How do revenge and morality tie in together?

Forums: Revenge, Philosophy, Morality
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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: 5,107 • Replies: 57

No top replies

@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.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I may concur with your point, except that you base it on an assumption. A likely assumption, but an assumption nevertheless.

1 Reply

@najmelliw,

Those ass somethins will get you every time.

0 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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

"Justicialism" instead of Justice.

0 Replies

@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?

2 Replies

@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,

Razzleg wrote:

John Stuart Mill?

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

John Stuart Mill?

Plato?

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@LittleAristotle,

And, BTW, welcome to A2k.

0 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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).

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@layman,

I'm sorry that you felt the need to disagree with an impression that you erroneously formed.

1 Reply

@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.

2 Replies

How do revenge and morality tie in together?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know