Vengeance

[YesNo]

I don't really buy the presumption that the human need for revenge is categorically different from what nation states or even terrorists organization do with it. I wonder if we can agree that the hunger for vengeance is a natural to the human condition (whether we actually take revenge or not). Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way. For me that is the real issue.

Revenge might be part of our biology that encourages pair-bonding and defense of the groups we belong to. Unfortunately, we also can use our rationality to justify cruelty and violence which goes beyond what is necessary for defense.

One can become "defenseless" by taking some distance from what one feels the need to defend to ask if the defense is really in everyone's best interest. Some of the things we defend that are not worth defending as strongly as we might feel the need are our opinions or our "honor", whatever that is.

[Pike Bishop]

Pompey Bum: "Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way."

First of all, this statement about human nature is dichotomous. If humans have the inherent ability to move away from a behavior/predilection, then "turning away" from it is as much of a "default value" as that predilection itself. So, neither activity stands "higher" than the other as far as primal predilections go.

Secondly, the statement is extremely culturally biased. As I noted earlier past and present tribal cultures have had no other means to attain justice for actions committed by members of opposing tribes than vengeance. So Pompey's claim--as quoted above by YesNo--inaccurately and condescendingly judges the use of vengeance necessary to those tribes as a "lower," "default" behavior, as opposed to the "higher" modes of justice available to more "civilized" cultures.

[bounty]

from northstar: A better response would have been to hunt down those people actually responsible for the attack.

The Lillehammer affair, and the whole Israel response to the Munich massacre is another good example of vengeance leading to plain injustice.

some years ago I read one day in September, by simon reeve, which is all about that. its an interesting, yet sad read to say the least.

northstar, when you say "people actually responsible for the attack"---are you thinking of the masterminds (so to speak) who weren't necessarily in munich?

when you write "leading to plain injustice", are you meaning the innocent people who were mistakingly killed in Norway? what a horrible thing, can you imagine.

from pompey: I wonder if we can agree that the hunger for vengeance is a natural to the human condition (whether we actually take revenge or not).

oh I absolutely buy into that...

Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way. For me that is the real issue.

I agree...and for me, in part, that leads me to question whether or not I should be receiving vicarious pleasure from, or even reading, books (or watching movies) where vengeance is a prominent characteristic. I mentioned earlier, I still would cheer Beatrix kiddo and William Wallace---and jack reacher, and mitch rapp and practically every protagonist in zane grey (the grand daddy of western literature, that's right, literature) books.

it makes for good reading and viewing...but one wonders if theres a cost, and what cost, associated with it...

from YesNo: Unfortunately, we also can use our rationality to justify cruelty and violence which goes beyond what is necessary for defense.

I agree...I think one of our single greatest talents is self-justification...

[YesNo]

Pompey Bum: "Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way."

First of all, this statement about human nature is dichotomous. If humans have the inherent ability to move away from a behavior/predilection, then "turning away" from it is as much of a "default value" as that predilection itself. So, neither activity stands "higher" than the other as far as primal predilections go.

Secondly, the statement is extremely culturally biased. As I noted earlier past and present tribal cultures have had no other means to attain justice for actions committed by members of opposing tribes than vengeance. So Pompey's claim--as quoted above by YesNo--inaccurately and condescendingly judges the use of vengeance necessary to those tribes as a "lower," "default" behavior, as opposed to the "higher" modes of justice available to more "civilized" cultures.

The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation. Taking the path of vengeance leads to unhappiness, suffering and cycles of blame. That would be enough to make it lower.

Having alternatives also imply that we can make choices.

[Pike Bishop]

The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation. Taking the path of vengeance leads to unhappiness, suffering and cycles of blame. That would be enough to make it lower.

Having alternatives also imply that we can make choices.

You may think you can make that valuation for everyone, but you can't and have yet to prove otherwise. Not everybody shares your values or life experience. Vengeance doesn't always lead to unhappiness, suffering, and cycles of blame. Vengeance, in many of its forms, often leads to catharsis, gratification, expurgation, happiness, and peace of mind. I expounded on this in my post earlier in the thread:

"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."

So, historically, many people have successfully resorted--and do successfully resort--to vengeance to attain justice and were/are happy with the result. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?

[YesNo]

You may think you can make that valuation for everyone, but you can't and have yet to prove otherwise. Not everybody shares your values or life experience. Vengeance doesn't always lead to unhappiness, suffering, and cycles of blame. Vengeance, in many of its forms, often leads to catharsis, gratification, expurgation, happiness, and peace of mind.

Whether other people share my view or not is irrelevant. Others are welcome to try to convince me that I'm wrong, but so far I have not been convinced.

[Pike Bishop]

Whether other people share my view or not is irrelevant. Others are welcome to try to convince me that I'm wrong, but so far I have not been convinced.

Of course its relevant, unless you actually think your view trumps everyone else's. You claimed: "The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation"

Well, billions of people throughout history have happily resorted--and happily resort--to vengeance for justice with no negative results. So, hey clearly did what you said and made the valuation vengeance is not "lower;" so, you're in no position to tell them they're wrong. And while I had no intention of "convincing" anyone, and its clear your mind is made up, I have made quite a compelling argument for the legitimacy of vengeance as justice. You have yet to effectively counter that argument in any way.

