Is vengeance legitimate? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

MrMon

05-20-2007, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that a man murders your brother. You witness it, but cannot prevent it. Further assume that you are armed, but that the murderer now poses no immediate physical threat to you (say you round a corner to winess him empty his revolver into your brother's chest).

Are you justified in killing the murderer?

I realize there may be social consequences that might affect your decision to actually kill him (his brother might then try to kill you, the police may imprison you, etc), but whether you actually choose to do it is not the question. The question is, would you be justified in killing him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. If you live in a society in which you have no hope of obtaining justice through judicial means, then your only means to achieve justice are through a violent act. However, if you live in a society that has established a judicial system whereby one can reasonably expect to obtain justice for violations of the law, then the "right of vengence" is surrendered in exchange for "rule of law".

Lestat

05-20-2007, 10:08 PM

I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, but I would kill the mo-fo. Is it logical? Probably not. Would it make me feel better? Yes!

Vengeance is a human emotion. Emotions are legitimate. So therefore, I reason they must be justified. My killing this particular thug might not be justified to you or other people, but it is justifiable to me, since he murdered someone I cared about and loved.

I STILL say capital punishment is justified. I just think it should be a close relative or friend of the victim who should pull the switch.

CallMeIshmael

05-20-2007, 10:12 PM

I would have no problem with this person committing the murder.

Whether or not that answers the question of justification, is up to you.

Roland32

05-20-2007, 10:23 PM

This question is the basis for the formation of law. This body of law results, because the best interest of the individual is to have his vengence, which is also justified when applied only to a world consisting of only the individual and the villain. But it is in the best interest of society to have the vengence be handed down through a different notion of justice, as determined by the particular society. This justice determined by society takes the power away from the individual. It is this regard, the "costs" associated with error of the individual implementing vengence, that causes the "natural" formation of a body of law. This results in taking "power of vengence" away from the "mob mentatility" of individuals, and into a body of law that is more in line with the best interests of society.

Taraz

05-20-2007, 11:03 PM

I don't think that I would be justified. I would have no way of knowing the circumstances that led up to the murder. Maybe my brother killed his brother!

And Even if I knew for a fact that he killed my brother for no good reason, it's not clear that killing the murderer would lead to anything productive outcome other than me feeling marginally better for 10 minutes. I would hope that there would be some way of restraining/incapacitating him.

Bu if it was strictly between letting him get away or killing him, I would kill him.

bunny

05-21-2007, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that a man murders your brother. You witness it, but cannot prevent it. Further assume that you are armed, but that the murderer now poses no immediate physical threat to you (say you round a corner to winess him empty his revolver into your brother's chest).

Are you justified in killing the murderer?

I realize there may be social consequences that might affect your decision to actually kill him (his brother might then try to kill you, the police may imprison you, etc), but whether you actually choose to do it is not the question. The question is, would you be justified in killing him?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you are justified in killing him to satisfy your wish for vengeance (I'm assuming there's not a "He's going to go on and kill lots of others" angle).

I think murdering him would be less wrong than murdering someone with no provocation. Nonetheless, I still think it would be wrong.

andyfox

05-21-2007, 12:57 AM

Doesn't this make you equivalent to the bad guy?

SNOWBALL

05-21-2007, 01:12 AM

just put the murder on his credit report. That'll show him if he ever wants to own a house.

SNOWBALL

05-21-2007, 01:15 AM

Make an estimate of the value of his life from that point forward. Is he going to hurt society or harm it? If he's a father who supports 3 kids, and is unlikely to kill again, then murdering him is wrong.

If you don't have any information to go on besides that he murdered your brother for no good reason, then you should do some research. If you're faced with the dilemma of killing him now, or never, then I say go for it (assuming you can be reasonably sure that the guy wasn't justified in killing your brother)

SNOWBALL

05-21-2007, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this make you equivalent to the bad guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

did the bad guy kill hero's brother because hero's brother was also a murderer? If so, then the bad guy was justified, and hero shouldn't commit the murder.
If the bad guy killedhero's brother for another reason, then hero's act and the act of the murderer have different motivations.

Lestat

05-21-2007, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that a man murders your brother. You witness it, but cannot prevent it. Further assume that you are armed, but that the murderer now poses no immediate physical threat to you (say you round a corner to winess him empty his revolver into your brother's chest).

