Philosophy Is revenge justifiable?

That Guy you are right in your point luv, the person in the environment things was very well put. i my self have having to think it over right now about something simaler to that that i will post soon for poeple to debate and help me on...i would be pleased if you toke a look at it ill be sure to have it up today or at lest by tomarrow.

 

Hey, That Guy!, how can you talk about the State of Nature and leave out Locke?

 

I being a person who often plots revenge but never acts upon the idea... well I can't say that revenge is a good thing... justafifiable? Well that depends on what you consider justice. I mean look at some of the kids that did those bloody school shootings. I can't say for sure, but didn't some of them do it for "revenge"? And how about Isreal? That girl has her family killed right in front of her on the beach... because of that how many other families will suffer a similar fate? Maybe gang wars are a bit more on the level of understanding for some people. How many of those shootings are for revenge? How many lives are lost, innocent and otherwise, all for the cause of revenge?

Okay so revenge doesn't always mean killing some one. You could always spread a nasty rumor about someone that got you in trouble, but what would you do if they decided to get revenge back?

I guess I don't really find revenge justifiable... fun, maybe... good for movie plots, sure. It just seems like a waste of energy and resources... and depending on what scale you take it to, life.

Then again, it depends on the scenario..... and the extent to which the revenge was taken to and what measures were used in enacting the revenge.

 

your right in what you say but if you look at it, if you tell a lie about someone, then your just lowering your self to there level. and i hate it when people tell lise, cuse i got 5 days inhouse and no one would talk to me in the halls cuse they knew i was a wiccan.
not saing that its wrong, but its should be like a challange to there power, i mean in my group ive been challanged more then once from people that wont to bethe leader. cuse i run the lasgest group out there, it just depends on what you belive in.

 

"Revenge" for the sake of making yourself feel better about yourself, or just to harm someone because you're angry is wrong, and rarely accomplishes something. Acting to prevent further offenses, (possibly through showing that they won't be tolerated, and retaliation can be expected) can help protect more than just yourself in the long run. Revenge? Useless, immature, and unjustifiable, but there are many things that can do good that can be construed as "revenge". "He hurt me" is hardly an excuse for harming someone, but "This way, he won't hurt me/my friends/random kid", in my opinion, is a good thing. While it's best to avoid drama/violence whenever possible, you'd have to be blind to believe that laying down and taking whatever comes at you is going to accomplish anything. Sure, be a pacifist if you want, but you'll solve nothing without standing up against the problems. (And I don't consider Gandhi a pacifist. Sure, he advocated nonviolence, but he stood unshakeably against those he believed were wrong, and in the face of violence)

 

Ah, the Ender approach. Technically, it's not revenge, because you are not acting in response to anything. In fact, you're acting on the possiblity of something. True, it's usually a "good thing", but it's not technically revenge.

 

Define 'acting in response' to me. Do you mean physically, verbally, literararily? What are we talking about? I mean, does this include acting indirectly? Fill in Chance, if you will.

 

Any of them. There are situations where some of those will solve the problem and some where none will. Someone threatens you with a knife and tries to rob or kill you? Cripple or kill him and several people are likely saved, yourself included. Someone verbally harasses you on a daily basis? Report him, or make efforts to stop him yourself. In these situations, retaliating literarily or verbally won't do anything in 99.9% of cases.
Someone flames the hell out of you on the internet? Ignore or report him, or, if you have the skill, twist his arguments so badly he has no idea what he's saying. Do this enough and he's a lot less likely to be a problem to people in the future. Beating him isnt feasible and will just cause lots of drama for everyone.

 

So let me get this straight.. it's okay to cripple a heartless sociopath as a pre-emptive strike so that he cannot hurt anyone in the future... yet the moment he -does- hurt someone, suddenly he's off limits?

That just sounds... wow.

 

Just read it, don't read into it. You'll do a lot better. All the examples involved acting after the offender caused problems. Where did you get any indication that preemptive strikes were a good idea, or that he was "off limits" after acting? Examples?

 

Thank you, come again.

 

Two lines earlier I made it clear I was talking in the context of preventing further damage, rather than making a preemptive attack. Are you just going to try to pick at my statements or will you post something constructive?

 

you just lower you self when you talk back to the ones that bully you, just let them be your better then that.

 

I think revenge on a personal level is not jusifiable but on a national scale while it is not justified it must sometimes be carried out.

For example:
You get assulted. You're not justified in assulting that person in turn, if we do that on a person to person basis we'll have rampant violence in the streets. We need some kind of third party to officiate and redirect justice to both punish the offender and prevent future acts of violence.

However building from that we come to why revenge is sometimes necessary on a national level. Between two nations there is no higher third party to officiate and a nation must strike back for fear of becoming in essence subjugated by the agressor.

However, if striking back agaisnt the agressor would only cause more harm then good for the population of the attacked state then it is better to let the agressing power peacefully conqure then subvert their occupation from within, i.e. the Dutch response to German occupation in WWII.