[Delta40]

The need for vengeance is emotional and an event can be so easily medicalized rather than justified through the courts for example. How do we reconcile that? Is it possible that while the need for vengeance may be more emotional than rational and we tend to say 'No thanks, we're British' it doesn't detract from the fact that emotionality still needs validating? Society has created an elaborate health system to deal with this aspect containing psychologists and psychiatrists. (in a structured rational way of course) not to mention prescribed medications to help us with mood swings etc. I'm not confident that the justice system is capable of addressing the emotional need when it has the potential to manifest into a major health issue. Admittedly I haven't thought any further at this point because it's early in the am.... :-)

[Pike Bishop]

The need for vengeance is emotional and an event can be so easily medicalized rather than justified through the courts for example. How do we reconcile that? Is it possible that while the need for vengeance may be more emotional than rational and we tend to say 'No thanks, we're British' it doesn't detract from the fact that emotionality still needs validating? Society has created an elaborate health system to deal with this aspect containing psychologists and psychiatrists. (in a structured rational way of course) not to mention prescribed medications to help us with mood swings etc. I'm not confident that the justice system is capable of addressing the emotional need when it has the potential to manifest into a major health issue. Admittedly I haven't thought any further at this point because it's early in the am.... :-)

As to vengeance inherently being more emotional than rational, I've already addressed that misconception in one of my earlier posts:

"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."

As to our court systems taking into account the emotional need for vengeance in its sentencing, that would be a bad idea. The court is already exacting institutional--and granting some degree of personal--vengeance when it hands down sentences beyond the actual need for rehabilitation...as it should. However, sentencing emotionally to satisfy the victim's relatives' emotional needs opens up our sentencing process to innocent people being convicted and excessive sentences, including the death penalty. The justice system is definitely not an appropriate milieu for emotional vengeance.

[YesNo]

Of course its relevant, unless you actually think your view trumps everyone else's. You claimed: "The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation"

My position does trump everyone else's as my position, the one that I accept. And I think my position is correct, but I am willing to listen to an argument against it. You are welcome to have your own position.

Well, billions of people throughout history have happily resorted--and happily resort--to vengeance for justice with no negative results. So, hey clearly did what you said and made the valuation vengeance is not "lower;" so, you're in no position to tell them they're wrong. And while I had no intention of "convincing" anyone, and its clear your mind is made up, I have made quite a compelling argument for the legitimacy of vengeance as justice. You have yet to effectively counter that argument in any way.

At the moment I don't see any empirical data for either your assumption that vengeance leads to happiness or my assumption that it does not, so I will stick with my own position.

As far as being in a position to tell others they are wrong, all I am doing is stating my opinion, just as you are stating your opinion. I am in a position to do that just as you are in a position to state your view.

I mentioned before, you have not convinced me. That means you have not made a compelling argument from my perspective. I acknowledge that I have not convinced you, but I am actually more interested in convincing myself that I am on the right track. I do appreciate your responses. They help me clarify my position.

[Pike Bishop]

At the moment I don't see any empirical data for either your assumption that vengeance leads to happiness or my assumption that it does not, so I will stick with my own position.

If you're sticking to your position despite admitting you have provided no empirical evidence to support it, you can't criticize my position for my having yet to do so either. However, if you want to read about people who were happy and satisfied with vengeance, read about survivors of the Holocaust who attended the Nuremberg Trials and supported the executions of Nazi War criminals. They were perfectly happy with that vengeance.

[Delta40]

If you're sticking to your position despite admitting you have provided no empirical evidence to support it, you can't criticize my position for my having yet to do so either. However, if you want to read about people who were happy and satisfied with vengeance, read about survivors of the Holocaust who attended the Nuremberg Trials and supported the executions of Nazi War criminals. They were perfectly happy with that vengeance.

And their subsequent generations have no cause or case to argue at all because as you know they grew up happy since everybody just went about their business thanks to the great healing power of Justice being done.

I'm not advocating retaliation so much as questioning the capacity of justice to replace another need or resolve something entirely and the complications that arise from that.

[Pike Bishop]

And their subsequent generations have no cause or case to argue at all because as you know they grew up happy since everybody just went about their business thanks to the great healing power of Justice being done.

I'm saying this respectfully: your first sentence is a barely coherent run-on. If you want others to understand you, you need to watch your grammar a bit. However, if you're implying the descendants of the holocaust survivors are relevant to my point, they're not. The Holocaust survivors legitimately wanted vengeance against the Nazi Holocaust architects, along with their justice for what those men did. They were almost all advocating for vengeance by execution. And when they got that vengeance, they almost all expressed cathartic satisfaction with it. Anyone who would have told them they were wrong for doing so would have been immensely callous and inappropriate.

[Delta40]

Pardon my grammar. I probably needed to phrase that more as a question. I do see your point obviously and what an example to use but if one opposes the death penalty they must be consistent. For me, this is the best society can do, mete out death through the justice system but lets not fool ourselves into thinking this means happy ever after endings. The descendants are relevant because they carry the legacy forward having been shaped by the victims themselves. Take a look at the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. I don't believe justice is a fixer. It doesn't remove PTSD, bitterness, hatred - all things which descendants may have to shoulder and pass along to the next generation. That is very relevant.

[Pike Bishop]

The descendants are relevant because they carry the legacy forward having been shaped by the victims themselves. Take a look at the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. I don't believe justice is a fixer. It doesn't remove PTSD, bitterness, hatred - all things which descendants may have to shoulder and pass along to the next generation. That is very relevant.

The descendants are not relevant to the issue of whether the Holocaust survivors were happy and satisfied with their vengeance; that was the topic of discussion. However, your actually having the gall to actually blame the Israel/Palestine conflict and future suffering of their descendants on that justified vengeance is both inexcusable and wrong. I say that as both a Jew and a human being.

You have no idea of the degree of horrific suffering and loss that the survivors of the Holocaust went through. So, for you to sit there and judge their righteous and deserved vengeance, and make horrid speculations on its consequences, is really awful. I hope you never encounter an actual Holocaust survivor and/or one of their descendants and say such terrible things to their faces.