Vengeance

I don't remember O'Donovan's arguments well enough to repeat them here. It seems reasonable to distinguish between defending oneself from personal harm and restoring a state of justice in the world, though. I think it was Nikolai who was talking about forgiveness in another thread. It's reasonable to forgive someone for slapping you on the cheek, but presumptuous to forgive someone for slapping other people on the cheek. We might "forgive" someone's financial debt when he owes us money, but it would be silly to forgive it if he owes someone else money.

Christians might be called upon to martyr themselves -- but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression. IF defending someone from unjust oppression is a moral imperative, then perhaps we should defend ourselves from unjust oppression as readily as we would defend others -- nonetheless the principle would involve a fight against injustice, not for self-preservation.

Whether justice is guaranteed in the long run seems irrelevant. The Christian shouldn't murder people, even though justice for the victim is guaranteed in the long run. Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.

p.s. Didn't Lokasenna start this thread? Isn't he on Pike Bishop's well publicized ignore list? Who is following whom? Also, I think Pike Bishop should be fired from his (imaginary) job as a college professor for promoting smoking via his avatar. We must protect our children!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I suppose it depends on the person whether leaving an unfaithful relationship is an act of vengeance or more an act of defense. Perhaps the unfaithfulness itself is an act of vengeance as when Walter White's wife, Skylar, had the affair with her boss in Breaking Bad. She wanted him to leave. And then she didn't want him to leave.

I can't see why you consider it an act of punishment to not invite your drunken friends to your party, but there are many mysteries I will never resolve.

No problem. If I get more information about the specific Norse tales, I'll respond so you can see them unless I'm on the ignore list as well by that time.
So is putting someone on an ignore list an act of vengeance or something else? (I just saw your post saying it was not an act of vengeance.)

---

As I noted above, it does depend on the person. Many people do break up with their partner partly or fully out of vengeance because they want retribution for the betrayal and emotional pain they suffered, and they also know their partner would not want them to break up with them. Some do simply break up with their partner because they can't trust him or her anymore.

As to parties, I wasn't talking about myself...although my wife and I--mostly my wife--do throw excellent dinner parties. In general, if someone knows the banned friend would particularly want to attend his or her parties, and banning that friend would upset them, then banning him or her to cause that upset--in retribution for the friend's sloppiness--would constitute vengeance. So, I've resolved that mystery for you. The mystery for me is how you didn't see that from the beginning.

And no, I have no intention of putting you on my ignore list. You and I may hardly see eye to eye and have significantly different views, but you're always polite, and I enjoy our exchanges. And as I said in my last post, my banning the 7 I have banned were not acts of vengeance. For peace of mind, I make it a practice of disengaging with the rude and/or the obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bounty

now you all know why, again, I was reluctant to join in...

love the topic, but wont be back.

---

Don't let the obvious troll bully you out of this conversation! I think you raise some interesting points, particularly that concerning the concept of redemption. Taking personal vengeance may very well be just, but once taken I would imagine it can harder to move to a position of forgiveness: instead of letting the state or God deal with your enemy, which will inevitably put some emotional distance between you, taking vengeance will also bring your aggravation more clearly to the front of your own mind.

In terms of the house-invasion idea, I'm lucky to have never been burgled - although my family's business has broken into a number of times over the years. I can imagine that it feels like a gross violation of one's personal sapce - so much so, that one might think the punishment the law hands out is not sufficient to the emotional trauma done to you. As I say, I've never been in that position, and have no idea of how I would act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

How was vengeance used in these Norse tales? I am not familiar with them.

---

I'll happily field that one!

One of the main genres of saga literature, the Icelandic Family Sagas (Íslendingasögur) are overwhelmingly concerned with feuds between various Icelandic families - indeed, one can even think of it as a feud-based culture. There's nothing like a long-held and bloody-minded grudge to keep you warm through the long, cold winter nights.

One of the fascinating things about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262) is that it had a very elaborate legal system, but no government or enforcing authority: no kings, no soldiers, no police. This meant that if someone wronged you, you could prosecute them at court; if the court found in your favour, however, it was your responsibility to enact their decision. So if for example someone gave you a mortal insult and this was proven, the court would decree that you could kill that person without yourself being able to be prosecuted for murder.