Are you justified in killing the murderer?

I realize there may be social consequences that might affect your decision to actually kill him (his brother might then try to kill you, the police may imprison you, etc), but whether you actually choose to do it is not the question. The question is, would you be justified in killing him?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you are justified in killing him to satisfy your wish for vengeance (I'm assuming there's not a "He's going to go on and kill lots of others" angle).

I think murdering him would be less wrong than murdering someone with no provocation. Nonetheless, I still think it would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think it would be wrong for who? Wrong for guy who just killed my brother? Wrong for me? Or wrong for society?

I like what another poster had to say. After watching this guy murder my borther (I'm assuming for no good reason), his life would have no more meaning to me than a gnat's. So other than any repercussions it would have on my life (going to jail, etc.), why should I consider killing him wrong?

Taraz

05-21-2007, 01:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that a man murders your brother. You witness it, but cannot prevent it. Further assume that you are armed, but that the murderer now poses no immediate physical threat to you (say you round a corner to winess him empty his revolver into your brother's chest).

Are you justified in killing the murderer?

I realize there may be social consequences that might affect your decision to actually kill him (his brother might then try to kill you, the police may imprison you, etc), but whether you actually choose to do it is not the question. The question is, would you be justified in killing him?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you are justified in killing him to satisfy your wish for vengeance (I'm assuming there's not a "He's going to go on and kill lots of others" angle).

I think murdering him would be less wrong than murdering someone with no provocation. Nonetheless, I still think it would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think it would be wrong for who? Wrong for guy who just killed my brother? Wrong for me? Or wrong for society?

I like what another poster had to say. After watching this guy murder my borther (I'm assuming for no good reason), his life would have no more meaning to me than a gnat's. So other than any repercussions it would have on my life (going to jail, etc.), why should I consider killing him wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what moral scale you're working on. There are many reasons why it could be wrong.

1. You're hurting his family and friends when you kill him.
2. His brother would be justified in killing you.
3. If you're only looking for personal gain, he might contribute to society in some way that benefits you later.

I think the better question is what do you gain other than a fleeting sense of satisfaction?

Lestat

05-21-2007, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that a man murders your brother. You witness it, but cannot prevent it. Further assume that you are armed, but that the murderer now poses no immediate physical threat to you (say you round a corner to winess him empty his revolver into your brother's chest).

Are you justified in killing the murderer?

I realize there may be social consequences that might affect your decision to actually kill him (his brother might then try to kill you, the police may imprison you, etc), but whether you actually choose to do it is not the question. The question is, would you be justified in killing him?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you are justified in killing him to satisfy your wish for vengeance (I'm assuming there's not a "He's going to go on and kill lots of others" angle).

I think murdering him would be less wrong than murdering someone with no provocation. Nonetheless, I still think it would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think it would be wrong for who? Wrong for guy who just killed my brother? Wrong for me? Or wrong for society?

I like what another poster had to say. After watching this guy murder my borther (I'm assuming for no good reason), his life would have no more meaning to me than a gnat's. So other than any repercussions it would have on my life (going to jail, etc.), why should I consider killing him wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what moral scale you're working on. There are many reasons why it could be wrong.

1. You're hurting his family and friends when you kill him.
2. His brother would be justified in killing you.
3. If you're only looking for personal gain, he might contribute to society in some way that benefits you later.

I think the better question is what do you gain other than a fleeting sense of satisfaction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that's the better question to ask. But I don't think it's a "fleeting" sense. It's (a)venging my brother death. My quick answer (and I don't pretend they are logical) are:

1. I am not concerned about his friends or family, since they do not mean the same to me as my brother did.

2. I don't agree that his brother is justified in killing me. Again, I assume the original killer had no reason to sleigh my brother. This isn't the case with my killing.

3. #3 is very much a consideration, but also very unlikely. If he were some very important person to humanity, I would reconsider. Otherwise, I would avenge my brother's murder.

PairTheBoard

05-21-2007, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you justified in killing the murderer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I find mercy to be greater justice than revenge. In my view, revenge is an integral part of the cycle of abuse. The goal most justified in my view is to stop that cycle. Revenge just feeds the cycle. Mercy stops it.

