What's wrong with revenge?

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

Net happiness =/= my happiness, look up the term. My happiness is a part of it, but not the whole thing. I was responding to a specific claim, that I would not be happier having killed the killer.

I am making a philosophical argument, that revenge can have utility. Either debate that, or don't, but don't post emotional screeds.

MrGeezer

Feel free to present to us a mathematically and scientifically sound argument showing that revenge (revenge in general, not just a specific case of revenge) OBJECTIVELY results in a net increase of happiness.

Then you'll be at least attempting to provide a compelling argument.

But you haven't even established that revenge (revenge in general) even DOES result in a net increase in happiness.

I am making a logical argument, not an empirical one. And I never once argues that revenge in gerneral has a net increase in happiness, just that it can have utility, given certain values. You're not very good at this whole philosophy thing

I am making a logical argument, not an empirical one. And I never once argues that revenge in gerneral has a net increase in happiness, just that it can have utility, given certain values. You're not very good at this whole philosophy thing

Rhazakna

Well in that case, stabbing my parents 20 times and then raping their corpses can have urility. And we all know that there's nothing wrong with that, right?

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

I am making a logical argument, not an empirical one. And I never once argues that revenge in gerneral has a net increase in happiness, just that it can have utility, given certain values. You're not very good at this whole philosophy thing

MrGeezer

Well in that case, stabbing my parents 20 times and then raping their corpses can have urility. And we all know that there's nothing wrong with that, right?

What logical argument is there for that having utility? And if you say something like "Well it makes ME happy and that's ALL that matters RIGHT?" I'll know you have completely misunderstood the argument I've made.

What logical argument is there for that having utility? And if you say something like "Well it makes ME happy and that's ALL that matters RIGHT?" I'll know you have completely misunderstood the argument I've made.

Rhazakna

No, it increases NET happiness.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

What logical argument is there for that having utility? And if you say something like "Well it makes ME happy and that's ALL that matters RIGHT?" I'll know you have completely misunderstood the argument I've made.

MrGeezer

No, it increases NET happiness.

How does that increase net happiness?

How does that increase net happiness?

Rhazakna

I'm pretty sure I just asked you that exact same question, with you then trying to claim that you don't have to establish how or if it really does increase net happiness.

In any case...in the hypothetical scenario in which I do stab my parents to death 40 times and then murder their corpsres, just pretend that I only did it out of revenge.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

How does that increase net happiness?

MrGeezer

I'm pretty sure I just asked you that exact same question, with you then trying to claim that you don't have to establish how or if it really does increase net happiness.

In any case...in the hypothetical scenario in which I do stab my parents to death 40 times and then murder their corpsres, just pretend that I only did it out of revenge.

God, you really have no understanding of what I'm saying.

I made a logical argument that explained a situation where taking revenge would hypothetically lead to more net happiness and net utility than not taking revenge. You asked me to justify that revenge increases net happiness empirically, which I never argued.

You are now saying that stabbing and raping your parents can have utility, I'm asking you how. I am not asking you to justify it empirically, which is what you asked of me.

Look what it did to sasuke from naruto

Turned him from cool colective bad@$$ to whiny *** psycho moron

i think the main problems with revenge are 1) you basically lower yourself to the level of what you are trying to fight (killing a killer makes you a killer) 2) you still have the question of what is justified which in the case of revenge is very personal so very uncontrolled. i may have saved up years and years to get the car of my dreams, someone intentionally scratching it will get me crazy mad and i might want to kill him to get revenge. is this proportionate to the wrong doing? i think not. 3) following 2 you have a potential of endless loops of getting revenge. i kick you, you kick me back to get revenge, i thought the initial kick was well-deserved so i kick you again, etc. it doesn't solve anything and is far more likely to spiral out of control then having any productive effect.

God, you really have no understanding of what I'm saying.

I made a logical argument that explained a situation where taking revenge would hypothetically lead to more net happiness and net utility than not taking revenge. You asked me to justify that revenge increases net happiness empirically, which I never argued.

You are now saying that stabbing and raping your parents can have utility, I'm asking you how. I am not asking you to justify it empirically, which is what you asked of me.

Rhazakna

Hypothetically, let's suppose that my parents are total jerks. That no one really cares about them. And that the few people who do know them are constantly thinking to themselves, "Jesus, I wish someone would just come along and murder those people".

HOW would me committing such atrocities upon my parents result in a net increase in happiness? Obviously all that's required is that most of the people who know or care about my parents wish that they were dead. And that's a very real possibility, without elaborating further.

Hypothetically, let's assume that my parents were serial murderers.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

God, you really have no understanding of what I'm saying.

I made a logical argument that explained a situation where taking revenge would hypothetically lead to more net happiness and net utility than not taking revenge. You asked me to justify that revenge increases net happiness empirically, which I never argued.

You are now saying that stabbing and raping your parents can have utility, I'm asking you how. I am not asking you to justify it empirically, which is what you asked of me.

