Revenge: good or bad?

Part of my spiritual beleifs revolve around the idea of embrace and accepting the fact that we are animals, and not viewing humans as some surperio higher being, or loosing touch with the earth. But trying to stay close to nature, and not shunning the animilistic instincts which we posscess.

And part of my own personal philosophy, is that I simply refuse to be "fake" or put on some kind of act. Or try and put on some kind of apperance for the sake of soceity. But I am what I am, and I am going to be up front. I am not going to smile at some one, and tell them it is nice to see them and ask them how there day was, then turn around and talk behind there back. I am going to tell them, don't talk to me, I don't like you.

Quote:

---

Part of my spiritual beleifs revolve around the idea of embrace and accepting the fact that we are animals, and not viewing humans as some surperio higher being, or loosing touch with the earth. But trying to stay close to nature, and not shunning the animilistic instincts which we posscess.

---

What do you know about nature or primitive animalism?

Nature along with animalistic instincts can be the most cruelest thing to witness and observe.

( Amongst nature there is no justification for anything along with the total absence of morals.)

( In nature there exists only cruel dominance and submission where anything goes.)

Quote:

---

I never said they didn't but that was not the point of my argument. The point being, that if a person does something to another person without having a good reason for doing it,

---

And by your definition what is a "good" reason for anything?

Quote:

---

they deserve to be punished for it. Either by a court of law or by the wronged party.

---

Deserve like how?

Quote:

---

That is irrlelevent to this arugment

---

If you say so.

Quote:

---

I never said everything is justified, but there is a differences between something that is justified and something that is not justified.

---

Then please tell me what the difference is as I still don't understand what your trying to correlate here.

Quote:

---

A person who does something which is not justified should be called to account for their actions

---

Why?

Quote:

---

While if a person does something becaue they are righting a wrong which has been done to them they should be excused

---

What is right? What is wrong? What is good? What is evil?

What is justifiable? What is un-justifiable?

Quote:

---

Though I beleive in vigiliantisim, I am not calling for a complete end of the legal system.

---

I am because I view morality, ethics, justice and indeed all of law to be nothing more than a twisted joke built upon hypocrisy or doublestandards of the absurd.

Quote:

---

It is clear to anyone with even an iota of common sense that there is a differnece between a serial killer and someone who was directly and personaly been harmed,

---

Like what exactly?

Revenge comes in all shapes and sizes, though, sadly, people may use revenge to vent feelings that are sudden; and that they cannot control.

If someones wife is murdered, the victims family may go straight for the death penalty allowing their feelings to cloud their judgment, sending a person to hell, who might not of been that person who killed the wife. I'm against the deaht penalty; I say let them be in Hell before they go to Hell. But thats just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

What do you know about nature or primitive animalism?

Nature along with animalistic instincts can be the most cruelest thing to witness and observe.

( Amongst nature there is no justification for anything along with the total absence of morals.)

( In nature there exists only cruel dominance and submission where anything goes.)

---

There is a sort of justification of nature, animals do not just go aroud killing willy nilly simply becasue they feel like it. They kill to protect thier own, to protect themselves, and to feed themselves. There is a certian justification in that.

And aniamls which live in pacts, groups, herds, etc.. are capable of great compassion tword each other.

I do not find the natural order to be cruel, and it is not just "anything goes" Animals have thier own sense or order and hiegharchy and most challenges between animals, eitther for leadership, territory, mating, are not to the death, nor do the aniamls seek to truly kill each other, when one animal shows the signs of submission the other backs down and lets it go, it does not ruthllessly kill it at the moment of its voulrnablity.

Quote:

---

There is a sort of justification of nature, animals do not just go aroud killing willy nilly simply becasue they feel like it.

---

And what is your deeply narrow description of a specific justification that is right amongst others that you view to be less than?

I would argue that the necessity of killing is entirely subjective and that there is no way to measure it in ideological definitions of righteousness.

Quote:

---

They kill to protect thier own, to protect themselves, and to feed themselves. There is a certian justification in that.

---

And sometimes killing is done out of pleasure, competition,hate, and spite.

Quote:

---

And aniamls which live in pacts, groups, herds, etc.. are capable of great compassion tword each other.

---

To speak of other animals in anthropomorphic terms is a bit naive.

It is like painting all other animals with a human brush without considering their individual existential circumstances as a seperate species.

Quote:

---

I do not find the natural order to be cruel, and it is not just "anything goes"

---

It isn't? Then what is it?

