Vengeance

I’ve been thinking about revenge recently – not in an active sense, I hasten to add, but in an abstract one! This is purely hypothetical.

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.

Of course, it’s not just early medieval literature that focuses on vengeance – it motivates so much of our finest narratives. Where would we be without our Renaissance revenge-tragedies? Or some of our racier 19th century mystery novels?

Many of these narratives involve vengeance becoming an active force when the processes of the law fail, and the same can be just as true of real life. Sometimes, the law just can’t help you.

I’m interested to know what other people think. Is vengeance justifiable? And what forms of vengeance? Perhaps some of you have had cause to take vengeance, and would like to talk about it?

In larger matters, vengeance needs to be outsourced to a societal institution, and be subservient to the good of the society. If someone doesn't pay their taxes and hides their money on a Swiss bank account, it's better to get the money than to have the person put in prison and not have the money.

But I definitely support getting reasonable vengeance in a way that will not result in you getting prosecuted.

I can see why someone would be motivated to seek revenge, but I firmly believe in the idea that "two rights don't make a wrong." If any punitive measures are taken, they should only be carried out to the extent that they promote the greater good. Even if someone deserves further punishment, I think that forgiveness is more valuable than vengeance. Even if punishment is dealt out, it should probably be facilitated by an impartial party. That's why we have judges deliver sentences instead of victims or their families. All that said, I have never really been wronged by anyone, so my beliefs might be different than they would be if I had been wronged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Star

In larger matters, vengeance needs to be outsourced to a societal institution, and be subservient to the good of the society. If someone doesn't pay their taxes and hides their money on a Swiss bank account, it's better to get the money than to have the person put in prison and not have the money.

But I definitely support getting reasonable vengeance in a way that will not result in you getting prosecuted.

---

I agree with Northstar on both counts. Vengeance is a legitimate human activity and one of the top 5 in terms of satisfaction levels outside of sex. Of course, I'm half-Sicilian/half-Jewish; so, it's in my blood. I do think, however, that gross tax evaders deserve prison sentences as much as embezzlers or those engaged in non-violent burglary or petty theft. Like them, gross tax evaders have stolen money; they have just stolen it from the other members of their nation.

Anyway, my ten favorite revenge films are:

1. The Godfather Part II
2. Memento
3. Carrie
4. Mad Max
5. The Virgin Spring
6. The Crow
7. The Outlaw Josie Wales
9. Kill Bill 1-2
10. In the Bedroom

Not to be outdone by their celluloid cousins, Ten Outstanding Revenge Novels/Plays:

1. Hamlet
2. Macbeth
3. Paradise Lost
4. Moby Dick
5. The Golden Bowl
6. The Oresteia
7. Great Expectations
8. Victory by Joseph Conrad
9. Galveston by Nic Pizzolato
10. Titus Andronicus (so-so)

I hesitate to join in for reasons that might soon become abundantly clear but...for the purpose of conversation would it be helpful to further differentiate between justice and vengeance? I think I see some mingling going on...

And finally, ten great revenge songs:

1. You're So Vain--Carly Simon
2. Heart-Shaped Box--Nirvana
3. A Boy Named Sue--Johnny Cash
4. One Way or Another--Blondie
5. In the Air Tonight--Phil Collins
6. Under My Thumb--The Rolling Stones
7. The Thunder Rolls--Garth Brooks
8. Cry Me a River--Justin Timberlake
9. Kerosene--Miranda Lambert
10. Since You've Been Gone--Kelly Clarkson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bounty

I hesitate to join in for reasons that might soon become abundantly clear but...for the purpose of conversation would it be helpful to further differentiate between justice and vengeance? I think I see some mingling going on...

---

This is exactly true.
Vengeance is often exacted from a purely emotional state and can be disproportionate to the original wrong, while Justice is rational and usually institutionalized, that is society agrees upon the route justice must take. In civilized society we don't allow an individual to take the law into their own hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

I’m interested to know what other people think. Is vengeance justifiable? And what forms of vengeance? Perhaps some of you have had cause to take vengeance, and would like to talk about it?

---

About fifteen years ago I was accused of a crime I did not commit, the kind of crime if you're convicted of you get sent away for most of the rest of your life. I recall commenting to my attorney one afternoon during a deposition, and one day from a scheduled polygraph, that if this were one hundred years ago I would simply search out my accusers... and kill them.