PairTheBoard

Taraz

05-21-2007, 02:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that a man murders your brother. You witness it, but cannot prevent it. Further assume that you are armed, but that the murderer now poses no immediate physical threat to you (say you round a corner to winess him empty his revolver into your brother's chest).

Are you justified in killing the murderer?

I realize there may be social consequences that might affect your decision to actually kill him (his brother might then try to kill you, the police may imprison you, etc), but whether you actually choose to do it is not the question. The question is, would you be justified in killing him?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you are justified in killing him to satisfy your wish for vengeance (I'm assuming there's not a "He's going to go on and kill lots of others" angle).

I think murdering him would be less wrong than murdering someone with no provocation. Nonetheless, I still think it would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think it would be wrong for who? Wrong for guy who just killed my brother? Wrong for me? Or wrong for society?

I like what another poster had to say. After watching this guy murder my borther (I'm assuming for no good reason), his life would have no more meaning to me than a gnat's. So other than any repercussions it would have on my life (going to jail, etc.), why should I consider killing him wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what moral scale you're working on. There are many reasons why it could be wrong.

1. You're hurting his family and friends when you kill him.
2. His brother would be justified in killing you.
3. If you're only looking for personal gain, he might contribute to society in some way that benefits you later.

I think the better question is what do you gain other than a fleeting sense of satisfaction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that's the better question to ask. But I don't think it's a "fleeting" sense. It's (a)venging my brother death. My quick answer (and I don't pretend they are logical) are:

1. I am not concerned about his friends or family, since they do not mean the same to me as my brother did.

2. I don't agree that his brother is justified in killing me. Again, I assume the original killer had no reason to sleigh my brother. This isn't the case with my killing.

3. #3 is very much a consideration, but also very unlikely. If he were some very important person to humanity, I would reconsider. Otherwise, I would avenge my brother's murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I correct in assuming that you make all your decisions solely on the basis on how much in benefits you directly? No "golden rule" morality? I was just slightly shocked that you answered #1 the way that you did. You said that your brother's death is the reason you feel so bad and need vengeance, but you have no problem inflicting that pain on someone else. (Even if the pain is slightly less for the person you affect because maybe the murderer "deserved it".)

David Sklansky

05-21-2007, 03:53 AM

You said he posed no immediate threat but didn't say whether he posed a long term threat. You also didn't mention whether he has a good chance of getting away with it if you do nothing. Seems like you should specify those two things.

Lestat

05-21-2007, 09:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You said he posed no immediate threat but didn't say whether he posed a long term threat. You also didn't mention whether he has a good chance of getting away with it if you do nothing. Seems like you should specify those two things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to know those things. The question was, is vengeance legitimate? So would you kill your brother's murderer for the sake of vengeance only if you could get away with it? One assumption I think you can make is that he killed your brother for no good reason. Anything else, doesn't matter.

Lestat

05-21-2007, 09:31 AM

Hmm. Good point Taraz and I suppose it's worth considering just why I would feel a need for vengeance.

If he had "any" understandable reason to kill my brother, my need for vengeance would be greatly affected (whether or not I agreed my brother's death was justified). I might accept reasons as trivial as my brother owed him money, he was boffing the guy's wife/gf, or even insulted him in some way.

But I assumed that inherent to the question, was that my brother had absolutely no good reason to die at the murderer's hands. In such a case, I would not consider the other guy's family or loved ones. Why not? Because I look at it as he brought on his death himself.

This is why I also have little problem/sympathy for someone who is shot in cold blood while breaking and entering into someone else's house. I agree the punishment might not fit the crime, but I don't consider it the the shooter's fault, simply because the shooter did nothing to bring the situation about.

I think these are important questions. Are Iraqis justified in avenging loved ones killed by US bombs? Etc., etc.

I never said my position was logical. Only that if someone were to murder my brother for non apparent reason, I would want to inflict pain, suffering, and/or death upon the murderer. If someone were to rape and kill my child, I would want to take that person in the middle of nowhere, tie him to a tree, and slowly, seperately, break every bone in his body starting with his toes and ending with his shoulders, before setting him on fire. His family? I couldn't care less. Their relative made a very bad decision when deciding to kill my daughter. Any pain they might feel over his plight was initiated and brought about by him, not me.

