Revenge: good or bad?

[Mr. Vandemar]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind!

The more you hurt other people, the more you stain yourself. I find that hurting other people makes me just as unhappy as them, in fact much more, so inflicting pain upon others is something I avoid.

Remember that there are many circumstancial things and environmental factors (independent from the person her/himself, whose actions or personality are anything BUT inherent) that affect this person, therefore, you cannot judge anyone. You will never know what it is like to be them, and if you did...well you would be them; and make the same mistakes.

Revenge is a childish way of venting frustration.

[Dark Muse]

Remember that there are many circumstancial things and environmental factors (independent from the person her/himself, whose actions or personality are anything BUT inherent) that affect this person, therefore, you cannot judge anyone. You will never know what it is like to be them, and if you did...well you would be them; and make the same mistakes.

By that logic no one should be held accountable for anything they do, and anything should be considered a perfectly acceptable action. And a person should not be held responsible for the choices they make and how they choose to act, and the actions they commit

I just do not by into that kind of crap.

[Mr. Vandemar]

They should be held accountable, but not by you (remember, you are no better than them). If I were as faithful a Christian as I would like to be, I would say only God can judge them, but I am not so I will say this: the only person who may judge them is themself. Leave it to their conscience.

Besides, since every immoral action makes a person less and less happy (which you did not give a rebuttal to, so I will assume you agree), should not their punishment be the erosion of their character?

[Dark Muse]

Besides, since every immoral action makes a person less and less happy (which you did not give a rebuttal to, so I will assume you agree), should not their punishment be the erosion of their character?

Acutally I do not agree with that. To be quite honest unleashing my wrath upon someone who has wronged me does give me pleasure.

I am a vengeful person, but I am not an unhappy one.

I happen to throughly enjoy being myself.

If someone wrongs me I will personally hold them accountable for doing so. And under my own perosnal code there is nothing wrong in doing so as long as I act within the limits of the law to avoid getting myself in trouble.

[Mr. Vandemar]

You see people and their actions inherently. Nothing is independent from anything else. There is never one "bad guy" in a situation, and until you see that you will always be a fool (no offence intended).

Why do you keep speaking of your "wrath"? You are not some supreme deity.

[Dark Muse]

It is just a fun word I like to use. You will learn not to take me quite so seriosuly.

While my views upon regenve are sincere not everything I say is meant to be taken completely litteraly.

You are welcome to call me a fool for I do not judge myself based upon the opinons of others. I may equally think you a fool

[Mr. Vandemar]

You said it!

But holding people accountable for anything is a dead end. You interpret their actions (which are not entirely their own...remember we do not choose our personality). How can your think that you interpretation of something is the truth? It never is. You cannot judge someone, because you see them through your own eyes. There are no impartial judges.

[Dark Muse]

You said it!

But holding people accountable for anything is a dead end. You interpret their actions (which are not entirely their own...remember we do not choose our personality). How can your think that you interpretation of something is the truth? It never is. You cannot judge someone, because you see them through your own eyes. There are no impartial judges.

If someone does something that wrongs me in someway, if someone tries to hurt me of someone I care about, or offends me.

I do not care why they did it, though I do hold people directly responsible for the choices the make. I believe in free will and the fact that everything a person does they do because they choose to take that action.

Why they choose that action is irrelevant, because the outcome is the same.

And I will retaliate as I see fit. Because whatever the reasons for what they did, does not alter what happened, and they are the ones that physically caused it to happen.

[skasian]

That depends on how you look at it. I have my own personal code of ethics and mortality which I believe in, but it is not always the same as the legal system and what society accepts. I believe my own personal code is right, and that the legal system and society is not always correct.

I believe in personal vigilantism , but I know the law frowns on it. That does not mean I admit that it is bad, just that society has chosen to make laws against it. I do not agree with this law, but I obey because it is beneficial to myself to do so.

I do not mind about your own personal codes that may be against the law but lets not get too general about law and order itself. Lets look at only the result of revenge and the law that acts against it.

I doubt that anyone believing in personal vigilantism will excuse a murder that is committed out of pure revenge which did not offend the murderer with equal harm beforehand. As anyone will not excuse such murder, this implies that the act of revenge is simply bad. Of course the law identifies this as illegal, thus bad but any one that is regarded as fair will also agree that this example of act of revenge is bad and the murderer should be punished in consequence.

[Dark Muse]

I doubt that anyone believing in personal vigilantism will excuse a murder that is committed out of pure revenge which did not offend the murderer with equal harm beforehand. As anyone will not excuse such murder, this implies that the act of revenge is simply bad. Of course the law identifies this as illegal, thus bad but any one that is regarded as fair will also agree that this example of act of revenge is bad and the murderer should be punished in consequence.

