certain situations where the only karma would be internal.

in these cases you must decide whether the 'self' which has not been soiled by morality or hollywood movies will be able to live with actions motivated solely by the desire to inflict vengeance. perhaps acting with vengeful intent only increases the initial wrong, and makes it more permanent.

personally, i have always found vengeance most unfulfilling, because negativity cannot be filled in a satisfying manner with more negativity.

If you're plotting revenge, do it fast because the longer you leave it the worse you feel at the end seeing as you've gotten over your blind rage.

revenge is right.

You know my position on revenge. :evil:

Revenge is the right route it jsut has to be done quickly as even an iron will to do somethign can slowly disappear and all you feel is worse in the end

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
a kind of general universal law that seems to exist in most situations...but in those situations where it might miss out...is it okay to help it along?

---

Revenge isn't the same as justice, but I'm not sure which one you're actually talking about. You seem here to be referring here to a type of justice, an equalizing of consequences - what you give you get back. I don't think that that's the same as revenge. As everyone's pointed out so far, revenge is motivated by anger and often hatred - emotions like that only serve to escalate the situation, turning balanced justice into imbalanced vengeance. But as for helping justice along: I'm not sure that the victim can ever be the dispenser of justice, since justice requires an objectivity and ability to see all sides of the situation which is impossible for most people who have just had the very subjective experience of being wronged. People just get too caught up in themselves. In my experience at least, revenge only perpetuates a conflict - it never solves it. The person who takes revenge feels more guilty with time and the one upon whom the revenge was taken feels more angry. Justice on the other hand... well, justice usually only brings resolution after the emotions have cooled and some sense of perspective has returned.

So my two cents are: Wait until the anger has faded and reexamine the situation. You're much less likely to exact blind vengeance which you'll later regret, and you'll probably come much closer to balanced reaction. On a related note, have you ever read The Count of Monte Cristo?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus

Revenge isn't the same as justice, but I'm not sure which one you're actually talking about. *You seem here to be referring here to a type of justice, an equalizing of consequences - what you give you get back. *I don't think that that's the same as revenge. *As everyone's pointed out so far, revenge is motivated by anger and often hatred - emotions like that only serve to escalate the situation, turning balanced justice into imbalanced vengeance. *But as for helping justice along: *I'm not sure that the victim can ever be the dispenser of justice, since justice requires an objectivity and ability to see all sides of the situation which is impossible for most people who have just had the very subjective experience of being wronged. *People just get too caught up in themselves. *In my experience at least, revenge only perpetuates a conflict - it never solves it. *The person who takes revenge feels more guilty with time and the one upon whom the revenge was taken feels more angry. *Justice on the other hand... well, justice usually only brings resolution after the emotions have cooled and some sense of perspective has returned. *

So my two cents are: Wait until the anger has faded and reexamine the situation. *You're much less likely to exact blind vengeance which you'll later regret, and you'll probably come much closer to balanced reaction. *On a related note, have you ever read The Count of Monte Cristo?

---

well said. i came to the conclusion that the underlying motivation for revenge was an unhealthy amount of self-importance--a quality that leads to nothing but misery. i have not read the count, but i have (unfortunately) seen the movie.

If it goes away after you calm down, I doubt it was worth getting revenge over in the first place. Most of the time its really not worth it.

The only time it may be, is if the same guy keeps doing something to you over and over(could be over weeks, or years). Then you may want to get him back to get him to stop.

Thinking about and plotting revenge can be helpful in processing yucky stuff. But revenge designed solely to get someone backdoesn't often satisfy in the world outside your head.

Sometimes the best revenge is to be nice not mean, it confuses the enemy.

As a law and philosophy student, I formed some pretty strong views on this subject a while back, last year, when I took a "Philosophy of Law" class. Essentially, my view is as follows:

Revenge and Justice are for the most part, the same thing. Other than other, more "modern" additions to the idea of justice, such as the interests of protecting society, etc, Justice and Revenge both stem from the same core principle: retribution. It is only in the last half-milennia or so that "Justice" has taken on a substantially different meaning from "Revenge". And even now, I don't think the two are all that different.

The MAIN difference between Justice and Revenge are not the reasons, but the source. Revenge is carried out by the person who has been wronged. Justice is carried out by a "third party" who may or may not have some interest in the matter, but is usually a lot less personally involved and therefore more objective.

So, is Revenge morally justifiable? No less than Justice, if you put aside public policy motivations of the latter. In as far as the primary motivation for both is Retribution, they are essentially the same. I myself am a moral subjectivist, so, the whole "moral justifiability" isn't a major issue for me. What matters are the practical consequences.

Usually, Revenge ends up doing as much damage to the revenged as it does to the "revengee". Justice has the benefit of being dealt out by a more objective third party who has not been directly wronged. (I admit this distinction is at TIMES blurred, but it holds true in a good majority of instances).

The elusive ego that I always bring up hides itself and feeds itself in many ways.
The factual difference have seemed to be pointed out.
But I reiterate the power of the ego and the process in which in thinks and reacts without us knowing.
You begin by saying that you feel it is a mistake. You are right.
Deep down you are aware of these illusions that our senses create.
We do not need the excess baggage of revenge. Revenge does not end the cause but will likely show up again in what is called our pain body. Our egoic entity and its manifested world to get even.
Even with what?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
i have not read the count, but i have (unfortunately) seen the movie.

---

Yeah, the movie was terrible. The message seemed to be, "Seek revenge and ye shall reap your heart's every bitter desire," which is absolutely not the message of the book. It would appear that Hollywood can bastardize anything. Anyway, give the book a read if you get the chance. I think you’d like it.

i read the count some years back, and really enjoyed it...

as per usual, hollywood butchered a classic...

My friend said that he "couldn't put the spark notes down!" even the cheat guides to that book were interesting.

I agree with TBM when he said that revenge is no more justifiable than justice. If the state can take revenge on an individual, the individual should be able to take revenge on the state. That's a cycle that causes societal problems. in fact, revenge prolongs all problems. If we were all capable of truly turning the other cheek, only the wickedest would remain criminals.

Still, I think that revenge on a small scale is justifiable. If a person refuses to empathize, make him empathize. Just enough to bring you to the same level. And no, I don't mean an eye for an eye, I mean getting back enough to let the other person's conscience come to the surface, and then let it do the rest. Cruelty is never justified, for in the mind of the victim it puts empathy on the back burner and brings self-righteousness to the front.