6
   

How do revenge and morality tie in together?

 
 
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 01:37 pm
I believe revenge to always be justified morally because we all have different morals, but I'm not exactly sure how they relate...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 4,273 • Replies: 57
No top replies

 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 01:45 pm
@LittleAristotle,
I would suggest revenge is not the same as justice in that it implies an emotional overtone likely to be out of proportion to the offense. In that case not moral.
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 07:08 pm
@neologist,
I may concur with your point, except that you base it on an assumption. A likely assumption, but an assumption nevertheless.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 07:09 pm
@najmelliw,
Those ass somethins will get you every time.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 07:13 pm
@LittleAristotle,
If you have a utilitarian view of ethics, like Jeremy Bentham, for example, then revenge may be of the highest possible moral value.

Quote:
Question to Conan, the Barbarian: This is good, but what is best in life?

Conan: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 07:20 pm
@LittleAristotle,
Perhaps it is true that the best revenge is to live well.

Of course, if the bastard strikes again, then I have some other ideas that might interest you.

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 08:34 pm
"Justicialism" instead of Justice.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 12:53 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

If you have a utilitarian view of ethics, like Jeremy Bentham, for example, then revenge may be of the highest possible moral value.

Quote:
Question to Conan, the Barbarian: This is good, but what is best in life?

Conan: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.



You reference Bentham, and then quote "Conan", as an example --- not quite the best equivalence to make your case.

John Stuart Mill?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 01:08 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
You reference Bentham, and then quote "Conan", as an example --- not quite the best equivalence to make your case.
John Stuart Mill?


Well, ya know, Razz, if ya look, anyway, I just used him as an example of a proponent of utilitarianism.

As a utilitarian my own damn self, I can't conceive of anything more beneficial to me, and the entire society I am part of, than busting a cap in the ass of those out to smoke us first.

All the more so if we take a few as captives and thoroughly abuse them. This will help the next would-be enemy refrain from indulging their degenerate desires, know what I'm sayin?
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 01:19 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

John Stuart Mill?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 01:30 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
John Stuart Mill?


Plato?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 01:10 pm
@LittleAristotle,
Morality concerns itself with the distinction between good and bad actions. Revenge isn't an action, it's a concept, so it is morally neutral. The acts that one takes in pursuit of revenge can be either moral or immoral, but revenge itself is neither.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 01:23 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Morality concerns itself with the distinction between good and bad actions


Depends on who's doing the moralizing. For guys like Kant, any given "action" (like, say, lying) can be bad in itself. The duty to refrain from lying is a "categorical imperative."--mandatory because of the class (category) a thing is placed in.

But many others disavow such a view, and think that such things as "intentions" and/or "consequences" need to be considered. No action, not even killing, is a "bad action," in and of itself.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 03:19 pm
@LittleAristotle,
And, BTW, welcome to A2k.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 04:21 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Depends on who's doing the moralizing. For guys like Kant, any given "action" (like, say, lying) can be bad in itself. The duty to refrain from lying is a "categorical imperative."--mandatory because of the class (category) a thing is placed in.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. Kant would agree with me that morality concerns itself only with actions.

layman wrote:
But many others disavow such a view, and think that such things as "intentions" and/or "consequences" need to be considered. No action, not even killing, is a "bad action," in and of itself.

Many others? Really? Name three philosophers who believe(d) that intentions without actions can be, in themselves, immoral.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 06:43 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Kant would agree with me that morality concerns itself only with actions.


Yeah, that's what I said (even though it's not 100% accurate, given his deontology).

Quote:
Name three philosophers who believe(d) that intentions without actions


Who said anything about that? I was drawing a contrast, and merely talking about philosophers who considered other factors, not just actions in and of themselves. According to them:

Quote:
No action, not even killing, is a "bad action," in and of itself.


This was all in response to your assertion that:

Quote:
Morality concerns itself with the distinction between good and bad actions. Revenge isn't an action, it's a concept, so it is morally neutral


Revenge is a "motive." Many brands of what you call "concepts" which motivate an action are considered to be relevant to moral judgments. Same with "intentions" (pre-mediated murder is deemed to be more worthy of condemnation than manslaughter, for example).



joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 06:49 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

I was drawing a contrast, and merely talking about philosophers who considered other factors, not just actions in and of themselves.

Then I'm not sure why you even commented, since you're not disagreeing with me. Your post doesn't even rank as a quibble.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 06:52 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Then I'm not sure why you even commented, since you're not disagreeing with me.


Does someone have to disagree with you for any comment to be appropriate? I was elaborating with what you said, and I did disagree with the impression it gave, i.e., that only the action itself had any bearing on a moral judgment.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 06:55 pm
@layman,
I'm sorry that you felt the need to disagree with an impression that you erroneously formed.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 06:57 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I'm sorry that you felt the need to disagree with an impression that you erroneously formed.


Ya think? Care to comment on this observation?

Quote:
Revenge is a "motive." Many brands of what you call "concepts" which motivate an action are considered to be relevant to moral judgments.
 

Related Topics

engaged and broke up by her mother - Discussion by hAppym32
Killing someone indirectly - Question by seamos
Yes or no - Question by jmr1972
roomate revenge - Discussion by boomstank22
Is he angry at me or uninterested? - Question by girl27
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How do revenge and morality tie in together?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 10:49:38