Of course, in many sagas the characters end up acting outside the bounds of the court, taking unlegislated vengeance against each other: by the end of many of the sagas, there is usually a fairly high body count, not to mention the fact that the original cause of the feud has probably long since been forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I don't remember O'Donovan's arguments well enough to repeat them here. It seems reasonable to distinguish between defending oneself from personal harm and restoring a state of justice in the world, though. I think it was Nikolai who was talking about forgiveness in another thread. It's reasonable to forgive someone for slapping you on the cheek, but presumptuous to forgive someone for slapping other people on the cheek. We might "forgive" someone's financial debt when he owes us money, but it would be silly to forgive it if he owes someone else money.

Christians might be called upon to martyr themselves -- but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression. IF defending someone from unjust oppression is a moral imperative, then perhaps we should defend ourselves from unjust oppression as readily as we would defend others -- nonetheless the principle would involve a fight against injustice, not for self-preservation.

Whether justice is guaranteed in the long run seems irrelevant. The Christian shouldn't murder people, even though justice for the victim is guaranteed in the long run. Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.

p.s. Didn't Lokasenna start this thread? Isn't he on Pike Bishop's well publicized ignore list? Who is following whom? Also, I think Pike Bishop should be fired from his (imaginary) job as a college professor for promoting smoking via his avatar. We must protect our children!

---

But isn't allowing the state or one's god to deal with someone who has offended you much the same as forgiving people for doing something to someone else? It's still an act of deferring authority in the long run.

Religious sentiment really does complicate the issue of personal revenge, as you so rightly imply. Do religious and non-religious people operate on radically different concepts of personal morality, I wonder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

For peace of mind, I make it a practice of disengaging with the rude and/or the obtuse.

---

If we all practised this, poor ol' Pike would have few people to talk to.

is vengeance and revenge the same?
this is opportunity to find out.
i am also looking for the name from vengeance
a vengeor??
it is interesting how vengeor would rhyme with adventure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Vengeance takes too much time and energy. One may need to defend oneself or others. That is a separate question, but going out of one's way to punish someone else for some past offense does not seem worth the effort.

I saw the recent Furious 7 movie. The bad guy was inspired by vengeance. He got his butt kicked by those defending themselves.

---

i feel usually vengeance is out of spite then anything else.
it happens even one has not done something against the vengeor
it could be the circumstances are the forces that determine who takes vebegance
for example
consider robin hood
''he stole form the rich and gave to the poor''
that is an act of vengeance inflicted upon the wealthy it sounds almost biblical,
where does one get off blaming someone born into money against someone who has not?
robin hood is at fault because because he stole
he is a thief
and vengeance usually takes even when unprovoked it.
it occurs out of spite if anything else

that is why i consider vengeance the lowest of the low.
worst then a dough that does not rise but throw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

One of the main genres of saga literature, the Icelandic Family Sagas (Íslendingasögur) are overwhelmingly concerned with feuds between various Icelandic families - indeed, one can even think of it as a feud-based culture. There's nothing like a long-held and bloody-minded grudge to keep you warm through the long, cold winter nights.

One of the fascinating things about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262) is that it had a very elaborate legal system, but no government or enforcing authority: no kings, no soldiers, no police. This meant that if someone wronged you, you could prosecute them at court; if the court found in your favour, however, it was your responsibility to enact their decision. So if for example someone gave you a mortal insult and this was proven, the court would decree that you could kill that person without yourself being able to be prosecuted for murder.

Of course, in many sagas the characters end up acting outside the bounds of the court, taking unlegislated vengeance against each other: by the end of many of the sagas, there is usually a fairly high body count, not to mention the fact that the original cause of the feud has probably long since been forgotten.

---

The intro to a collection of Icelandic sagas I have quotes someone as saying that sagas' plots can all be summed up in four words: Farmers come to blows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

If we all practised this, poor ol' Pike would have few people to talk to.

