Is violent revenge acceptable?

[Banzai_Joe]

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.

Yep....gotta agree with ya buddy.
May not make it right with some folks, but not sure i'd care if a loved one had been mercifully and violently taken from me forever.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Yep....gotta agree with ya buddy.
May not make it right with some folks, but not sure i'd care if a loved one had been mercifully and violently taken from me forever.

Ah but such a sentiment is a breeding ground of discontent Where does it end? By what slaughter? Has history and the complexities of the 19th and 20th centuries taught us nothing?

Jed Adams - It is a grim truth, but it was not the spiritual superiority of the East and the ethical demise of the West that became apparent in the events of the 1940s, but a rather sobering fact: the moral oneness of humanity - each is as bad as the other

If you bow to violent revenge, the only certainty is more bloodshed and a conformity to human indifference and perpetual suffering.

 

[EdGey]

The strange thing is that just by thinking about losing them in such a way, I can actually feel the innate boiling rage building deep in my chest, And it is only a hypothetical discussion.

I know that feeling. After the rage it just makes you want to go and hug them.

 

[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.

 

[Tibbz2]

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.

 

[placeholder]

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.

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.

 

[Castiel]

Ah but such a sentiment is a breeding ground of discontent Where does it end? By what slaughter? Has history and the complexities of the 19th and 20th centuries taught us nothing?

It ends when I find and kill those responsible, I am fully aware of all the reasons why I shouldn't do it, but I simply do not care. I would slaughter the whole world if I had to.

I know how morally and legally wrong it is, it just wouldn't matter.

 

[weescott]

If you ask any of my friends or people I work with they will say I am the most laid back easy going person you could possibly meet. But...there is 1 person on this planet that if I met again there is a realisitic chance I could rip them apart.

When it comes to hurting family. Nothing will stop even the most sane of person.

 

[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.

 

[Castiel]

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.

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.

 

[KaHn]

Totally depends on the situation.

KaHn

 

[Banzai_Joe]

Ah but such a sentiment is a breeding ground of discontent Where does it end? By what slaughter? Has history and the complexities of the 19th and 20th centuries taught us nothing?.

Probably not, but i'm not sure anyone truly knows how they'd act unless they were in the situation.

I'm certainly not a violent individual, but i think my perpensity for violence as a means of retribution would counter any logical or rational thoughts that would usually keep me on the straight and narrow.
I've spent most of my life studying martial arts and avoiding violence.

Violence is often metered out in the name of religion..........ironic that religion is also claimed by many to be their calming and guiding moral light in life.

 

[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.

 

[EdGey]

Regretibly, I don't currently have anyone in my life who means enough to me to have this affect.

I don't have a close gf/wife/children so it's hard to know how I might react. I'm quite confident though that if someone killed my child, that I would seek some very violent personal revenge.

 

[placeholder]

Regretibly, I don't currently have anyone in my life who means enough to me to have this affect.

I don't have a close gf/wife/children so it's hard to know how I might react. I'm quite confident though that if someone killed my child, that I would seek some very violent personal revenge.

I think the OPs question has been slightly lost.

Most would agree that it would occur and many including myself would probably be responsible. That doesnt make it accepable though.

It clearly isnt acceptable on any level.

 

[EdGey]

I think the OPs question has been slightly lost.

Most would agree that it would occur and many including myself would probably be responsible. That doesnt make it accepable though.

It clearly isnt acceptable on any level.

No it's not, but I think it becomes acceptable once something like that happens to you.

The very reason you exist has been taken away, so what else have you got to live for? I would imagine that someone in this situation no longer cares about their own self being, never mind whats morally correct.

Life simply would not be worth living anymore, and as a final act you vow to take revenge.

 

[Castiel]

I think the OPs question has been slightly lost.

Most would agree that it would occur and many including myself would probably be responsible. That doesnt make it accepable though.

It clearly isnt acceptable on any level.

No it's not acceptable, but then neither is the act that precipitates the act of revenge. As I've said, the moral acceptability of any such revenge would not be something that I would consider in such circumstances.

As I said, my objectivity and probably my humanity would die with my wife and son.

 

[placeholder]

No it's not, but I think it becomes acceptable once something like that happens to you.

The very reason you exist has been taken away, so what else have you got to live for? I would imagine that someone in this situation no longer cares about their own self being, never mind whats morally correct.

Life simply would not be worth living anymore, and as a final act you vow to take revenge.

No it's not acceptable, but then neither is the act that precipitates the act of revenge. As I've said, the moral acceptability of any such revenge would not be something that I would consider in such circumstances.

As I said, my objectivity and probably my humanity would die with my wife and son.

Again, both these statements are true.

They are not "right" though, whether i agree with them on not.

Hence a vengeful act should be punished in the same fashion as the original act itself.

I suspect, although i have no evidence to support it, the feeling of "justice" would be relatively short lived.

 

[Castiel]

Again, both these statements are true.

They are not "right" though, whether i agree with them on not.

Hence a vengeful act should be punished in the same fashion as the original act itself.

I suspect, although i have no evidence to support it, the feeling of "justice" would be relatively short lived.

Quite.

As for justice, for me it wouldn't be about justice, it would be purely about revenge. A selfish, hateful and implacable desire for revenge.

 

[placeholder]

Quite.

As for justice, for me it wouldn't be about justice, it would be purely about revenge. A selfish, hateful and implacable desire for revenge.

Which would work in the short-term. Beyond that? Im not so sure tbh.

Again, im not saying you are wrong, i respect your opinion, im just debating.