As it was, neither justice or vengeance prevailed. I passed the polygraph, hired a private investigator to find out all he could about my accusers, and that information was passed on to the authorities... who then focused on those who wrongfully accused me. Did that quench my bloodlust?.. not by a long shot. Even to this day I keep track of my accusers, know where they live and work, know email addresses, phone numbers and online habits. If they do to someone else what they tried to do to me, I will let the hammer fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow

This is exactly true.
Vengeance is often exacted from a purely emotional state and can be disproportionate to the original wrong, while Justice is rational and usually institutionalized, that is society agrees upon the route justice must take. In civilized society we don't allow an individual to take the law into their own hand.

---

It's not that Manichean. Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.

This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater. You, yourself obviously still believe in such personal vengeance, as you are still invested in punishing retaliation for those who bore witness against you.

There are some really interesting perspectives here, and I'm a little bit surprised, in a good way, that there hasn't been an immediate rush to condemn the concept of vengeance - guess it means I'm not all that warped!

I think the discussion about making a distinction between vengeance and justice is a curious one: I think that Iain and Pike's definitions of these terms are sensible - though the tiny little anarchist deep in my soul wonders whether justice can ever really be institutionalised. What gives the state the right to decide what is just (i.e. state-mandated vengeance) and what is persecution (i.e. state-opposed vengeance)?

On some level, the measure of vengeance must be against one's own private and personal sense of morality - the code to which you hold yourself and the rest of the world. If that code is transgressed by somebody to the extent that one feels vengeance is necessary, then it is an entirely personal and subjective action. I do not think, and have never thought, that the state can be a moral entity - even if it does occasionally do moral things. I suppose also that someone of strong religious conviction might have differing views on vengeance, as Romans 12:19 has it: 'Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.'

I wonder if, therefore, a willingness to take vengeance is, on some level, a refusal to defer moral authority? Instead of leaving matters to a higher power, the state or the deity, it is a matter of seeing some wrongdoing and feeling obliged to punish it?

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 agree with YesNo. The best response to some offence may often be to let it go.

lokasenna, I appreciate your mentioning romans. I was going to do likewise.

I have competing thoughts, which i think bespeaks to the fallen nature of man, and the call to the redeemed man.

when i read or watch movies (and i suspect i am not alone in this) and the bad guy is getting his comeuppance, its often not satisfying unless he takes a good licking in the process. its not enough that he is caught, and about to be put in jail too, the reader/viewer wants some retribution and suffering to go on. we want to see it taken out of his hide. i contend that's one reason why a particular play in American football is so satisfying. when a wide receiver comes over the middle to catch a pass, he is in essence invading the defensive backs territory. consider it like a home invasion. the db doesn't have to limit his response to that---he can almost quite literally have the receivers head on a platter, and when he does, we all go "ohhhhhhh" and cringe, but we love it at the same time. some folks would say the catharsis is good for us.

ive been in a few situations, on the receiving end of abuse, where the abusers are able to get away with it because they know a recourse to the "law" in those instances would prove ineffectual, and civil law precludes vengeance from occurring. i sometimes believe "polite" society (and internet forums) would be more polite if people were acutely aware that a vengeful reaction might occur to in response to their abusive behavior. i think its one reason why i like zane grey and lee child novels.

but on to the redeemed part---i think the desire for vengeance is part desire for justice, and part desire to hurt. the former part is admirable, the latter is a part of our sin nature, and as you pointed out, should at least be subservient to moral authority, if not outright cleansed from our spirits this side of heaven. there's a great story about corrie ten boom, who was in a concentration camp during WWII and who saw her beloved sister die there, meeting one of the former prison guards who asked (in an implied way) her forgiveness. she didn't know how she was going to do it, but she said she knew what god commanded and in obedience, she put forth her hand to meet his extended one, and when their hands clasped, she felts gods forgiveness flowing through her.

i still have this good angel/bad angel thing going on where id be likely to say, yeah im still going to kick your hind end...and then afterwards feel bad about and i'll ask for forgiveness.

in the meantime, i suspect i'll continue to enjoy literature and cinema where some sort of personal justice occurs and enjoy William Wallace and Beatrix kiddo going about their business.

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.

---

Not always. Breaking up with someone who cheated on you or deciding to no longer invite chronically sloppily drunken friends to one's parties can be done in almost no time with very little energy.

