Is revenge inferior to non-revenge?

"In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy;
but in passing it over, he is superior."
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626); British philosopher and statesman.

Every day my Panda anti-virus sends me quotes by famous people and I must say that on the face of it they always sound pretty wise, but I'm wondering... is the above quote, necessarily correct and why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the idea is that revenge is something that lowers you to act in the same way that caused you to seek revenge in the first place.
Revenge is about getting even, not seeking justice -it does not right the wrong, it is simply you giving into your desire to inflict harm on someone else.
The person who breaks that cycle of personal vendettas will be the one who acts in a way to break the cyclical nature of reatcive violence, thusly worrking towards suppressing the need for revenge in the first place.

The "higher purpose" is to cease violence, evil, wrongdoings etc, rather than punish them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, nothing can "right the wrong". That's a misconception in most philosophical discussions and is often used to prove ones point ...but there is never, ever a way to "right the wrong".

And as to "justice", that's defined by the group/tribe/clan/state/nation/whatever ..."justice", in most cases, is only revenge taken against someone/some group by a "higher authority".

That's pretty easy to say, ain't it? But how does one do it? Which is the main issue. If only ONE person keeps doing "wrong", then all of the silly philosophical bullshit will have no effect .....and the person just keeps doing "wrong" without punishment. How can that be permitted? ...just to prove that we're "superior"? ...while all around us, people are being killed or whatever?

Cease violence, huh? How has man stacked up to those high ideals in his millions of years of existence? And when can we expect man to change? How long do we wait?

Without the fear of punishment or retaliation, many people would the most heinous criminals. ....cause they don't read/believe all the psycho-babble!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I remember a proverb, it is Chinese, I think:

When you set out for revenge, prepare two coffins.

When you set out to revenge yourself, you get hurt too. Thus, you are hurt twice.

 

Speaking as a man who always dreams of taking revenge on his wrongdoers but without ever actually doing so, I think the satisfaction one would feel in doing so would be absolutely sublime, at least temporarily. The reason that I never actually do the horrendous things that I dream about to those deserving bastards, is that I'm probably too centred and because I can see how taking those kind of actions would only boost my confidence to avenge even more and inevitably lead me on a very slippery slope where the outcome would probably not be very conducive to my health. Therefore, my reasoning is actually quite selfish and self preservating and nothing to do with taking any type of moral high ground or any idea of superiority and I think this is what leads me to question Mr. Bacon's assertion.

 

Vengeance itself can be the means whereby people's actions are restrained, just as fear of the law can be. If someone knows that they will almost certainly be attacked and possibly killed by someone over something, they are less likely to do it, unless sure that they could get away with it or overpower their attacker. So in such a way, vengeance can be very good for a society. In the words of Conan the Barbarian:

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing

Moreover, I ask why not satisfy one's will for revenge? Why is one's self not important? If revenge is what you truly value, then seek it! If you do not, then do not. If you value peace, seek peace. Just beware that indeed, vengeance can be a hollow thing, for it cannot change the past.

 

I don't know anything that will change the past, do you?

I agree. Philosophers and idealists are always spouting off about being true to oneself, yet onthe issue of revenge, they'll back off and make the idealistic statements about "our fellow man". ...LOL!

Be yourself! If you want revenge for a "wrong-doing", then go out and get it, by god! No one else can or will do it for your.

I find it interesting how many people here make excuses for terrorists seeking revenge against the west, yet will be angry and pissed off at the west doing exactly the same thing! May hipocracy reign!

Baron Max

 

"In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy;
but in passing it over, he is superior."
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626); British philosopher and statesman.


It all depends on what one's priorities are and what one deems one's highest principle.
If you take revenge, this means you only believe in worldly justice and worldly retribution.

If you don't take revenge and forgive the offense (but this doesn't mean you will treat the offender as if everything were alright), then your highest principle is a justice that supercedes the limited worldly justice.

 

http://www.publicappeal.org/library...an/sect2_on_the_History_of_Moral_Feelings.htm

#42
#45
#92
#96
(All relate)

To refrain from revenge puts you on another level, superior OR inferior, depending on your motivation.

 

Revenge would be meaningful and fulfilling if the person who hurt you would care about you.
But they don't, this is why they hurt you in the first place.

 

Why and how do you conclude that? I'd be really curious how you know how "meaningful" and "fulfilling" something is to someone else?

Baron Max

 

Baron Max,

I meant it in the sense of worldly justice whether justice done by God.

If all one believes in is this life and the worldly criteria of justice, life sure as hell is injust, and if you want any kind of solace, you better take your gun and start shooting. For otherwise, you will have no peace, or wither away in despair and numbness.

On the other hand, one can believe in a greater justice, that done by God. If so, revenging yourself would be unfair -- for, per your belief, you have placed justice into God's hands.