Anything is bad if taken to the extreme no matter what it is. If a person shoots someone because they stepped on their shoe, that is obviously not acceptable, but that does not mean revenge in itself is bad, because one person acted in a way that was clearly extreme.

I would excuse murder if I felt the offence was strong enough.

In my belief in an eye for an eye it does not give a person free reign just to do whatever they want to do. But the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views.

[dramasnot6]

I like to think of revenge in terms of risk and reward. In my experience of revenge, most of the reward lies in the motive and planning of the revenge, it is a psychological reward for he/she who wants and executes the vendetta. However, revenge,in addition to having an absolute risk for the person being revenged upon (if successful), is almost always also risky for many other people. For the person executing a vendetta, there can be legal,moral,social,political and economic risks that have various internal and external consequences, depending on the nature of the revenge.
Aside from the moral implications of revenge, the practical consequences and risks of most vengeance make it seem very unappealing to me as any means of productivity. Psychological gratification for a wrongdoing can be gained in ways much more productive and less risky than setting out to hurt someone else. I forget who first said it but I have always been fond of the expression "The best vengeance is to lead a good life."
Life is short. If someone has already spent part of yours hurting you, why waste more of your life hurting them?

[skasian]

In my belief in an eye for an eye it does not give a person free reign just to do whatever they want to do. But the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views.

Actually, your quote "but the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views" supports the idea that revenge is indeed unjust and bad. A repercussion, derived from revenge is not always equal from the harm given beforehand in reality. There is no strict measurement when dealing with the harm done in revenge unless it is absolutely literally eye for an eye. Because revenge itself doesnt deal with exact measured offence conducted from the offender, revenge cannot be good and just as most of time, repercussion cannot be equal to the offense given.
The word revenge defines as “to inflict harm in return for as an injury insult etc.” I have searched and searched however there is no statement supporting the meaning of revenge as the idea of returning the precise amount of harm to the offender. Therefore revenge is evil.

[Dark Muse]

[QUOTE=skasian;650721] A repercussion, derived from revenge is not always equal from the harm given beforehand in reality. There is no strict measurement when dealing with the harm done in revenge unless it is absolutely literally eye for an eye. Because revenge itself doesnt deal with exact measured offence conducted from the offender, revenge cannot be good and just as most of time, repercussion cannot be equal to the offense given.[QUOTE]

This logic can be applied to many other things in life.

Take religion for example. Religion is not always used for good. People kill in the name of religion. People have been tortured, slaughtered, discriminated against for the sake of religion. It is up to each individual person how they interpret religion and how they act in the name of their religion.

So by your reasoning, because some people are extremists and fanatics and use religion to do harmful things to others. Religion must be declared as bad.

Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective.

[skasian]

This logic can be applied to many other things in life.

Take religion for example. Religion is not always used for good. People kill in the name of religion. People have been tortured, slaughtered, discriminated against for the sake of religion. It is up to each individual person how they interpret religion and how they act in the name of their religion.

So by your reasoning, because some people are extremists and fanatics and use religion to do harmful things to others. Religion must be declared as bad.

Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective.

To the atheists, the idea you have about religion may be frankly not wrong. However that is not the truth. In religion, people are prepared to do anything that is right in their religion therefore promote goodness in the world. In order to do this, they may indeed afflict harm to another. But it is for good reasons, prevent evil from overcoming the good. Revenge in the other hand, do not have a reason that promotes good over evil, and does not promote good to other people. Thus religion cannot be accounted to be in the same line as revenge. Furthermore, most religion, Christianity in particular advocates that revenge is evil and should not be conducted. The example of Jesus turning the other cheek in fact is a classic example that declares revenge as bad. As we all know Jesus was a man of perfectness, purity and all righteous, in support of religion, revenge is evil.

Your last quote "Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective" also supports the fact that you do believe that revenge cannot be ultimately declared wrong.

[0=2]

Mr.Hyde just about punched this thing in the face on the first page and was just about ignored.

Good and bad are relative terms to end goals. Good and bad pertaining to what desired outcome?

The way I see it, pendulum's swing. Action-reaction. Yes, that is a symplification, for the action and reaction work on multiple different entwining levels at ANY level, but nontheless...

You hurt me or my friends, I hurt you or your friends. Why? Because. My reaction to you punching me is not to cower, that is counter-productive to momentary safety, excluding a few isolated cases of course. You punch me, I am going ot punch you back. Survival mechanisms train us to do this. Morals refine it.

When it come down to it, your morals on the situation are internalized and developed because of your environment. Your "good" or "bad" perception, or rather conception, is a pendulum in and of itself. The clock ticks it's tock, you talk your walk, and then eventually, when presented, do the vice-versa.

But good and bad... I mean define with hwat terms you will, but these are not only vague and relative, but childish, in my eyes.