As to films, some vengeance films, like In the Bedroom, do show that vengeance can be hollow and distracting from the real issues needing to be addressed. Some, like Point Blank, show fulfilling vengeance with some qualms about that fulfillment. Others, however, like Mad Max and The Virgin Spring, show the unabashed visceral pleasure of vengeance for harm to one's loved ones that can even bring spiritual, and even literal physical, renewal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bounty

i contend that's one reason why a particular play in American football is so satisfying. when a wide receiver comes over the middle to catch a pass, he is in essence invading the defensive backs territory. consider it like a home invasion. the db doesn't have to limit his response to that---he can almost quite literally have the receivers head on a platter, and when he does, we all go "ohhhhhhh" and cringe, but we love it at the same time. some folks would say the catharsis is good for us.

---

Those people and families who have actually suffered the terrors and horrors of home invasion would most likely take great exception to this analogy. There is no apt comparison between the violent invasion of one's home--which also often brings violent suffering--to a defensive back crossing into the defense's territory. Also, I'm not sure how much catharsis that comes from watching a wide receiver be violently hit...as opposed to relatives of murdered victims watching their killers sentenced. I once saw Renaldo Nehemiah almost paralyzed by such a hit...there was nothing cathartic about it.

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

I expressed my logical disagreement with your post, Bounty. That''s what people do on forums. When you expressed your disagreement with my definition of literature; I didn't whine about it. You are free, however, to disagree with my opinion of yours.

homes are territories to defend. certain areas of the football field are territories to defend. in fact, a common phrase you hear coaches saying to their teams before home games is "nobody comes into our house and pushes us around."

the "partial likeness" there is evident on its face.

id put forth that if you ask people who have had their home invaded, who didn't already respond to it in some way similar to a defensive back taking out a wide receiver the way they do (by shooting the perpetrator or breaking his knees with a baseball bat), if they would have liked to have been able to do that, many would answer yes.

I don't know if the process of watching murderers of loved ones being executed is cathartic or not but I do know that catharsis is an established phenomenon in athletics, either as a participant or an observer. that it is, tells us something about ourselves and aggression against others who have, analogously, violated our territory. to some extent, philosophically speaking, sport can be viewed as societally accepted vengeance within the rules.

in terms of renaldo Nehemiah, and your reaction to the instance to which you refer---I would, and most people would, probably feel likewise. it's a game afterall and it brings this to mind "its all fun and games until somebody pokes an eye out."

that however, doesn't change the significance or meaning of the activities that occur up until that point. what it does, is to remind us how much we value life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bounty

homes are territories to defend. certain areas of the football field are territories to defend. in fact, a common phrase you hear coaches saying to their teams before home games is "nobody comes into our house and pushes us around."

the "partial likeness" there is evident on its face.

id put forth that if you ask people who have had their home invaded, who didn't already respond to it in some way similar to a defensive back taking out a wide receiver the way they do (by shooting the perpetrator or breaking his knees with a baseball bat), if they would have liked to have been able to do that, many would answer yes.

I don't know if the process of watching murderers of loved ones being executed is cathartic or not but I do know that catharsis is an established phenomenon in athletics, either as a participant or an observer. that it is, tells us something about ourselves and aggression against others who have, analogously, violated our territory. to some extent, philosophically speaking, sport can be viewed as societally accepted vengeance within the rules.

in terms of renaldo Nehemiah, and your reaction to the instance to which you refer---I would, and most people would, probably feel likewise. it's a game afterall and it brings this to mind "its all fun and games until somebody pokes an eye out."

that however, doesn't change the significance or meaning of the activities that occur up until that point. what it does, is to remind us how much we value life.

---

It's not the "defending" aspect of your inapt comparison that makes it inapt. It's the inappropriate comparisons of the severities and seriousnesses of the scenarios. Unlike a family literally having its home invaded by potentially rapacious and murderous people, a football defense does not face bodily harm, rape, or even murder. In fact, the defense faces no violent threat against themselves at all; they are the ones who get to violently attack the wide receiver.

And you can "put forth" your irrelevant claim about what the invaded would like to do to their invaders all you want, your analogy still fails...despite any insufficient "partial likeness." Since the members of the football defense never experience the threat, terrors, and horrors suffered by the home invaded, the penalty they impart onto the wide receiver can never be the parallel of/equivalent to the home invaded penalizing their invaders.

