Is revenge inferior to non-revenge?

Prince_James
Why not be a reaction?

And why is it a blessing to show mercy? One is allowing evil to go unpunished

Bullshit, i never said anything about letting evil go unpunished, however, it depends if it is truly evil or it is something minor that you have judged as evil.
WHY NOT BE A REACTION?
Why not be action
why not forgive and forget
why not kill someone
why not stop asking stupied f******* questions

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jacob:

You claim that it is morally inferior to be a reaction. This is not a "stupid fucking question". Back up your statement with some reasoning, or simply stop posting at all.

Now, do you want to be civil?

And to "forgive and forget" is certainly to let evil go unpunished. Or do you want to quantify your statement to "only take revenge when it is truly evil"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I got it. Thanks again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PHP:

So then you believe that no punishment inflicted on a criminal might "beat the evil out of him"? Why then would Singapore, where the civil justice is extremely harsh and includes caning and the like, have a pitifully small second-offense criminal rate? On an even more mundane level, it is often said that the best way to deal with a bully, is to show him some of the same medicine. I've found that to be true in a personal case, as when I was in the 7th grade (just last year! [just kidding]), I dealt with a bully harshly, and he never returned to his ways again. 

I hope I did that correctly. I don't feel that punishment is equivalent to revenge. Punishment can be delivered coldly, without malice and with the intent to reform (although it will most likely fail) or at the very least discourage future bad behavior. I don't believe in allowing oneself or others to be bullied. It is necessary to defend oneself, but that again is not necessarily the same as revenge. You will have to determine whether your experience with the bully was necessary force to stop his behavior, or excessive force to enjoy his pain and exact revenge.

Regarding your question about my stand on morals, I may be misusing the word, maybe values would be more accurate. I guess in my mind the are pretty close to the same thing. I'd be interested to hear other's feelings on the distinction between them, maybe in another thread. I define moral as acting in a way that is in concert with our highest level of reason, humility, common sense and compassion. We can all have emotions that may be at odds with what we know is right, but what we actually DO determines our level moral standing. I fail to do this often, but it what I aspire to. It is not necessarily related to religious belief for me, although I have to admit to uncertainty in that area of my beliefs and am still examining what I feel the truth to be. As for those who are unaffected by concerns of lowering themselves, they will earn the emptiness that follows. I hope that doesn't come across as to preachy.

 

Lucidgirl,
You should have used "quote", rather than "code".

 

I thought I was pretty specific but to be more so: If my neighbor killed my dog (when I had one) out of pure malice - assuming I was sure it was malicious, I would be saddened by the loss of my dog, and enraged at such a cruel and vicious act. If I choose to exact revenge by then killing his dog to cause him equal pain, I will have in no way decreased my pain. In reality, I will feel more pain because of the death of another innocent animal and I will have lowered myself by committing an act that I find abhorant. My neighbor would not be reformed by my act, he would most likely escalate to further violence.

 

Thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think I got it now. (blush)

 

Sorry, I went back and read your post code.
What you need to do is drop the PHP tags, and put the name of the person you are quoting (rather than yourself) within the QUOTE tag (where it says "Quote=Ludicgirl" it should say "Quote=Prince_James").

 

Lucidgirl, so what is your reaction? Go tell him how "evil" he is? Or "malicious?" Or call the cops? What would you do if you knew that your neighbor had killed your dog out of maliciousness? Tell him how wrong he was and then tell him that you forgive him?

 

Good question. I would not be inclined to try any rational discussion. Anyone that depraved will most likely not be moved to consider the error of his ways. Even if he was, I would still feel that he should face consequences for his actions. I doubt if forgiveness would matter. The public justice system would probably be my first inclination. I guess the question boils down to "if no punishment from any other source was forthcoming, what would I do."

I might attempt to drive such a person out of my community through public pressure, but I hope I woud stick to my beliefs and not resort to any actions that I would be ashamed of. I would rather live with the knowledge that an injustice had been done and the perpetrator had escaped justice (not revenge). Than live with betraying myself to exact revenge.

 

Lucidgirl:

What you want to do is press the further right button, the one with the yellow think bubble like thing.

But surely criminal justice was adopted in society to essentially allow for revenge but to take away the anarchy from it, no? In essence, a socially acceptable form of revenge. Is regulated revenge really that much better? Or the non-regulated revenge for the sake of someone else - or possibly oneself - in dealing with a schoolyard bully?

"To endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" - Aristotle.

No, you aren't preachy at all in your statement - in fact, you go out of your way not to sound as such, actually - but I'd ask you why humility and compassion are considered virtues to you? And why do you think that morality out to be practiced? Is it to benefit oneself, or to act in accords with rightness for the sake of rightness, regardless of benefit? Do you believe that morals are something objective that one is compelled to follow, or more cuturally based but still valid?

 

I'll answer in sort of reverse order. These are tough questions and good to contemplate. I do believe the practice of morality does benefit oneself, but I guess I see it more as being true to ones highest potential. It also has the added benefit of hopefully having a positive influence on at least some of the world around you.

Now to the virtues:

Humility: Generally defined as modesty and respectfulness (Encarta). To me, by trying to maintain humility, you keep your mind open to the value of others and what they may have to teach you. You stay aware that you can improve your wisdom.

Compassion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

again Encarta) sympathy for the suffering of others, often including a desire to help. For me this is a more subjective selection as an important value. It is just how I feel. I find it to be a value I respect in others and conversely I find the lack of compassion difficult to understand. Maybe it's just the way I'm wired. Again, I compliment your question. It allowed for great reflection.

 

Oops, frowny face was an accident.

 

the problem with revenge isnt that if you atack me that i will punch you in the face its that if you kill me, my brother kills you so your brother kills him so my father kills him and then we have northen irland. Eventually you forget why you are doing it in the first place and it perpetuates and just gets worse and worse untill everyone is hurt. At that point does the initial act mean anything or is it just an excuse that no one even knows who started it? and then it just becomes habit. Is this a better solution than self defence or is it better to defend when nessary, forgive when over but NEVER NEVER forget and always be on your guard for the next action against you?

 

Lucidgirl:

What do you define as being "true to one's highest potential"? MOreover, should it benefit the self first and foremost, or only as an auxilliary thing?

So in essence, it is good to have humility, in order that one might benefit oneself through growth in wisdom?

It is a pleasure to offer you something thought provoking!

So in essence: You think compassion is good because you value it, yes? Would you then have it mandated for all, because you value it, or would you accept that some could not care a bit about compassion?

 

Asguard,

Could you ever foresee a circumstance when this wouldn't be a "problem?" When it might actually be a "value?"

 

no, unless you count the fact that this gang style vilonce reduces the population of mafa type organisations (like what is happerning in the gang wars in melbourne) but even then innocent people get caught in the crossfire (which is why the police have 2 task forces just working on it when morons are saying they should just stand back and let them do it)

 

Alright. So when do people, if ever, lose this value that we call innocence?

 

when they are directly involved in the case of gang wars (i dont mean a rape victom isnt inocent because she is involved in her own rape). I mean if my mum walks down to the shops and gets shot by happerning to get in the way that is being an innocent victom or the fruit and veg seller who was exicuted because he happened to look like a gang member who the hitmen were actually after is innocent. They did nothing to bring it on themselves.

 

"Two wrongs don't make it right"
Revenge just mirrors the action and the world doesn't become a better place.