Is it a picturesque scenery where a lamb lays by a lion in tranquil harmony?

Quote:

---

Animals have thier own sense or order and hiegharchy and most challenges between animals, eitther for leadership, territory, mating, are not to the death, nor do the aniamls seek to truly kill each other

---

I'm not saying that cruelty prevails all the time amongst nature or other animals but instead I'm merely saying that it is frequent.

Quote:

---

, when one animal shows the signs of submission the other backs down and lets it go, it does not ruthllessly kill it at the moment of its voulrnablity.

---

Very frequently in a great deal of animal species there is in-fighting that results in death.

Dark Muse I'm going to give you a definition of nature and evolution where afterwards you can tell me what you think of it:

Nature and evolution is where various individual biological organisms compete amongst each other for survival by consuming and killing one another in order to subsist in being alive.

Upon understanding that where does justification come into play here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

I would argue that the necessity of killing is entirely subjective and that there is no way to measure it in ideological definitions of righteousness.

---

Well it is a plain and simple fact that if carnivrous aniamls do not kill they will simply starve to death. I do not think that is in the least subjective. And unless you yourself do not have to take in any substances you haven't the right to be judging. Becasue even eating vegitation is killing some form of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

And sometimes killing is done out of pleasure, competition,hate, and spite.

---

Read your own argument below. If my atributing compassion to animals is anthropomorphic then so is attributiing hate and spite to aniamls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

To speak of other animals in anthropomorphic terms is a bit naive.

It is like painting all other animal species with a human brush.

---

You are the one who has outdated primitive views of animals. There is plenty enough research and study done of animals, in the wild, in which displays there very complex behavior, and interaction with each other. And not all of it is just pure survival/instinct based, nor is all of it about fighting and killing. The more that is being learned about animals, the more it is being discovered that they might not be as difference from us as once was thought. Animals have proven to be far less simplistic then had once been thought. If I am naive, then so are a lot of credible scientists, and animal behaviorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

It isn't? Then what is it?

Is it a picturesque scenery where a lamb lays by a lion in tranquil harmony?.

---

Personanly I think it is neutral. The lion having to eat the lamb for survial is not cruelty.

Quote:

---

Becasue even eating vegitation is killing some form of life.

---

I know that.

Quote:

---

Read your own argument below. If my atributing compassion to animals is anthropomorphic then so is attributiing hate and spite to aniamls.

---

Fine.

Quote:

---

You are the one who has outdated primitive views of animals. There is plenty enough research and study done of animals, in the wild, in which displays there very complex behavior, and interaction with each other. And not all of it is just pure survival/instinct based, nor is all of it about fighting and killing.

---

And not all of it is compassionate or cooperative based either.

Quote:

---

The more that is being learned about animals, the more it is being discovered that they might not be as difference from us as once was thought.

---

A naive anthropomorphic venture no doubt built upon the biasness of biological researchers who are trying to find the mystic ever so sweeping morality amongst nature to reaffirm their absurd moral beliefs in a human world where morality is becoming so very much criticized for being the crazy religious institution that it is.

Quote:

---

Animals have proven to be far less simplistic then had once been thought. If I am naive, then so are a lot of credible scientists, and animal behaviorists.

---

They are. Infact these so called credible scientists and animal behaviorists I myself call naive all the time.

Quote:

---

Personanly I think it is neutral. The lion having to eat the lamb for survial is not cruelty.

---

If everything is neutral than we have no need for justification which is very un-neutral, no?

There is nothing neutral about morality or justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

A naive anthropomorphic venture no doubt built upon the biasness of biological researchers who are trying to find the mystic ever so sweeping morality amongst nature to reaffirm their absurd moral beliefs in a human world where morality is becoming so very much criticized for being the crazy religious institution that it is.

---

It is not all about just simple morality, but some things just are what they are, regardless of your personal feelings about it.

It has been observed, elephants actually have their own form of "day care" in which each individual mother elephant will get some time off and get to spend some time to herself while the other elephants look after her young for her, and they trade off in shifts so each mother gets some time away from her young.

It is also known that when Elephants pass by the bones of another elephant, they will stop, and each elephant as it passes by will carefully touch the bones with their trunks, and their feet before continuing on.

Hippos, actually give vigil's of silence over the dead, including over animals that are not of their own species. If another hippo dies, or if they come across the body of another animal, they will all gather around the body and just lay beside it for several minutes before leaving to go about their business.