---

Ironically, what got me ignored was a single post trying to help with his "peace of mind" after he took someone else's post as harsher than it was intended. That somehow became defending rudeness (double ironic considering how often he scolds others on about reading comprehension) and that was it.

So bounty, don't give bullies power by capitulating. Especially when they're enforcing arbitrary rules generated and locked away in their own heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I don't remember O'Donovan's arguments well enough to repeat them here. It seems reasonable to distinguish between defending oneself from personal harm and restoring a state of justice in the world, though. I think it was Nikolai who was talking about forgiveness in another thread. It's reasonable to forgive someone for slapping you on the cheek, but presumptuous to forgive someone for slapping other people on the cheek. We might "forgive" someone's financial debt when he owes us money, but it would be silly to forgive it if he owes someone else money.

Christians might be called upon to martyr themselves -- but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression. IF defending someone from unjust oppression is a moral imperative, then perhaps we should defend ourselves from unjust oppression as readily as we would defend others -- nonetheless the principle would involve a fight against injustice, not for self-preservation.

Whether justice is guaranteed in the long run seems irrelevant. The Christian shouldn't murder people, even though justice for the victim is guaranteed in the long run. Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.

---

We probably need to make clear what "vengeance", "justice", "self-defense" and "defense" are. It seems that they could be all the same thing, but I don't think they are.

When I mention defense it is mainly defending a group of people and hopefully oneself as well so the defense of those others in the group can continue, like how the good guys behaved in "Furious 7". I think there is a chemical basis for this (see Young and Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us") that encourages us through chemical rewards and punishments to start and protect pair-bonding societies.

Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

i feel usually vengeance is out of spite then anything else.
it happens even one has not done something against the vengeor
it could be the circumstances are the forces that determine who takes vebegance
for example
consider robin hood
''he stole form the rich and gave to the poor''
that is an act of vengeance inflicted upon the wealthy it sounds almost biblical,
where does one get off blaming someone born into money against someone who has not?
robin hood is at fault because because he stole
he is a thief
and vengeance usually takes even when unprovoked it.
it occurs out of spite if anything else

that is why i consider vengeance the lowest of the low.
worst then a dough that does not rise but throw

---

I have doubts about Robin Hood as well. The vengers or avengers may be deluded as you mentioned. I suspect all avengers believe they are acting out of righteousness and upholding justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

One of the main genres of saga literature, the Icelandic Family Sagas (Íslendingasögur) are overwhelmingly concerned with feuds between various Icelandic families - indeed, one can even think of it as a feud-based culture. There's nothing like a long-held and bloody-minded grudge to keep you warm through the long, cold winter nights.

One of the fascinating things about the Icelandic Commonwealth (930-1262) is that it had a very elaborate legal system, but no government or enforcing authority: no kings, no soldiers, no police. This meant that if someone wronged you, you could prosecute them at court; if the court found in your favour, however, it was your responsibility to enact their decision. So if for example someone gave you a mortal insult and this was proven, the court would decree that you could kill that person without yourself being able to be prosecuted for murder.

Of course, in many sagas the characters end up acting outside the bounds of the court, taking unlegislated vengeance against each other: by the end of many of the sagas, there is usually a fairly high body count, not to mention the fact that the original cause of the feud has probably long since been forgotten.

---

If we had to enact the decisions ourselves, that might lead to more people being forgiven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

We probably need to make clear what "vengeance", "justice", "self-defense" and "defense" are. It seems that they could be all the same thing, but I don't think they are.

When I mention defense it is mainly defending a group of people and hopefully oneself as well so the defense of those others in the group can continue, like how the good guys behaved in "Furious 7". I think there is a chemical basis for this (see Young and Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us") that encourages us through chemical rewards and punishments to start and protect pair-bonding societies.

Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.

---

self defence is a sport whereas a vengeance is not
the furious 7
goes against
lucky seven/sleven??
even movies dont make sense these they clash bash titles random

perversion is usually in the mind more then the body
because i believe perversion is when there is lack of visual and so the body goes forward for it
because a vengeance is usually physical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I have doubts about Robin Hood as well. The vengers or avengers may be deluded as you mentioned. I suspect all avengers believe they are acting out of righteousness and upholding justice.