I sometimes think I am too honest and forthright in answering these questions.

Borodog

05-21-2007, 11:11 AM

You have all apparently been ninja-bumped.

Borodog

05-21-2007, 11:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You said he posed no immediate threat but didn't say whether he posed a long term threat. You also didn't mention whether he has a good chance of getting away with it if you do nothing. Seems like you should specify those two things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of these are irrelevent to my original intent. These are like the other considerations I mentioned, such as whether you will be punished, etc. Whether he is a long term threat or not might actually influence your decision to take action or not, as would the chance he would get away if you did nothing.

But the question is, if you killed him, would you be justified?

This is of course a question with a subjective answer. And my subjective answer is, "Yes, of course." If I were on the jury of the trial of the guy who killed the unarmed man who just murdered his brother, and none of the facts were in dispute, I would vote to acquit him.

Furthermore, the place I was originally going with this, over a year ago, is that if any government can be considered legitimate in any sense, it can only be if the powers that it holds are delegated to government officials by individuals. I.e., a legitimate government cannot hold powers that individuals don't hold. If individuals cannot rob, rape, murder, and enslave each other, then governments cannot legitimately rob, rape, murder, and enslave people. If government has the power to put murderers to death, it can only legitimately have such powers if individuals do as well.

Of course, this is only my personal definition of a "legitimate government"; most people's definition would be diametrically opposed. They seem to think that the purpose of the government is to be a repository of powers that individuals explicitly do not have. Individuals cannot rob, rape, murder and enslave each other, as these would clearly be seen to be criminal acts. Instead, governments are instituted to accomplish the robbing, raping, murdering and enslavement that people wish they could perform themselves, but could not get away with. The existence of this system of course is entirely dependent on perpetuating the myth that society needs robbery, rape, murder and enslavement to avoid falling into chaos.

FortunaMaximus

05-21-2007, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is of course a question with a subjective answer. And my subjective answer is, "Yes, of course." If I were on the jury of the trial of the guy who killed the unarmed man who just murdered his brother, and none of the facts were in dispute, I would vote to acquit him.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the conclusion that venegance is a legitimate course of action, that the decision is subjective leaves the issue of how to reconcile a government's role. Does subjectivity get removed from the decision-making process when it is the government that is the initating actor in the process of raping, pillaging and acquistion?

As it stands in systems under Western democracy, you can be justified in committing an act, yet be punished for it. The biggest flaw I see is that there is no cohesion between committed acts of violence and the system of punishment. And that is not something that should be left to overbearing governments.

Although it must be said that immediate venegance does result in a slightly higher probability of acquittal, that comes from the determination of a jury in most respects.

If it does, then the answer cannot be subjective. It becomes the part of a moral standard.

[ QUOTE ]
Individuals cannot rob, rape, murder and enslave each other, as these would clearly be seen to be criminal acts. Instead, governments are instituted to accomplish the robbing, raping, murdering and enslavement that people wish they could perform themselves, but could not get away with. The existence of this system of course is entirely dependent on perpetuating the myth that society needs robbery, rape, murder and enslavement to avoid falling into chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those actions are probably part of the overall character of the species. We're violent and given to dominance over other individuals. We express that in those ways, mostly.

And a portion of non-government individuals enroll in professions each year that give them the opportunity to do such. Armed forces, police departments, hell, even paramilitary and proscribed groups with specific agendas and violent plans.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the better question is what do you gain other than a fleeting sense of satisfaction?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not supposed to gain anything from such a course of action. That's not the point. You suffered a net loss in your life, and an equitable resolution is not for the individual that killed your brother to live off the state for the rest of his life. He doesn't suffer.

Trouble is, a better defined system would leave an opening for the government to have even MORE involvement in those processes. That's not to say they would fill the breach, but an organized system in which the Biblical ideal of "an eye for an eye" and individuals were allowed to do the injections or pull the switch themselves would not be ideal.

I like the standard. I just can't see the evolution in which vengenance would be accepted in society and regulated by governments taking the correct steps.

Cold dishes keep better.

Question though: What would a hypothetical scenario in where those actions could be carried out legitimately look like? How do you account for sociopathic and psychopathic indivuals in such a system?