It is known that animals that are social in the wild, if they are taken into captivity and doe not have companions of their own kind they will become depressed, lethargic, and grow sick and begin to waste away.

Wolves will lure hunters away from their pacts

There are a few different bird species that mate for life, to the extent that if their mate dies they will not take on another, they will remain for the rest of their own life unmated.

There is a species of crane which once year on the anniversary of when they had first mated, the male crane will repeat the mating dance he first gave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

It is not all about just simple morality, but some things just are what they are, regardless of your personal feelings about it.

It has been observed, elephants actually have their own form of "day care" in which each individual mother elephant will get some time off and get to spend some time to herself while the other elephants look after her young for her, and they trade off in shifts so each mother gets some time away from her young.

It is also known that when Elephants pass by the bones of another elephant, they will stop, and each elephant as it passes by will carefully touch the bones with their trunks, and their feet before continuing on.

Hippos, actually give vigil's of silence over the dead, including over animals that are not of their own species. If another hippo dies, or if they come across the body of another animal, they will all gather around the body and just lay beside it for several minutes before leaving to go about their business.

It is known that animals that are social in the wild, if they are taken into captivity and doe not have companions of their own kind they will become depressed, lethargic, and grow sick and begin to waste away.

Wolves will lure hunters away from their pacts

There are a few different bird species that mate for life, to the extent that if their mate dies they will not take on another, they will remain for the rest of their own life unmated.

There is a species of crane which once year on the anniversary of when they had first mated, the male crane will repeat the mating dance he first gave.

---

But as I said there is also cruelty, violence, and ruthless behavior amongst nature too.

And you have refrained from talking about those expressions as it exhibits a dilemma to your ideology of social justification and morality.

Quote:

---

The lion having to eat the lamb for survial is not cruelty.

---

And what about men killing other men? Neutral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

But as I said there is also cruelty, violence, and ruthless behavior amongst nature too.

And you have refrained from talking about those expressions as it exhibits a dilemma to your ideology of social justification and morality.

---

Honestly I was not truly trying to make some sort of cliam to justification and morality.

I just got on my animal crudsade about how animals are more complex, emotional, intelligent, aware, then humans give them cridit for.

And that they are not in fact just these simple minded "killing machines" or beasts which are capable of doing nothing but directly responding to instincts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Hyde

And what about men killing other men? Neutral?

---

If a man killed another man for his own survivail then yes I would say it is nuetral.

I did not say that all killing ever was neutral. But killing becasue you need to feed upon the flesh of another in order to sustain yourself I do not think is cruel.

I have no qualms with cannibilisim.

The mind of man can adapt through abstractions.

The mind of animals (as far as I'm concerned) can only adapt from trial and error and mutation.

This distinction gives man a certain responsibility unknown to animals.

Resorting to cannabalism is easy to call "neutral," but first think about the implications of giving this the OK.

Killing one's child or good friend, (or fellow man if you will), in a time of immense struggle-- lets say, stuck in the middle of the rainforest--is cowardly beyond measure-- even an abomination.--how does the human part of you respond to this?

Our minds are capable of making machines-- and of deductive reasoning.

I could forgive a mentally retarded person for killing someone because they were starving in this situation-- because of their inability to think abstractly. (Note that mentally retarded people's ability to think abstractly to a lower degree does not make them less human)--perhaps this implies leniency to them when they are on trial--no?

Since man has a "religious mind"-- I believe it best make use of it. If it is a part of what drives us to excel (in combination with hope) why make no use of it?
Why have the ideology that we are directly relative to animals? And whatever observations you make of them you encrust onto our vast magnitude?
If a man was to live a thousand years--think of how much more great his accomplishments and adaptations would (could) be than a dog that lived the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

Killing one's child or good friend, (or fellow man if you will), in a time of immense struggle-- lets say, stuck in the middle of the rainforest--is cowardly beyond measure-- even an abomination.--how does the human part of you respond to this?

---

Not even most animals kill their own young for food, or members of thier own family group. And I did say "most" yes I know there are some that will eat thier own offspring, but it is not widespread, only in some speicies.

But to canniablisim in general, I do not view human beings as surperior, or higher beings, thus I see no differences in killing a man and killing an animal. Thus if humans can kill other animals to eat, for me it would be no better or worse for a man to kill another man to eat.

I do not view human life as having more vaule then animal life.