|
| Thread: Justice and Revenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 04, 2014 11:28 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:29, 04 Apr 2014.
|
Justice and Revenge
What do you think is the exact difference between these two? In both situations, we have an action that is considered a crime/fault, we have victims demanding a consequence to that action in search for relief and satisfaction. Do they have different reasons for demanding the consequence, how exactly? When, for example, a father who has lost his girl to rape and murder demands the capital punishment for the convict and he says something like "I don't want revenge, I expect justice," what does that indicate, what would be different if he was simply seeking for revenge?
Is it that revenge is for our personal pleasure and bloodlust while justice serves a social contract and order? One serves safety and civilization in the long run while the other feeds our rage? But in practice, what does that change exactly? Is justice only a sugarcoat word for revenge? Is it a sublimation of something much more primitive involving our reptile brain?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 04, 2014 11:38 PM |
|
|
I think that I think that justice is undoing the done to make a wrong into a right... But my take on it is not the norm.
Example..
Event: Air crash
What I hear is justice: Those responsible (usually the companies who hired the pilots and maintained the airplanes, those who regulate air traffic, or those who provided parts to the airplane) must take measures so this does not happen again and provide compensations. Should any laws have been broken they must be punished too.
What I call justice: The bad thing is undone, the victims are resurrected and everyone lives on happily ever after.
Justice, the way it's usually used is so much more than revenge. It's part of keeping society together through the feeling of security by holding the responsible accountable for their doings, even if their doings were not against the law, or if their doings were against the law but no one was harmed.
Punishment on the other hand is somewhat interchangeable with revenge when it comes to crimes with obvious victims, in my opinion. But only for those cases really (in my opinion).
Edit: So I don't think we're very often technically capable of bringing justice.. hence we try to bring some kind of sudo-justice which can easily be seen as petty revenge. I like to think that:
A) It's illegal to kill.
B) The state kills (death penalty).
But since the state upholds the laws, such kind of exceptions can be made, but no such exception may hold for random Joe who kills random other Joe...
But then if some Alien's have claimed ownership of some random volume of the universe much like a country is a claimed ownership of some random are of land, and these aliens likewise say that:
A) It's illegal to kill
B) The state (which now means the alien governing the volume they claim to be theirs no matter what ants on other planets may or may not agree with) kills (death penalty)
Then in my opinion the same logic can be applied and therefore what some would call justice others would call a crime. Of course the state has elected members among the population, the aliens don't, except that they could have, only that the Earth doesn't vote like illegal immigrant doesn't vote, but if one is caught in a ghetto of illegal immigrants he can still be judged all the same... only different scales then.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2014 11:41 PM |
|
|
The impulse towards revenge is an impulse towards a primitive, instinctive form of justice. If someone wrongs you, lash out at them, hurt them, perhaps kill them. To a certain degree, if people expect that certain actions would lead to revenge being taken against them, they will refrain from performing those actions. The problem is that revenge is driven by instinct rather than deliberation, and if our goal is justice, we can do better by reasoning than by purely following our instincts.
Of course, sometimes "justice" is used a a nicer word for "revenge".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 01:34 AM |
|
|
I feel revenge as a personal thing (feel it in my guths) while justice is something more abstract. In that case, even if the deed is done to you or to your my own you seek for the same you would seek for someone you never knew.
My experience says I look for revenge when someone hurts me or my own. I can't talk for the rest of mankind but to me that hipotetic father is in denial.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 03:12 AM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 03:21, 05 Apr 2014.
|
Well, both terms revolve around perceived fitting repercussions for a committed (criminal) deed - where the details on "fitting", "repercussions" and "criminal" vary heavily on the given culture, time period and individual opinion.
The difference between the two is a matter of social stability. Where revenge is exacted by the wronged party, justice is enforced by an official entity which we can, for instance, altogether call "the judge" (be it God(s) or the judicial system).
Where the wronged party stems from someone related to the victim (its siblings or clan working directly on the victim's behalf), the judge, in the process of exacting justice, is a representative of a more centralized order - it's an institution, and as such is supposed to be regulated, impartial and fair.
Of course, from the two links I provided up there, we can see that due to an absence (or lack of authority) of a more structured judicial system, tradition imposes its own. This primordial state of affairs is where "justice" and "revenge" get intertwined. A primitive, static form of social organization, it impedes progress, development and control over a civilization. It's unfavorable for people ranging from those lacking the means to exact vengeance (the impoverished or the disabled), over the learned members of the community, to the rulers themselves. This is why revenge has been discouraged as a principle in both lawbooks and holy books alike, in favour of justice, which is essentially a social service.