There should be regulation. Governments need to distance themselves from the implementation and pursuit of such a system though. If they don't, their net contributions to the situation don't change, but the individual marked to carry out the venegance carries the added pressures and responsibility for something h/she may not be mentally capable of doing.

Should they be given the opportunity to pursue venegance, yes. Should they carry out the actions themselves? I tend to not think so unless they want to, but I'm aware opinions differ greatly on the last point.

gumpzilla

05-21-2007, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, the place I was originally going with this, over a year ago, is that if any government can be considered legitimate in any sense, it can only be if the powers that it holds are delegated to government officials by individuals. I.e., a legitimate government cannot hold powers that individuals don't hold. If individuals cannot rob, rape, murder, and enslave each other, then governments cannot legitimately rob, rape, murder, and enslave people. If government has the power to put murderers to death, it can only legitimately have such powers if individuals do as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that inherent in this argument is an assumption that an assemblage of individuals cannot have rights other than that of its constituent members. This seems nontrivial to me.

As a possible counterexample, I'm considering a fairly mundane form of governance: two parents taking care of a child. It would seem to me that as a unified pair, they can take actions that would not necessarily be acceptable if one parent were to unilaterally decide to do it. One could get into some handwaving about unilateral exercise of one's "right" to taking care of your child might interfere with the other parent, and that's the real problem, but it still seems that at the end you have a group with broader rights than its members.

Borodog

05-21-2007, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, the place I was originally going with this, over a year ago, is that if any government can be considered legitimate in any sense, it can only be if the powers that it holds are delegated to government officials by individuals. I.e., a legitimate government cannot hold powers that individuals don't hold. If individuals cannot rob, rape, murder, and enslave each other, then governments cannot legitimately rob, rape, murder, and enslave people. If government has the power to put murderers to death, it can only legitimately have such powers if individuals do as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that inherent in this argument is an assumption that an assemblage of individuals cannot have rights other than that of its constituent members. This seems nontrivial to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence my next paragraph.

[ QUOTE ]
As a possible counterexample, I'm considering a fairly mundane form of governance: two parents taking care of a child. It would seem to me that as a unified pair, they can take actions that would not necessarily be acceptable if one parent were to unilaterally decide to do it. One could get into some handwaving about unilateral exercise of one's "right" to taking care of your child might interfere with the other parent, and that's the real problem, but it still seems that at the end you have a group with broader rights than its members.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a situation of joint ownership. It's not that both parents have a "right" to do things that neither can do individually, it's simply that one parent acting unilaterally WRT the child denies the other parent their property right in the child.

Before anyone get's their panties in a bunch about calling a child property, I'm not interested. If it makes you happy, the nearest way to express the way that I feel about it is that parents share joint ownership of the child with the child, until the child is old enough to wrest total self-ownership away from them (I know many people who never get to this stage).

Taraz

05-21-2007, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Good point Taraz and I suppose it's worth considering just why I would feel a need for vengeance.

If he had "any" understandable reason to kill my brother, my need for vengeance would be greatly affected (whether or not I agreed my brother's death was justified). I might accept reasons as trivial as my brother owed him money, he was boffing the guy's wife/gf, or even insulted him in some way.

But I assumed that inherent to the question, was that my brother had absolutely no good reason to die at the murderer's hands. In such a case, I would not consider the other guy's family or loved ones. Why not? Because I look at it as he brought on his death himself.

This is why I also have little problem/sympathy for someone who is shot in cold blood while breaking and entering into someone else's house. I agree the punishment might not fit the crime, but I don't consider it the the shooter's fault, simply because the shooter did nothing to bring the situation about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you are still inflicting pain and suffering on more people than the perpetrator. I would just ask how much good you personally get out of this vengeance and why. It won't bring your brother back, so what do you really gain?

Look at it this way: If your brother got killed while trespassing on someone else's property, would you not still feel terrible about his death? You might feel marginally better than if he died senselessly, but you'd still probably be in shambles.

[ QUOTE ]

I think these are important questions. Are Iraqis justified in avenging loved ones killed by US bombs? Etc., etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely important. I don't think that people realize that many in the muslim world see the U.S. as the murderer in this hypothetical. Lots of innocent people are killed as a result of our decisions. We MUST realize this. It might not necessarily change our policies, but we can't act like it's not the case.