 

Fuck god; long live revenge!

 

Baron Max:

No, I do not, you're quite right. One simply either must accept the limited retribution of revenge, or abandon it completely, and neither really can be said to be superior to the other.

Yes, there is a certain hypocricy endemic in so many things.

Water:

And what makes God's justice really anymore than divine vengeance?

In fact, I ask this to all: What makes justice and vengeance different at all?

 

I think God's justice implies that things be right, nothing more, definitely not that eye for an eye shit.
I admit my idea is a stretch if you apply it to certain popular perceptions of God...

 

The desire to seek revenge correlates with the amount of hurt one suffered at the hands of another. The greater the hurt, the greater the desire for revenge.

I'm with Cole Grey on this one - taking revenge can indicate either superiority or inferiority, depending on the motivation.

If that motivation is to "take down" someone percieved as better than the self, then I would be inclined to say this makes the vengeful morally inferior. This is particularly true when individuals or groups who percieve themselves as having been wronged use social avenues for revenge (for example, the law system or social denigration) rather than dealing with the matter themselves. Many avenues for revenge indicate that a weaker individual is using an appeal to the majority in order to raise himself above the one who has hurt him, whether that majority be the system of justice or be it the audience in a Jerry Springer show, by way of example... or in a public forum.

Taking a baseball bat to someone who has just raped your wife, though, is just fine in my book.

 

I agree with One Raven. I would add that revenge has valid emotions behind it, but the act itself does not create justice. I define justice as a restoration of wholeness. This is not an abstraction. It is everyday. I work in schools, so in the simple acts that children commit, one can find easy opportunities for justice-as-restoration where the parties walk away having grown from the experience - in spite of (or catalyzed by) the initial wrong that occurred. By the time they are adults, however, if they have not learned such attitudes, then they may fall into the revenge mentality. Our poor, poor society...oh, it needs much healing.

 

Baron Max,

Whether a particular reaction to being hurt is meaningful and fulfilling for someone, is relative to said person.

My consideration is this: Someone hurts me. I want to hurt them back. I hurt them back, yet I see that they are not moved, they are not sorry, they only have the physical wounds to show.

My hurting them back would be meaningful and fulfilling if they would experience the same as I have when they hurt me.
But I can't even know that! I can see the physical wounds, but I can't be sure about the actual, emotional hurt. Have they felt degraded and like scum as I kicked them? Will they have psychological life-long consequences after I have beaten them up? Not likely.

I'd have my satisfaction in retaliation if I could be sure that they are as hurt as I was when they hurt me. But I have no such surety.

I can, however, carefully plot to destroy this person, to make my revenge in a way that will indeed hurt this person. I can start by killing their cat, spread foul gossip, pull my strings to achieve that the person who hurt me would lose his job etc.
But doing so will take me a lot of time, for one, and for two, I will be doing evil things. You can hurt a person physically, but it won't reproduce the same mental hurt the person has first caused you.

So you might just as well first think about your own ways of getting hurt, and why other people's actions and words hurt you, and in what way. So often, it is just a hurt pride that we seek to avenge.


* * *


Cottontop3000,

And against whom will you revenge yourself? Who will be the recipient of your revenge?


* * *


Prince_James,

The pertinent question is: Why do we seek revenege?

It is *divine* vengeance. The only one that is *just*.
Humans cannot be just, because we are limited beings and we can never have full knowledge of the situation and people's intentions.

If you are talking about human justice and human vengeance: They are the same, only with different inplications; "justice" being that which is done based on some accepted legal foundation and in formalized ways, while "venegance" is more emotional and not necessarily legally based.


* * *

Koyaanisqatsi,

What if a girl is raped, and there is no husband and no family to avenge the act? Do you consider her morally inferior then, if she seeks that the law system help her?
Or what about children who have been abused by their parents, say 3 or 5-year olds? They cannot defend themselves. Is it, per you, morally inferior that society intervenes to stop the abuse?


* * *


Onefinity,

Yes. Already the Old Roman Law postulated that the purpose of exercising the law is to reestablish the situation as it was before the offence, reestablish it as good as possible. The law isn't meant to right the wrong, but to restore.

And this points at the central problem: What exactly is it to me if someone hurts me?
There are two components here: 1. The physical/material that can be objectively described and measured. 2. The psychological which is relative and subjective.

So often, people seek revenge because their self-esteem has been hurt -- which only gives away what their self-esteem depends on: the respect of others. Such a self-esteem will easily be hurt, and crumble -- and the person will seek revenge to have their self-esteem restored.

 

I have gotten revenge before, and it hasn't made me feel better.
I don't think it gets much simpler than that for me.

Revenge seems like a noble cause driving us toward justice until we actually achieve it. Then it just feels pathetic and petty.