MrGeezer

Hypothetically, let's suppose that my parents are total jerks. That no one really cares about them. And that the few people who do know them are constantly thinking to themselves, "Jesus, I wish someone would just come along and murder those people".

HOW would me committing such atrocities upon my parents result in a net increase in happiness? Obviously all that's required is that most of the people who know or care about my parents wish that they were dead. And that's a very real possibility, without elaborating further.

Hypothetically, let's assume that my parents were serial murderers.

If they were serial murderers, killing them may have net increase in happiness. Raping their cadavers would not, and I suspect you threw that in there as an emotional device, using revulsion as a childish debate tactic.

Commiting those acts simply because they were disliked is another matter, as that would depend on why they were disliked, and how the public would react to the shocking nature of the crime (as you defined it).

Because "revenge" basically is nothing more than "he wronged me in some way, some I'm gonna get back at him even if it's just to satidfy my own lustful desires".

MrGeezer

.....and someone who pursues a conviction and punishment through the legal system is different in which way exactly?

And taken just a tiny step beyond that, it's basically saying "everything is about me feeling good and satisfied. And I'm totally fine with getting my satisfaction, even if someone else gets ****ed over by my sense of self-entitlement."

MrGeezer

****ed over? You mean the same people that did something that warranted retribution? Cry me a river. Sorry, that's not ****ing someone over. I don't know quite what your definition is, but ****ing someone over usually means one party gets screwed at the other's benefit. Someone who's had their family slaughtered has not benefited.

"Revenge" is all about "me". It isn't just, it isn't fair, it's LITERALLY me saying that I'm gonna ruin someone else in order to make myself feel better.

MrGeezer

Again, how is this different than someone who wants justice done? And I have no trouble "ruining" someone else if they've done the same to me or someone else. They made their bed, they lie in it. Don't fool yourself, revenge is about me and my desires as much as punishment and retribution is through accepted means.

Again, how is this different than someone who wants justice done? And I have no trouble "ruining" someone else if they've done the same to me or someone else. They made their bed, they lie in it. Don't fool yourself, revenge is about me and my desires as much as punishment and retribution is through accepted means.

MirkoS77

the legal system is impartial and unbiased. someone taking the law in their own hands is far from that, which you seem to help illustrate. this can easily lead to excessive and i would argue unwanted results. you know, along the lines of the crowds with torches and pitchforks way of making things "right".

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Again, how is this different than someone who wants justice done? And I have no trouble "ruining" someone else if they've done the same to me or someone else. They made their bed, they lie in it. Don't fool yourself, revenge is about me and my desires as much as punishment and retribution is through accepted means.

BLKR4330

the legal system is impartial and unbiased. someone taking the law in their own hands is far from that, which you seem to help illustrate. this can easily lead to excessive and i would argue unwanted results. you know, along the lines of the crowds with torches and pitchforks way of making things "right".

I'm not arguing that revenge is impartial and unbiased, I know it's not. But I disagree with the notion that revenge is all about me, and all about making myself feel better, any more than convicting and throwing someone in jail for life is. Just because it's through an impartial and unbiased system doesn't mean it's not about the victim and their desires any less than revenge is.

It shows you aren't strong enough to control your own emotions and stop your own banel thoughts and actions.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]Hmm. On the whole serial killer thing. I believe in retribution before vengence. I would bring him in, and let the justice system handle it. However if there is no conviction because of a loophole or evidence thrown out for some idiotic reason, and not because he wasn't guilty, then sure. If he had killed my family, went and got set free even if he was guilty, then I would take his life. Also... Screw happiness. Peace of mind is more important than being happy. It may be a in between but it can be very peaceful. I do not think you can kill to make happiness after a tragic event. All you can do is bring a sense of peace by removing the known contributions. Which, in my opinion, is very healthy.CreasianDevaili

Those "loopholes" and evidence being thrown out are there for reasons. Even if that reason is that the police didn't follow procedure. And if they didn't follow procedure in one instance who's to say they followed it in all other instances? And who's to say their evidence, or even their word is reliable. And there's your reasonable doubt.

The Double Jeopardy Clause is necessary. Or would you really prefer that an over-zealous prosecutor be able to try a person again and again and again, no matter how many times that person is found not guilty, until he gets an outcome satisfactory to him?

[QUOTE="BLKR4330"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Again, how is this different than someone who wants justice done? And I have no trouble "ruining" someone else if they've done the same to me or someone else. They made their bed, they lie in it. Don't fool yourself, revenge is about me and my desires as much as punishment and retribution is through accepted means.

MirkoS77

the legal system is impartial and unbiased. someone taking the law in their own hands is far from that, which you seem to help illustrate. this can easily lead to excessive and i would argue unwanted results. you know, along the lines of the crowds with torches and pitchforks way of making things "right".