From a practical perspective, revenge and justice serve as both an attempt to reimburse the offended party, as well as deter other future offenders. Some cons would be that revenge, of course, only really deters from offending those able to exact revenge (and generally puts wrath before the truth), and justice, being the more impartial and easily controlable variant, allows for more corruption, tyrannical misuse etc.
As for satisfaction due to violent solutions stemming from primitive instincts, there is hardly any mention of revenge or justice in the animal world. What there is aplenty, however, is territoriality. Beasts take great heed to protect their shyte, and this often involves shows of power supposed to demonstrate to other beasts not to mess with you and yours unless they'd like you to tear them open a new arsehole (or, in the case of the silverback gorilla, expand on the existing one). This allows for a certain kind of safety for yourself, your pack, your herd or whatever, ironically caused by gruesome escapades involving colourful gore, injury and death.
To illustrate, when you watch the beginning of a Jason Statham flick, your emotion when someone screws him over and leaves him for dead is, "These people should not have done this." This is because, at least once a year, we go to the cinema to see Jason Statham demonstrate why.
And this is what happened when two chumps decided to rob Dolph Lundgren's crib.
Revenge is there to angrily compensate for not inducing this fear in people on time, and justice is there to induce it so you don't have to.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 03:55 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:57, 05 Apr 2014.
|
Well, one thing I agree is justice is relatively less subjective compared to revenge, since it's executed institutionally by parties emotionally not involved. (At least in theory, one can also assume some level of emotional prejudice in any judge or jury, even if minimal.)
But for the sake of argument, let's assume we are talking about a revenge that is justified in terms of balance and it's socially accepted. (Note that in your link, it is called both blood revenge AND blood law. Is the motivation really so different ethically? You say that animals don't seek for revenge but guard their territory, now that "concept" is first seen in reptiles and in our brain, one of the less developed, primitive parts is called the reptile brain, which basically still does the same thing, it's the part where our territorial instincts are. That's why I mentioned it. Because revenge is in a way protecting territory, only this time, the territory is an abstract field of power. You don't mess with the X (insert gang name) because these are their streets. So what justice is to revenge, revenge is to territoriality: A higher level of abstraction.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 05:22 AM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 05:38, 05 Apr 2014.
|
Still no argument, because we fail to disagree. It's called both blood revenge and blood law because, as I mentioned, it belongs in the domain where the two terms are used interchangably - the traditional "law" of primitive communities, present by default, in absence of a more centralized order. This is a logical step in the evolution of human society, probably dating back to ages when beastly individuality gave way to expanding packs into communities of very hairy people. That this principle proved hard to eradicate and continued well into the era of written law doesn't change the fact that it stems from a time when it was the only punitive form of social organization, and apparently the most efficient one.
Back then, revenge was hard to distinguish from the law because revenge WAS the law, but in a similar manner as the stronger tribe imposing its will on the weaker one was the law. Today, when we mention "law", we usually mean written law, which is a step forward in organizing and centralizing mankind.
I agree about the abstraction. Though I wouldn't necessarily call it that - it's a kind of a technological upgrade as well. It's easier to function and thrive under written law than under one that demands that the grandson of the guy your uncle pushed into a bear trap burns your house and drowns your children. All in all, I don't think it's wrong to say that justice is to revenge what revenge is to territoriality, just like territoriality is, for instance, to hunting what hunting is to survival, or some such.
In the end, it's all pretty much simply expanding upon whatever came before, with both ethical, practical and written laws developing as we go. The first law was simple and it said, "survive", without much dwelling into ethical detail, then "survive easier through possession of territory", then it branched out and got slightly more complex, with one of the branches being "band together to survive even more easily", then that branch branched out further into "ensure, through punishment, that we don't harm our own tribe", and so on and so forth, until the branches started going "If a theresowritten herenotwithstanding nonformative customant (herefromonwiththerefore refered to as 'man') fails to correspond insofar to the forthbearings thereof - including, but not limited to, further perrondiptious fitzbedraggling - they are to be charged and persecuted to the full extent of the punitive consequences described" and everyone forgot what it was they were getting at with these in the first place.