[ QUOTE ]

I never said my position was logical. Only that if someone were to murder my brother for non apparent reason, I would want to inflict pain, suffering, and/or death upon the murderer. If someone were to rape and kill my child, I would want to take that person in the middle of nowhere, tie him to a tree, and slowly, seperately, break every bone in his body starting with his toes and ending with his shoulders, before setting him on fire. His family? I couldn't care less. Their relative made a very bad decision when deciding to kill my daughter. Any pain they might feel over his plight was initiated and brought about by him, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? Again, what do you gain? How much better would you really feel? And how bad will the family's feel? Does your gain outweigh their loss? I'm just really skeptical that it will make you feel that good.

[ QUOTE ]

I sometimes think I am too honest and forthright in answering these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really appreciate your candor. Nobody's going to learn anything if we don't say what we really believe.

Duke

05-21-2007, 06:56 PM

I'd like to know why he killed my brother. That makes all the difference.

bunny

05-21-2007, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you are justified in killing him to satisfy your wish for vengeance (I'm assuming there's not a "He's going to go on and kill lots of others" angle).

I think murdering him would be less wrong than murdering someone with no provocation. Nonetheless, I still think it would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think it would be wrong for who? Wrong for guy who just killed my brother? Wrong for me? Or wrong for society?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you would be doing something which is morally wrong (which I dont consider to be relative.

[ QUOTE ]
I like what another poster had to say. After watching this guy murder my borther (I'm assuming for no good reason), his life would have no more meaning to me than a gnat's. So other than any repercussions it would have on my life (going to jail, etc.), why should I consider killing him wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's always wrong to murder people witout a good enough reason. Personally, I dont know what amounts to good enough, but in my opinion revenge isnt it. In other words, I think you should consider killing him wrong because you dont have a good enough reason.

vhawk01

05-21-2007, 11:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Good point Taraz and I suppose it's worth considering just why I would feel a need for vengeance.

If he had "any" understandable reason to kill my brother, my need for vengeance would be greatly affected (whether or not I agreed my brother's death was justified). I might accept reasons as trivial as my brother owed him money, he was boffing the guy's wife/gf, or even insulted him in some way.

But I assumed that inherent to the question, was that my brother had absolutely no good reason to die at the murderer's hands. In such a case, I would not consider the other guy's family or loved ones. Why not? Because I look at it as he brought on his death himself.

This is why I also have little problem/sympathy for someone who is shot in cold blood while breaking and entering into someone else's house. I agree the punishment might not fit the crime, but I don't consider it the the shooter's fault, simply because the shooter did nothing to bring the situation about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you are still inflicting pain and suffering on more people than the perpetrator. I would just ask how much good you personally get out of this vengeance and why. It won't bring your brother back, so what do you really gain?

Look at it this way: If your brother got killed while trespassing on someone else's property, would you not still feel terrible about his death? You might feel marginally better than if he died senselessly, but you'd still probably be in shambles.

[ QUOTE ]

I think these are important questions. Are Iraqis justified in avenging loved ones killed by US bombs? Etc., etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely important. I don't think that people realize that many in the muslim world see the U.S. as the murderer in this hypothetical. Lots of innocent people are killed as a result of our decisions. We MUST realize this. It might not necessarily change our policies, but we can't act like it's not the case.

[ QUOTE ]

I never said my position was logical. Only that if someone were to murder my brother for non apparent reason, I would want to inflict pain, suffering, and/or death upon the murderer. If someone were to rape and kill my child, I would want to take that person in the middle of nowhere, tie him to a tree, and slowly, seperately, break every bone in his body starting with his toes and ending with his shoulders, before setting him on fire. His family? I couldn't care less. Their relative made a very bad decision when deciding to kill my daughter. Any pain they might feel over his plight was initiated and brought about by him, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? Again, what do you gain? How much better would you really feel? And how bad will the family's feel? Does your gain outweigh their loss? I'm just really skeptical that it will make you feel that good.