As to watching murderers being sentenced--I never said "executed;" try to read more closely--it is logical it would be cathartic to various degrees. Watching justice being brought to the ones who murdered your loved ones would likely bring satisfaction and a feeling of that mythical, but apparently needed by many, dynamic of closure. As to sports, I agree that, like all spectator activities--including film, the theater, and even the ballet--it has its cathartic aspects. However, that doesn't mean most football fans think the wide receiver should be "punished" for doing his job of advancing his team down the field, as if he were a hostile invader breaking into someone's home. Fans just don't take that kind of "offense" at the wide receiver's activity. If you want to support that unfounded and unlikely claim, you will need to provide some evidence.

Quote:

---

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

---

Christianity (along with other World Religions) represented a movement from tribal society to one in which all men could be "brothers in Christ". Vengeance, as practiced by Loka's Norseman, or by the Romans or Greeks, was not only a catharsis, but also a form of justice, and a solemn duty. The Romans (Pompey can correct me if I'm wrong) had trials, but in a murder case the plaintiff was the family of the murdered party; for us the plaintiff in all criminal cases is the "state" (or the Crown, for Brits).

This represents a fundamental change in the idea of what constitutes justice. 800 years ago this year (in 1215) King John signed the Magna Carta. John was perhaps the worst king in English history, reviled in the legendary histories of Robin Hood as well as in more conventional histories. The Magna Carta stated that no free man could be arrested or imprisoned without the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land. John was compelled to sign the document (the nobles had taken over London), and had it rescinded by the Pope. However, the document was reinstated when 9-year-old Henry ascended to the throne after John's death in 1216. Our society moved fitfully toward a different concept of justice. ("Free men", by the way, meant "nobles".)

The state has replaced God as the organ of "repayment" for transgressions. Has this advanced the cause of justice? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's a complicated issue. The State has abused its prerogatives, just as some individuals did when vengeance was not a mere passion, but a solemn duty.

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

love the topic, but wont be back.

Considering I pointed out you made another bad argument, just like your ones about literature and actors playing the bad guys, I know exactly why you were reluctant to join in. Considering your inapt wide receiver/home invader analogy, your reluctance was probably a good idea.

You can't criticize other people's opinions and then get put out when they accurately critique yours; it's poor form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

Those people and families who have actually suffered the terrors and horrors of home invasion would most likely take great exception to this analogy. .

---

I've had my home invaded. I suffered neither terrors nor horrors, but I did have to buy a new computer and TV. Had I lacked the money to do so, of course, THAT would have been horrible, if not terrifying.

We are, of course, dealing with very different levels of violation. Having your home broken into is a major personal violation, but alongside slavery, marital cruelty, rape, losing your loved ones in murder, war or in concentration camps it is on quite a different level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

Not always. Breaking up with someone who cheated on you or deciding to no longer invite chronically sloppily drunken friends to one's parties can be done in almost no time with very little energy.

---

I would consider both of those to be defensive responses rather than vengeance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

As to films, some vengeance films, like In the Bedroom, do show that vengeance can be hollow and distracting from the real issues needing to be addressed. Some, like Point Blank, show fulfilling vengeance with some qualms about that fulfillment. Others, however, like Mad Max and The Virgin Spring, show the unabashed visceral pleasure of vengeance for harm to one's loved ones that can even bring spiritual, and even literal physical, renewal.

---

Another movie, quite old, "The Princess Bride", had one of the main characters trying to get vengeance against one of the bad guys for the death of his father. Although he was also in a position of defending his friends, his vengeance lead him to wonder what his life was about after he finally killed his father's murderer and this made me wonder whether he wasted his life pursuing that murderer. Of course, he was very valuable in the defense of the couple.

Vengeance is often justified by a defense argument.

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

You would be considering incorrectly. "Vengeance" is defined as "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution." Both the actions I mentioned were punishments inflicted in retaliation for injury or offense. So, both of the acts were acts of vengeance. Their having been defensive responses as well does not detract from their being so.

As to the Norse tales you asked about, I didn't mention any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

You would be considering incorrectly. "Vengeance" is defined as "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution." Both the actions I mentioned were punishments inflicted in retaliation for injury or offense. So, both of the acts were acts of vengeance. Their having been defensive responses as well does not detract from their being so.

---

I don't really see leaving a partner because that person cheated on you to be vengeance. Vengeance would be staying with that partner and making the remainder of his or her life miserable or posting questionable pictures of that partner on the Internet. Basically, I can think of all sorts of vengeful acts that would make leaving the person an insignificant act of defense.