Still, just like evolving past orangutans into humans didn't really mean getting rid of all the orangutans (or convincing the remaining ones to stop doing this), transfering to more progressive laws and ethics doesn't mean getting rid of conservative elements. Nor is it, in today's age of rapid development, always easy to see which changes would be a step forward, and which wouldn't. It was far more obvious back when it took three millennia of survival of the fittest to reach the next level in human advancement.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 07:30 AM |
|
|
|
Well, some people treat the two as opposite concepts like good and evil instead of different levels of abstraction of the same tendency. It's kind of like people who idealize romantic love but are ashamed by sexual desire like they do not emerge from the same source. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting vendetta style revenge or being a vigilante is okay. But in terms of psychological motivation, they don't seem that far apart.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 10:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But for the sake of argument, let's assume we are talking about a revenge that is justified in terms of balance and it's socially accepted. (Note that in your link, it is called both blood revenge AND blood law. Is the motivation really so different ethically? You say that animals don't seek for revenge but guard their territory, now that "concept" is first seen in reptiles and in our brain, one of the less developed, primitive parts is called the reptile brain, which basically still does the same thing, it's the part where our territorial instincts are. That's why I mentioned it. Because revenge is in a way protecting territory, only this time, the territory is an abstract field of power. You don't mess with the X (insert gang name) because these are their streets. So what justice is to revenge, revenge is to territoriality: A higher level of abstraction.
What you mean like the Vendetta convention of Italy? Here's a lovely story that as a child I had to analyse more times than I'd care to admit. Link. (it's a quick read)
My view of justice and revenge, is that justice is something (like a punishment but does not necessarily have to be thus) that is proportional to the crime. While revenge more often than not, is a more severe retribution, and it can extend beyond the law, and into the realm of everyday life and subjectivity. For example abandoning your GF for another woman, not illegal, but still liable for revenge.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 11:56 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:01, 05 Apr 2014.
|
Good one, Guy de Maupassant is one of the great masters of short story, my favourite was again a dark one called The Artist. A master of the art knife thrower wishes to kill her wife who is also her assistant on the stage. However, he perfected to miss the woman so spontaneously now, he is unable to stage hitting her "by accident." Knowing this, the woman ridicules her with her stare. Awesome stuff!
Edit: I've googled it and there's an on-line version. Looks like name of the story was An Artist not the, I'm quite sure it was translated as "the" in the book version.
The Artist
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 02:29 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 14:39, 05 Apr 2014.
|
People treat justice and revenge like good and evil the same way they treat diplomacy and respect of international law as good and war as evil. Back in the day, the strong pillaged the weak, and that's a far older law than any other. The core principles of survival weren't bound at all by the principles of right and wrong; that was a luxury that stemmed from a hard-earned abundance in resources. Since then, we've developed new, more peaceful ways to protect our interests. The idea is that, with the development of ethics, we moved on. Our laws became more reasonable in time, because we ourselves became more reasonable, and started having more control over the society.
War, of course, did not disappear. But it's regarded as, by default, an evil thing that requires careful deliberation and convincing in order for people not to figure you for a tyrant for starting it (the evolution of the term tyrant itself, by the way, can be another example of what I'm talking about when it comes to the moral development of humanity).
When your survival is not in question, no one supports your aggression. When you make it appear so that it is, "Saddam making WMDs" or "Ukrainians pressuring Crimean Russians" for instance, you can make it easier for at least some people to swallow. It's similar with revenge; in a non-functional or unfair judicial system, when people hear that someone's kid got run over and the driver got freed by a corrupt court of law, for instance, when the victim's father lashes out and beats up the perpetrator into a wheelchair, it's a tragic thing, but you understand the man committing vengeance. You instinctively blame the perpetrator and the court, not the father. Social judgment isn't a uniform thing.
As I said, that shyte doesn't disappear with evolution, it simply branches out. It allows for options and alternatives, some of which serve to advance mankind, and some to hold it back, and most of which remain applicable side-by-side for a long time to come.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 05:11 PM |
|
|
Justice = lawful
Revenge = unlawful
Simple things like these made to appear like they're some hard philosophy. A lot of.. words.. above this post. Frankly I tried to read them but my patience expires rapidly.
Ofc, all credit for this thread goes to none other than artu, grats. What's next, the difference between potatoes and tomatoes? I fail to see what you try to accomplish with this. And I'm amazed at how many people take this seriously.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 06:00 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:04, 05 Apr 2014.
|
Stevie said:
Justice = lawful
Revenge = unlawful
That's not right at all.
