Vengeance

[Norsefire]

Re: revenge being in kind. I think what I should have said is, revenge should be appropriate to the crime.

Like my earlier example. If someone pushes you, it's reasonable to push them back (revenge). It's not reasonable to pull a knife and rip their insides out (overkill).

Of course. I was thinking more along the lines of actual crimes, and in court, the punishment is the same as the crime in return. It's logical and fair, isn't it?

and Norsefire: thanks for making me think.

yer welcome

 

[Enmos]

and Enmos: thanks for making me think.

What post was it ?

 

[Enmos]

Of course. I was thinking more along the lines of actual crimes, and in court, the punishment is the same as the crime in return. It's logical and fair, isn't it?

So then.. killing ANY person is OUT OF THE QUESTION, as you can only kill them when they have killed you.
We all know dead people don't take revenge.

 

[Norsefire]

So then.. killing ANY person is OUT OF THE QUESTION, as you can only kill them when they have killed you.
We all know dead people don't take revenge.

Then it's revenge on their behalf, i.e, the death penalty, which is both justice, fair, and revenge

 

[Enmos]

Then it's revenge on their behalf, i.e, the death penalty, which is both justice, fair, and revenge

I don't see how that fits into your revenge-theory..

 

[Norsefire]

I don't see how that fits into your revenge-theory..

It's revenge on the murderer on behalf of the victim, given by the state, but it's on behalf of the victim

 

[Enmos]

It's revenge on the murderer on behalf of the victim, given by the state, but it's on behalf of the victim

And only the state can act on behalf of a murder victim ?

 

[Norsefire]

And only the state can act on behalf of a murder victim ?

Or, another logical idea is to give the criminal to the victim's family

The interesting thing here is, if indeed the family forgives the man, like some people have done, they can let him go

If they don't, they can get their justice and revenge

 

[Enmos]

Or, another logical idea is to give the criminal to the victim's family

The interesting thing here is, if indeed the family forgives the man, like some people have done, they can let him go

If they don't, they can get their justice and revenge

Hmm I don't think that's a good idea..
If you must have capital punishment let the state take care of it.. we don't want the family members torturing the criminals..

 

[Norsefire]

Hmm I don't think that's a good idea..
If you must have capital punishment let the state take care of it.. we don't want the family members torturing the criminals..

Why does it matter?

 

[Enmos]

Why does it matter?

Because it violates your revenge-theory. Vengeance should be in kind.

 

[Norsefire]

Because it violates your revenge-theory. Vengeance should be in kind.

And it would be. Murder is ultimate, therefore anything goes in terms of vengeance, as long as it is on the guilty.

 

[iceaura]

That would be different.

There's a difference between getting revenge on he who wronged you, and getting revenge on his relative

It'd be only on the actual person who wronged you. Nobody else would be involved.

You can explain that to the family, friends, fellow tribesmen, etc, when they come for their turn at the vengeance wheel.

Best watch your shadow. Payback's a bitch - and it's the one taking revenge who decides what that payback shall be.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Another consideration on revenge. In theory, it's fine. In practice, what happens when someone is too weak or simply does not have the wherewithal to avenge? - the perpetrator can keep committing wrongs as he pleases. Hence the invention of that pitifully weak solution, the law system. (sarcasm)

 

[madanthonywayne]

Depending upon who did what to whom doesn't it? If a ranch hand doesn't think he's not earning enough money and doesn't get a raise he might just want to get back at the ranch owner for not giving him what he thinks he deserves. Would the ranch hand then be correct in being vengful at the ranch owner for not giving him what he wanted?

If the owner somehow cheated the ranch hand out of what he was rightfully owed, then yes, the ranch hand would be justified. But just because the owner is not paying the ranch hand as much as the ranch hand thinks he deserves does not justify him taking any action but quitting.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Another consideration on revenge. In theory, it's fine. In practice, what happens when someone is too weak or simply does not have the wherewithal to avenge? - the perpetrator can keep committing wrongs as he pleases. Hence the invention of that pitifully weak solution, the law system. (sarcasm)

With our current system of justice, what if a person does not have the money to hire a good lawyer? Sure, you can use a public defender, but you might just as well plead guilty. Look at OJ. Cuts off 2 people's heads, hires a bunch of good (expensive) lawyers, and gets off!

Those with the wherewithal always do better under any system of justice.

 

[Norsefire]

You can explain that to the family, friends, fellow tribesmen, etc, when they come for their turn at the vengeance wheel.

Best watch your shadow. Payback's a bitch - and it's the one taking revenge who decides what that payback shall be.

Then they'd be committing a crime. They'd be the idiots that don't understand that revenge is direct. An eye for an eye is direct; if one man harms you, you harm him, you don't harm his friends or relatives. That's pointless.

Another consideration on revenge. In theory, it's fine. In practice, what happens when someone is too weak or simply does not have the wherewithal to avenge?

Then they can forgive and forget. As I said, the benefit of a revenge system is that if you truly forgive the person, as sometimes happens, you can directly forgive them and let them go. If not, you can get your justice.

- the perpetrator can keep committing wrongs as he pleases. Hence the invention of that pitifully weak solution, the law system. (sarcasm)

Then he shall pay for each of those wrongs.

If the owner somehow cheated the ranch hand out of what he was rightfully owed, then yes, the ranch hand would be justified. But just because the owner is not paying the ranch hand as much as the ranch hand thinks he deserves does not justify him taking any action but quitting.

Exactly.

 

[I Push Wood]

Then they'd be committing a crime. They'd be the idiots that don't understand that revenge is direct. An eye for an eye is direct; if one man harms you, you harm him, you don't harm his friends or relatives. That's pointless.

it's not necessarily pointless, if your aim is to harm someone's mind, and not their body. for instance. What if someone killed your mother? they never harmed you directly, so how would you take revenge? you would kill their mother back. Only I, personally, wouldnt stop there. My mother is the only family i have in my life, so i would murder an entire family... is that unjust?

 

[Norsefire]

it's not necessarily pointless, if your aim is to harm someone's mind, and not their body. for instance. What if someone killed your mother? they never harmed you directly, so how would you take revenge? you would kill their mother back. Only I, personally, wouldnt stop there. My mother is the only family i have in my life, so i would murder an entire family... is that unjust?

Ah, but they did harm you, so you could take revenge on them, on behalf of your mother.

Take revenge on he who commits wrong.

 

[(Q)]

Avenging my loss would result in peace, for me.

Until that persons families avenging results in your death, and so on and so on...

Notice how your line of reasoning fails?