Is violent revenge acceptable?

[Ahleckz]

Calculated physical revenge, not "he hit me, so I'll hit him back", is it ever acceptable/justified in life?

I'm not entirely sure that I know where I believe myself. I think there's something quite disturbing about plotting physical harm (with a real view of carrying it out) against someone who has wronged you in some way. Perhaps I put too much faith in the justice system (though I would like to see a tougher penal regime) but I think as a civilised human society we shouldn't resort to revenge attacks.

I can see the emotional justification for revenge, it will often make you feel better to 'get back' at someone. However, this will often be shortlived and ultimately will only make things worse for yourself/the situation/the community and will likely turn the revenger into quite the bitter and resentful person.

There's obviously a lot of dimensions to this discussion, namely the question of violence ever been acceptable in the first place (I would say not), but I think revenge is something more than just violence (hence the difference between culpable homicide and murder).

Very poorly worded question, granted. But hopefully there is some discussion here!

 

[Ahleckz]

It really depends.

If someone raped/killed a member of my family, I'd hunt them down and gut them like a fish (or try to, anyway ).

If someone stole something from me, I probably wouldn't bother with the above.

But is the former acceptable, in whatever form you want? Be that morally, religiously, societally, legally (should it be legally acceptable?)...

I'm sure I'd go all Liam Neeson on anyone who killed my little brother, though, because I'm on the internet.

 

[Ahleckz]

Revenge is about personal retribution. It has nothing to do with justice.

Iif someone intentionally and with malice aforethought hurt my family, I'd kill them.
Would I feel remorse? No.
Would it be the right thing to do? No.
Would I be no better than them? Probably not.
Would I care? No.

Take away those I care about the most and I would hunt them down no matter how long or how far or how difficult it was, they would pay a price I set, not one that society deems acceptable. If that makes me a monster or a psychopath then so be it.

Justice is often about retribution/revenge. The whole point of seeing justice being done is to get a feeling of satisfaction that the person who did wrong is to suffer for that (if this actually happens is another point).

It's interesting that you state you'd probably not be better than them, rather than coming down one way or the other. I'd suggest killing someone who had hurt your family makes you worse than them.

 

[Ahleckz]

Once it becomes personal its impossible to be objective i think. Which is why i am so amazed when the families of murdered people can forgive the killer.

That sounds to me like a dissertation title... Mmmm...

But on a more serious note, that's always been something that's fascinated me. I can understand how someone can become 'meh' towards a killer. You don't want to hate that person, it's senseless and emotionally draining to live with that sense of blame for your life. It won't help the situation and it won't deliver anything else. It will just make you, unfortunately, a worse person. However to come full circle and forgive the killer (and then you have examples of an almost Stockholm style friendship some victims families have with the killer) is something I can't understand.

 

[Ahleckz]

It wouldn't matter whether it made me worse than them, although I would like to hear why you would think so. This kind of personal revenge isn't about what is right or seeking justice, it is about punishing and killing the SOB who took away my sole reason for living. Because if someone took my wife and son intentionally and with malice then regardless of the moral position of such an act i would replace my wife and son as my sole reason for living with the singleminded and implacable intention to hunt down and personally punish those responsible, no matter how long or how hard it was.

Any kind of humanity or morality I may currently possess would simply be removed, replaced with that implacable intent to make them pay, and pay in the worst imaginable way I could possibly countenance.

I understand that is wrong, both morally and legally, I understand that it will not bring closure, I understand that it will never bring them back, I understand that in doing so I would almost certainly pay the ultimate price myself or at least lose my own humanity.

The point to remember is, I wouldn't care. I would only care about retribution. My life would be entirely about enacting that retribution.

You initially stated if someone hurt a loved one then you'd kill them. It was the use of hurt that I initially picked up on. If someone had planned and executed an attack on a loved one of yours which left them with serious injuries (though non life threatening nor life changing) then I can't see any reason that someone would have to hunt down the culprit and kill them. To do so would clearly breach the 'eye for an eye' adage that many wish to live by.
However, I would extend that view to someone who had killed a loved one. Can I appreciate that people would want to go out and kill the person? Of course. Do I think that this is ever justifiable in a modern society? Never and I don't think people ought to do it nor consider it a viable course of action.

If killing someone and then for you to kill that person makes you the worse person, or are you equal 'worst'?

I think there is an argument for seeing you as the worse person, though it depends on the reason for the initial killing and the fact that I don't think an eye for an eye is a reasonable justification for violence.

 

[Ahleckz]

I think that was probably a good analysis without the human element.

In theory its hard to argue.

I think you are speaking from the point of view of the impartial observer. Thats quite correct.

The reality of speaking as the wronged person makes it much harder.

Thank-you. Yes, granted it's a lot easier as the impartial observer though I believe that I (and indeed most of society, though the reasons for that may differ) would act like that in a real life situation.

Well my principle is (for at school anyway) Never start anything physical. Never go for a first punch or anything, just leave them, then if they do go for you, you can act in self-defence to disable them or what ever.

However at school somehow it's always the ******** who starts it all who gets the sympathy, and the person defending themselves who gets done.

That's why I was discussing planned revenge rather than a fight. Fights are quite different to premeditated violent revenge. Though, your view is a very wise one to have. Fighting rarely, if ever, solves anything.

 

[Ahleckz]

I see, I was referring to them both being taken from me, a purely selfish thing I know.

For arguments sake, if my wife was murdered, but my son was not then my sons needs would supersede any desire for personal revenge.

This isn't a simple concept to give a black and white answer on, the rational person in me says much like you do, I understand all the arguments you put forth. However I know myself, I know my limitations, and I know how I feel right now just hypothesising about losing them in such a way.

If they were taken from me by someone or someone's with intent and malice I would not rest until I repaid that loss in full by whatever means I was able. If it makes me a worst human being than the perpetrators themselves, I wouldn't care, as irrational as my actions would be, I would do them anyway with no remorse or hesitation.

Any objectivity I have will die with my family in such circumstances I'm afraid.

I likewise understand your points and can see where you're coming from. However, and maybe this is because I don't have that bond that you do by having a kid and wife, I just can't accept that I'd act in the way that you would. I just find it so morally repugnant to consider the thought of taking someone else's life in such a preplanned manner.

Though, I am glad that you accept that it isn't morally right and nor do you attempt to justify it as being the right thing to do.

 

[Ahleckz]

Initially the answer is easy.

With the benefit of time?

Benefit of time doesn't matter if the period before acceptance is so hard that you are unable to get to the time where it is acceptable.

 

[Ahleckz]

"Time" is what gives you the ability to reach your theory through his practice.

I don't understand.