Quote:
What's next, the difference between potatoes and tomatoes?
Ironically, that's a scientifically more interesting question that you give it credit for. They are fairly closely related - taxonomically - after all. So maybe you should think about things a little more closely before you mock.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 06:33 PM |
|
|
I can tell you where they're similiar, they're both poisonous nightshades ^^
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 07:36 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 19:37, 05 Apr 2014.
|
Corribus said:
Stevie said:
Justice = lawful
Revenge = unlawful
That's not right at all.
Yes it is.
Going back to kindergarten.
Corribus said:
Quote:
What's next, the difference between potatoes and tomatoes?
Ironically, that's a scientifically more interesting question that you give it credit for. They are fairly closely related - taxonomically - after all. So maybe you should think about things a little more closely before you mock.
Ironically, you missed my point completely. Ironically...
Though I know it was intentional.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 07:56 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Corribus said:
Stevie said:
Justice = lawful
Revenge = unlawful
That's not right at all.
Yes it is.
Going back to kindergarten.
Something being lawful or unlawful is completely about the social context while here, the question is if there is a motivational (and therefore ethical) difference between them. Let's say a friend of yours starts to date your ex-girlfirend, you are jealous and you consider it a betrayal to your friendship, knowing he's an illegal immigrant, you call the authorities and get him deported. There's nothing unlawful in what you did, in fact, you even used the law to your advantage. But your motivation could hardly be called justice, it was plain and simple revenge. Maybe, you should have paid more attention in kindergarten...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 08:00 PM |
|
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 08:05 PM |
|
|
Very unjust. Inconsistency and incompetence is utterly rife in the English legal system.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 08:43 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Something being lawful or unlawful is completely about the social context while here, the question is if there is a motivational (and therefore ethical) difference between them.
Ok, so much wrong here, let me breathe a bit...
Firstly, just gonna leave you with you.
artu said:
Is it that revenge is for our personal pleasure and bloodlust while justice serves a social contract and order?
Secondly, ethics is a social code itself.
Thirdly, justice and revenge is a question which invokes morality, which is quite different from ethics.
artu said:
Let's say a friend of yours starts to date your ex-girlfirend, you are jealous and you consider it a betrayal to your friendship, knowing he's an illegal immigrant, you call the authorities and get him deported. There's nothing unlawful in what you did, in fact, you even used the law to your advantage. But your motivation could hardly be called justice, it was plain and simple revenge.
This is a very good example indeed. And yes, human laws have their shortcomings, which I might argue that they are abounding. But morality, which is God's law, punishes that kind of behavior, namely manipulating justice for his own vengeful purposes.
Think of your example as this. Say that the guy was like me and din't gave a snow about his ex-girlfriend. And then he'd report her boyfriend to the authorities because of breaking the law. No problem there, right?
artu said:
Maybe, you should have paid more attention in kindergarten...
Maybe I should have...
For heaven's sake, no one's getting me today. The reason I said kindergarten was because, unlike you, Corribus never bothers bringing counterarguments or examples. It's like arguing with 7 years old kids: "No it's not! Yes it is! NO IT'S NOT!! YES IT IS!!"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 05, 2014 09:51 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:03, 05 Apr 2014.
|
Quote:
Firstly, just gonna leave you with you.
It is quite obvious that in what you quote, I am in a position where I find that answer not fulfilling enough.
Quote:
Secondly, ethics is a social code itself.
Thirdly, justice and revenge is a question which invokes morality, which is quite different from ethics.
Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, terminologically speaking.
Quote:
This is a very good example indeed. And yes, human laws have their shortcomings, which I might argue that they are abounding. But morality, which is God's law, punishes that kind of behavior, namely manipulating justice for his own vengeful purposes.
So, basically what you're saying is the only real morality is your morality because YOU believe it is God's will. Ironically, it is your God who is very unclear about the lines between revenge and justice, since in the Old Testament, he wipes out entire cities with women and children in them, just to punish disobedience of some individuals. But I wont be sucked in to your mythology, it will only do the one thing it's good for: stoop down the level of debates.
Quote:
The reason I said kindergarten was because, unlike you, Corribus never bothers bringing counterarguments or examples. It's like arguing with 7 years old kids
Maybe, he doesn't bother when it comes to you, since you are in the habit of saying quite shallow things and presenting blatant logical fallacies with a strong but naive conviction that they are incredibly intelligent arguments.
|
| |
|
|
