Revenge: good or bad?

[PierreGringoire]

It would still be wrong to kill your fellow man in order to eat him even in desperation.
But you said some animals would kill their young others would not.
You are able to see an inconsistency here between two species of animals.
The alligator would kill his young, the wolf would not.
Are you saying the wolf becomes the standard for the human?
I would argue wolfish characheristics and human characheristics are too inconsistent to compare.

[Dark Muse]

Sense I do not see human life being worth more then animal life, I do not see it as wrong for one man to kill another.

As to your example, while I understand what you are saying, I have to point out, that in fact Alligators are known to be some of the best parents in the reptile world. Allagotors are very loving and protective mothers in fact.

I am not trying to point out any particular standanrd in animals for humans to follow.

[JohnAvg]

Aristotle gives a nice answer for that..
"We should erupt/rage at the right TIME,
against the right PERSON,
for the right REASON,
and with the right WAY..."

[muazjalil]

I will start with few quotes:

"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"
Having said that let me analyze the first statement by Absurda "Do you thing that revenge is a good thing, that people who do bad things should get what they deserve? "

Your question has two component "Moral Component" and "Social Component" (lack of better word). Whether its good or bad (moral), i will leave aside for the moment. But to the more important component of whether people who do bad things should get what they deserve, I wholeheartedly approve. And to be honest its not only bad people but all people "should" get what they deserve. Reward and punishment seems to be in our blood, how he administer them is a different issue.

Evolutionary biology, so far i know, teaches us that human beings are conditional cooperators and altruistic punisher and it has served us well. We will cooperate with other individuals but if only they reciprocate. If we do not have a mechanism to retaliate in face of deception then free rider problem becomes rampant. It is only when we cannot monitor or effectively retaliate that we have such problem. So from societal point of view "they should get what they deserve". So its a good thing to do, if by good we mean beneficial for the society at large.

Now the question is how do you measure "what they deserve". Till date the best mechanism seems to be our current legislative process, i mean its better than king's decree or some body of intellectuals laying those laws down. However there may be scope for improvement and i am sure as human being progress we will move in that direction.

Therefore Death Penalty is Justice & prevention where it still exists and Revenge where it has been abolished (i mean those people have abolished it precisely because they thought it was revenge and not justice :-P)

[armenian]

Sense I do not see human life being worth more then animal life, I do not see it as wrong for one man to kill another.

As to your example, while I understand what you are saying, I have to point out, that in fact Alligators are known to be some of the best parents in the reptile world. Allagotors are very loving and protective mothers in fact.

I am not trying to point out any particular standanrd in animals for humans to follow.

i respect rational life in general, so i dont see more value in human then in animal life, but i wont go as far as to say it is not wrong for one man to kill another
i dont think killing an animal is right, neither is it right to kill a man. i beleive, in general killing something with understanding, is wrong. but i wont let others exceptions to it make me ignore my core belief (i.e. to respect rational life(human + animal).

[neelambari]

We r human being .....the extra ordinary creation of god .killing our fello beings is not the answer for anythig...

[Dark Muse]

I do not see it that way. I do not find anything speical about human life compared to any other life, and I do not beleive we are the creation of God

[NikolaiI]

In truth there is no such thing as the general good as there is no "real" world.

Man's absurd ingenuousness to regard himself as the sense and measure of all things is the very insanity that takes utility to a whole new extragavance in transformation of what we call morality.

In reality what flies straight into the face of this is that there exists no absolute state of affairs- no "thing-in-itself."

Values are not real and they never shall be beyond the hysteric symptoms of the valuer.

They are but mere simplifications for the abstract mind.

A value may be real enough relatively to the observer by their own will but amongst a objective existence it shall always remain non-existent.


In pragmatism it is obvious that the only way to convince someone of moral propositions one must find common ground, a shared moral belief and thus building the coercive convincing bridge there but alas if we should find ourselves with a man who rejects morality outright that "refuses to see other peoples reasoning" out comes the stabbing spears.

So it appears that morality shows its true meaning as a deceptive form of convincing others.

Why do I have to justify my actions?

Actions are actions they are neither right or wrong.

Killing is killing; whether its done for duty, money, or for fun.

Purpose is not a requisite of nature as such a thing is purely reduced to imagination.

There is no "being" behind doing,working or becoming.

The "doer" is a mere appendage to the action as the action is everything.

There exists no "doing-doing" nor is there a thing-in-itself.

All phenomena extends from homogenuity with moral differentions being reduced to perspective.

What you say is true, but still empathy leads to understanding. Anyone who's been pricked with a pin, immediately knows they don't want others to feel the same thing.

As to the original question, my answer is yes but not that we should take revenge upon ourselves. Forgiveness is the correct answer; but people should get what they deserve and they do- this is the law of karma or cause and effect. If we hurt others continually we create an aura of negativity which is continually turning back on ourselves. As you sow, so shall you reap.

[skasian]

My opinion: Revenge is bad.
Revenge implies you are giving damage to an opposition.
The bottom line is damage given: causing pain and all other negative aspects that follows damage.
Causing such damage is equally just as bad as the opposition no matter how much injury you have been afflicted by them. Forgive and forget. Love your enemies and take pitty on them.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

Dear Members,
It is a difficult question and so the answers are varied.I want to point out the following.
1)Mankind evolves.....This evolution is not only with regard to physical traits but also with regard to mental traits.Man killed in ancient days but only for keeping away hunger.Then the killing came to be for protecting territory.But in the present world where Man is a global entity, narrow considerations are out.Hence mind should rule over better things.You did have one Florence Nightingale walking amidst misery.You did have one Mother Thresa trying to give shelter to the downtrodden and the sick.

2)Also one of the definite change that occurs has been in thoughts.So religion too changes, adopts, absorbs and grows.From worshipping nature as Gods you have evolved to woshipping precepts that are moral and applicable to all.

So my answer is killing is not correct.

[weltanschauung]

revenge = good
specially when it comes naturally and you didnt even have to put a lot of effort into it.

[Dark Muse]

Nah, it is less fullfilling when you do not have a personal hand in it

[NikolaiI]

Best thing is never to have to need revenge.

[Dark Muse]

Well since one cannot control the actions of others, revenge cannot be helped, as it is not within my nature to be a pacifist. I will strike those who strike at me.

[skasian]

Would you strike back even if murder plays a part? Exactly to what extent are you prepared to avenge yourself?
I am reminded of Hamlet, where practically most characters unnecessarily paid their lives for the sake of Hamlet's plot to avenge his father's death. Obviously, Shakespeare puts his vote that revenge is bad, but really, its just logical that revenge is bad. If you do avenge yourself, do you really think that the opposition will pull out and end your little war with a shake of hands? It aggravates the ugly state altogether and its highly likely that the opposition will strike back with a stronger force. Unless you quit, this would go on forever, causing so much more damage when you could minimise it by not avenging yourself from the start. Back to Shakespeare, if Hamlet just excused his mental illness of seeing his father’s ghost and never plot to avenge him, he would of saved the royal family altogether. Please dont forget that there is a high possibility that revenge does not solve a problem with an opposition. They inevitably come back stronger. And with a greater damage. Like I mentioned before, why not avoid this by forgiving and forgetting?