[ QUOTE ]

I sometimes think I am too honest and forthright in answering these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really appreciate your candor. Nobody's going to learn anything if we don't say what we really believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this is all pretty obvious, though, right? I mean, we can argue about what we would or wouldn't do, but a reasonable (I won't say 'the') explanation for why we desire vengeance is pretty obvious.

Being vocal about your future lust for vengeance makes people less likely to kill you and your loved ones. Occasionally following through on that threat works even better. Its not perfect, especially in modern society (where its pretty unnecessary and almost never supplies disincentive) but over the evolutionary history of humans? Don't attack Taraz' brother, he'll hunt you down and get retribution. Kill vhawk's family, he will realize there is absolutely nothing to be gained by exacting revenge and will just mourn his loss. Sucker!

Duke

05-21-2007, 11:37 PM

I'd just like to clarify my earlier response. A pure revenge killing is stupid, but if it's serving the dual purpose of making the world more like a place that you want to be a part of, then it's defensible.

chezlaw

05-21-2007, 11:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Being vocal about your future lust for vengeance makes people less likely to kill you and your loved ones. Occasionally following through on that threat works even better. Its not perfect, especially in modern society (where its pretty unnecessary and almost never supplies disincentive) but over the evolutionary history of humans? Don't attack Taraz' brother, he'll hunt you down and get retribution. Kill vhawk's family, he will realize there is absolutely nothing to be gained by exacting revenge and will just mourn his loss. Sucker!

[/ QUOTE ]
this coin has two sides. Want/need to kill one of vhawks familly and you don't have to kill them all. You may not want to mess with the Tarazes but if you have to then Tarazide is the best stratagy.

chez

vhawk01

05-22-2007, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being vocal about your future lust for vengeance makes people less likely to kill you and your loved ones. Occasionally following through on that threat works even better. Its not perfect, especially in modern society (where its pretty unnecessary and almost never supplies disincentive) but over the evolutionary history of humans? Don't attack Taraz' brother, he'll hunt you down and get retribution. Kill vhawk's family, he will realize there is absolutely nothing to be gained by exacting revenge and will just mourn his loss. Sucker!

[/ QUOTE ]
this coin has two sides. Want/need to kill one of vhawks familly and you don't have to kill them all. You may not want to mess with the Tarazes but if you have to then Tarazide is the best stratagy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But killing all those bastards is a lot of work....very rarely worth it. But when a vhawk is between you and the last cold beer?

chezlaw

05-22-2007, 12:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being vocal about your future lust for vengeance makes people less likely to kill you and your loved ones. Occasionally following through on that threat works even better. Its not perfect, especially in modern society (where its pretty unnecessary and almost never supplies disincentive) but over the evolutionary history of humans? Don't attack Taraz' brother, he'll hunt you down and get retribution. Kill vhawk's family, he will realize there is absolutely nothing to be gained by exacting revenge and will just mourn his loss. Sucker!

[/ QUOTE ]
this coin has two sides. Want/need to kill one of vhawks familly and you don't have to kill them all. You may not want to mess with the Tarazes but if you have to then Tarazide is the best stratagy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But killing all those bastards is a lot of work....very rarely worth it. But when a vhawk is between you and the last cold beer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its worth it if you think they'll hunt you down and kill you, have you not read the course text?

what is this cold beer of which you speak? why would anyone do that?

chez

vhawk01

05-22-2007, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being vocal about your future lust for vengeance makes people less likely to kill you and your loved ones. Occasionally following through on that threat works even better. Its not perfect, especially in modern society (where its pretty unnecessary and almost never supplies disincentive) but over the evolutionary history of humans? Don't attack Taraz' brother, he'll hunt you down and get retribution. Kill vhawk's family, he will realize there is absolutely nothing to be gained by exacting revenge and will just mourn his loss. Sucker!

[/ QUOTE ]
this coin has two sides. Want/need to kill one of vhawks familly and you don't have to kill them all. You may not want to mess with the Tarazes but if you have to then Tarazide is the best stratagy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But killing all those bastards is a lot of work....very rarely worth it. But when a vhawk is between you and the last cold beer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its worth it if you think they'll hunt you down and kill you, have you not read the course text?

what is this cold beer of which you speak? why would anyone do that?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but thats AFTER you've killed one of them. But prior to that, your cost-benefit is almost always going to come down on the side of "avoid killing any Tarazes."

chezlaw

05-22-2007, 12:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being vocal about your future lust for vengeance makes people less likely to kill you and your loved ones. Occasionally following through on that threat works even better. Its not perfect, especially in modern society (where its pretty unnecessary and almost never supplies disincentive) but over the evolutionary history of humans? Don't attack Taraz' brother, he'll hunt you down and get retribution. Kill vhawk's family, he will realize there is absolutely nothing to be gained by exacting revenge and will just mourn his loss. Sucker!