Regarding the drunken friends, they may be harder to get rid of than just not inviting them to future parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

As to the Norse tales you asked about, I didn't mention any.

---

Actually, I meant that for Lokasenna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I don't really see leaving a partner because that person cheated on you to be vengeance. Vengeance would be staying with that partner and making the remainder of his or her life miserable or posting questionable pictures of that partner on the Internet. Basically, I can think of all sorts of vengeful acts that would make leaving the person an insignificant act of defense.

Regarding the drunken friends, they may be harder to get rid of than just not inviting them to future parties.

---

What you "see" doesn't change the fact many--if not most--people who are cheated on do break up with their partners partially (or fully) out of punitive retaliation for their betrayal and emotional damage they have caused them. So, many people do break up with their cheating and/or adulterous significant others partially (or fully) out of vengeance. You are mistakenly imposing your own idealistic moral values onto other people who don't share them. And just because there may be nastier modes of vengeance like the revenge porn--which only loathsome people practice--you mentioned, it doesn't mean breaking up with a cheating partner can't be revenge as well...and it very often is.

And I never said the person was trying to get rid of drunken friends; I just said they were being punished as an act of penalizing retaliation/vengeance for continually getting sloppy drunks at them.


P.s. I have Lokasenna on ignore, so I don't read his posts. So, I assumed your Norse tales question was for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Vengeance is often justified by a defense argument.

.

---

My friend's brother, Oliver O'Donovan, former Professor of Moral Theology at Christ College, Oxford, has written a couple of books on the Christian ethics of warfare. He's a leading Anglican theologian (I mention he's my friend's brother in case anyone wonders what an atheist is doing reading Anglican theology). He thinks self defense is an inadequate justification for war (and, by inference, other instances of violence). Christ, after all, advocated turning the other cheek. He argues that the war is acceptable to the Christian only to restore a state of Justice -- not to defend oneself. In other words, it is the moral virtue of justice that is properly defended rather than individual well-being.

In certain cultures, vengeance can be seen the same way. It's a moral duty, restorative of justice and honor, rather than a personal vendetta.

Ecur is on my ignore list as well, but that doesn't keep the little guy from following me around. I didn't do so out of vengeance, though. I did it solely out of my preference for lucid interlocutors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

What you "see" doesn't change the fact many--if not most--people who are cheated on do break up with their partners partially (or fully) out of punitive retaliation for their betrayal and emotional damage they have caused them. So, many people do break up with their cheating and/or adulterous significant others partially (or fully) out of vengeance. You are mistakenly imposing your own idealistic moral values onto other people who don't share them. And just because there may be nastier modes of vengeance like the revenge porn--which only loathsome people practice--you mentioned, it doesn't mean breaking up with a cheating partner can't be revenge as well...and it very often is.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

And I never said the person was trying to get rid of drunken friends; I just said they were being punished as an act of penalizing retaliation/vengeance for continually getting sloppy drunks at them.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

P.s. I have Lokasenna on ignore, so I don't read his posts. So, I assumed your Norse tales question was for me.

---

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

My friend's brother, Oliver O'Donovan, former Professor of Moral Theology at Christ College, Oxford, has written a couple of books on the Christian ethics of warfare. He's a leading Anglican theologian (I mention he's my friend's brother in case anyone wonders what an atheist is doing reading Anglican theology). He thinks self defense is an inadequate justification for war (and, by inference, other instances of violence). Christ, after all, advocated turning the other cheek. He argues that the war is acceptable to the Christian only to restore a state of Justice -- not to defend oneself. In other words, it is the moral virtue of justice that is properly defended rather than individual well-being.

In certain cultures, vengeance can be seen the same way. It's a moral duty, restorative of justice and honor, rather than a personal vendetta.

---

The Bhagavad Gita is also set in a battlefield where Krishna is telling Arjuna to fight. Easwaran interpreted it as a fight with one's self, but they are still on that battlefield and Krishna is an incarnation of the divine.

I think an argument for violence on the basis of Justice makes no more sense than using defense. If Christ said to turn the other cheek wasn't he implying that Justice is not a good argument either? Or did he say to turn the other cheek unless Justice was at stake? If there is an afterlife or a reincarnation with karma driving the outcome, isn't Justice guaranteed in the long run? Why do we need to come in to make sure it happens?

However, defense is something we an relate to and it affects our current survival.

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