---

interesting you mention justice
ironically justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand is an offence
it goes against its defence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.

---

As I noted earlier, that goes against the actual definition of vengeance: ""punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." Once you start re-defining the term, everyone in the discussion is free to re-define it--and "justice"--as well. One could say vengeance seems like the highest form of justice, and their definition would be as legitimate as yours since both of you have rejected the actual definition. If you want the discussion to actually be about "vengeance," and not just everybody's subjective imaginings of the word, you need to substantially adhere to the actual definition.


P.s. Although it's clear you loved Furious 7, you can reference other texts as examples...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

interesting you mention justice
ironically justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand is an offence
it goes against its defence

---

Justice does not "believe" anything; it is a concept to which we choose, or choose not to, adhere. And, as I mentioned before, for many people throughout history--including today--vengeance was/is the only available mode of justice. One could not seek out a governing third party for justice for a wrongdoing suffered at the hands of a member of another tribe. And as I mentioned above, there is often no possible third party arbiter providing justice for personal wrongdoings between individuals; vengeance again is one of the only means for justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Don't let the obvious troll bully you out of this conversation!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

So bounty, don't give bullies power by capitulating.

---

Yes, come back Bounty. You're opinion is important to us. Most of us aren't even reading the troll at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

If we all practised this, poor ol' Pike would have few people to talk to.

---

Works for me. Don't feed a troll. Even giving him this much attention is too much, in my opinion. Starve narcissists of attention and they usually seek greener pastures.

So on that note, on with the show:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Perhaps it’s because my usual literary stomping ground, the Old Norse sagas, are so invested in the concept of blood-feud, but I find myself increasingly convinced that taking vengeance for wrongs against oneself is not only a viable thing to do, but actually a moral prerogative. Not only should one take vengeance, but I think it is also a necessary social duty to take it.

---

Thanks for starting this thread, Lokasenna. I've been reading it for the last few days and giving it some thought. Then in the evenings, I typically subject myself to the Evening News, which, when it is not about puppies being rescued from drainage pipes by children with leukemia, tends to be about the Middle East. Last night I saw a Yemenese man standing in front of a bombed out building with a discreetly positioned (from the Network's point of view) corpse of a child a few paces behind him. The man was yelling emotionally at the camera, addressing the new king of Saudi Arabia, and vowing to take his revenge. It made me wonder if he would be successful, and who would then inherit the "prerogative" of vengeance; and after that, then what?

Then it struck me that a missing component of this conversation has been a consideration of the consequences of acting on vengeful feelings; especially in consideration of escalating cycles of revenge, perhaps in consideration of Gandhi's famous remark about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. And even Gandhi was hardly being just, since the principle of "an eye for an eye" as originally codified in Mesopotamia was itself intended to end cycles of family blood feuding by providing a standard law.

Don't think, by the way, that I am naive about Gandhi--I'm not. But I must say, as a middle aged Man, I have seen in even my short life a bloody cycle in which people who wanted to murder thousands in planes and buildings, motivated by a perceived prerogative for revenge; followed by a war against people who were uninvolved, hugely popular in the beginning due (whatever excuses were contrived at the time) to a perceived prerogative for vengeance for those events; followed by a radical insurgency that is presently murdering religious minorities en mass, beheading hostages with knives on Youtube, burning at least one prisoner of war alive, etc., with the foot soldiers at least motivated by the way Western treatment of Muslims has been portrayed to them; followed by what? Very likely a Shi'ite genocide against Sunni Muslims in response to the current troubles. And that, obviously, is the barest possible schematic; there are many more trajectories of perceived prerogatives for vengeance at play.

So I guess my first question is: how much do we really want to live in 10th century Scandinavia? :) My second question would be something about the greater historical perspective of revanchism and the effects it had in Europe from the Napoleonic era to the Holocaust; but I'm off for a salad with hummus at the moment.

Now, Pomp Bum is another ignoree. My putting him on my ignore list was neither vengeance nor justice; he just so fit the qualifications of my list I mentioned earlier.