[/ QUOTE ]
this coin has two sides. Want/need to kill one of vhawks familly and you don't have to kill them all. You may not want to mess with the Tarazes but if you have to then Tarazide is the best stratagy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But killing all those bastards is a lot of work....very rarely worth it. But when a vhawk is between you and the last cold beer?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its worth it if you think they'll hunt you down and kill you, have you not read the course text?

what is this cold beer of which you speak? why would anyone do that?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but thats AFTER you've killed one of them. But prior to that, your cost-benefit is almost always going to come down on the side of "avoid killing any Tarazes."

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the Taraz stratagy reduced the lieklyhood of something bad happening but when it does happen its likely to be far worse.

Not immediately obvious which is optimum but I'd guess the vhawk stratagy is far better purely looking at societies that implement it vs societies that implent tarazism.

chez

vhawk01

05-22-2007, 12:43 AM

Yeah, the Old West wasn't exactly the tranquil paradise John Wayne makes it look like.

PairTheBoard

05-22-2007, 01:16 AM

Vhawk's argument is exactly why the paradigm of revenge has proved so instrasigent. Even within the religion intended to replace the paradigm with a paradigm of mercy, remnants of the ethos of revenge continue to operate at the divine level rather than the human. People are only willing to give up their revenge if they can still have it satisfied vicariously by divine proxy.

This amounted to a Political Solution for Christianity and as chezlaw points out, provided the basis for a better overall society. The great criticism of this political solution is that it is spiritually corrupt. It only goes part way in establishing the Mercy Paradigm. It's interesting that it is NonReligious people who most vigorously point this out.

PairTheBoard

vhawk01

05-22-2007, 12:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk's argument is exactly why the paradigm of revenge has proved so instrasigent. Even within the religion intended to replace the paradigm with a paradigm of mercy, remnants of the ethos of revenge continue to operate at the divine level rather than the human. People are only willing to give up their revenge if they can still have it satisfied vicariously by divine proxy.

This amounted to a Political Solution for Christianity and as chezlaw points out, provided the basis for a better overall society. The great criticism of this political solution is that it is spiritually corrupt. It only goes part way in establishing the Mercy Paradigm. It's interesting that it is NonReligious people who most vigorously point this out.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an awesome point.

PairTheBoard

05-22-2007, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk's argument is exactly why the paradigm of revenge has proved so instrasigent. Even within the religion intended to replace the paradigm with a paradigm of mercy, remnants of the ethos of revenge continue to operate at the divine level rather than the human. People are only willing to give up their revenge if they can still have it satisfied vicariously by divine proxy.

This amounted to a Political Solution for Christianity and as chezlaw points out, provided the basis for a better overall society. The great criticism of this political solution is that it is spiritually corrupt. It only goes part way in establishing the Mercy Paradigm. It's interesting that it is NonReligious people who most vigorously point this out.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an awesome point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks vhawk. I was kind of pleased with it myself.

PairTheBoard

Taciturn

06-12-2007, 04:33 PM

Is vengeful killing justified (or partially justified) when the judicial/legal system will not punish or bring to justice the initial wrongdoer?

Let's assume that the initial wrongdoer is likely to commit further wrongs without legal action against him. (For whatever hypothetical reason - let's say that his wrongs do not produce sufficient evidence for there to be any legal retribution, and he has found that continuing to commit these wrongs is in his financial interests.)

Let's further assume that the potential vengeful killer, is fully aware of the nature of the wrongs and of the likelihood that the initial wrongdoer will continue to commit them with no legal action against him.

Is vengeful killing justified, or partially justified, under these circumstances? What if the initial wrongdoer is not directly killing people with his wrongs, but is instead causing serious and permanent physical harm to those that he wrongs?