I'm not arguing that revenge is impartial and unbiased, I know it's not. But I disagree with the notion that revenge is all about me, and all about making myself feel better, any more than convicting and throwing someone in jail for life is. Just because it's through an impartial and unbiased system doesn't mean it's not about the victim and their desires any less than revenge is.

in a best case scenario revenge is inspired by a sense of justice that needs to be restored, in a worst case scenario it's pay-back in the broadest sense of the term. in each case it's a personal feeling and the way i see it it means you think you will feel better at the expense of someone else. there is no place for those feelings in the justice system which basically asks you to step back and let them deal with it. the punishment is also not one of retribution but one to add consequence to the crime and a strong encouragement to not do it again, not just in a specific case, but to everyone.

If they were serial murderers, killing them may have net increase in happiness. Raping their cadavers would not, and I suspect you threw that in there as an emotional device, using revulsion as a childish debate tactic.

Commiting those acts simply because they were disliked is another matter, as that would depend on why they were disliked, and how the public would react to the shocking nature of the crime (as you defined it).

Rhazakna

Come back here the next time someone posts a shocking story about a murder, and pay attention to how many people say stuff like "skin him alive" or "deatth is too easy; instead, slowly torture him for the next 50 years".

In other words, yes. There are indeed people who WOULD be happy at seeing people who they hate being tortured or dismembered or otherwise suffering some horrible and shocking indignity. If enough people feel that way, with enough other people just plain not caring, then you would indeed have your "net increase in happiness".

I'm against death penalty, if you want revenge, make the person suffer. I'd prefer torture as a penalty rather than death. Death will never satisfy your needs.parkurtommo

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]I'm against death penalty, if you want revenge, make the person suffer. I'd prefer torture as a penalty rather than death. Death will never satisfy your needs.KungfuKitten

It's often too rushed and half-hearted in the end and lessons are seldom learned because of it.

Cool and collected consideration is the best way to achieve meaningful justice.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Oh. Well I do agree that the feeling is natural. I just don't see any good reason to actually take revenge.Silverbond

Let's say I kill a serial murderer because he killed one of my family members. I am psychologically sated, and the killer cannot harm anyone else. There has clearly been a net increase in happiness, and utility in this situation.

Justice has been served

Justice has been servedIPWNDU2

Revenge would be okay if society was made up of a small number of people, it would be controllable. However, I think if everyone though that they were entitled to revenge there would just be chaos.

I also believe that a lot of people probably wouldn't just stop after getting their revenge either, they'd want to take it much further, e.g. Someone kills your family, you decide that killing the killer is not enough, he must suffer as much as you have and so instead of killing the killer you will set out to kill the killers family.

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Those "loopholes" and evidence being thrown out are there for reasons. Even if that reason is that the police didn't follow procedure. And if they didn't follow procedure in one instance who's to say they followed it in all other instances? And who's to say their evidence, or even their word is reliable. And there's your reasonable doubt.

worlock77

The Double Jeopardy Clause is necessary. Or would you really prefer that an over-zealous prosecutor be able to try a person again and again and again, no matter how many times that person is found not guilty, until he gets an outcome satisfactory to him?

As I said I would let justice, which much more so than not, does deliver. However there are documented cases of BS and technicalities. I personally would want the real killer to be punished so just latching onto someone and totally ignoring real conjecture would be futile. But if they did get get a not guilty, and new evidence could not be introduced even if it did in fact mean he was guilty, then I stand by my stance earlier. I would deal with my proper consenquences but that does not mean I would not take their life myself in such a situation. Without a doubt, not some hyperbole senario, I know I would.

"an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] I am talking of the Double Jeopardy and the ilk. Many situations have been shown where loopholes and the same have been used to convict people who were innocent, but the same on the other end. It isn't as black and white as you just made it out to be. CreasianDevaili

The Double Jeopardy Clause is necessary. Or would you really prefer that an over-zealous prosecutor be able to try a person again and again and again, no matter how many times that person is found not guilty, until he gets an outcome satisfactory to him?

As I said I would let justice, which much more so than not, does deliver. However there are documented cases of BS and technicalities. I personally would want the real killer to be punished so just latching onto someone and totally ignoring real conjecture would be futile. But if they did get get a not guilty, and new evidence could not be introduced even if it did in fact mean he was guilty, then I stand by my stance earlier. I would deal with my proper consenquences but that does not mean I would not take their life myself in such a situation. Without a doubt, not some hyperbole senario, I know I would.

No I do not present "my side", I present the side of the Constitution of the United States. The Double Jeopardy Clause isn't a technicality, it is a Constitutionally enshrined right. Yeah, that means that there may be some guilty parties who go free, but such is the price we pay for having such rights.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

If they were serial murderers, killing them may have net increase in happiness. Raping their cadavers would not, and I suspect you threw that in there as an emotional device, using revulsion as a childish debate tactic.

Commiting those acts simply because they were disliked is another matter, as that would depend on why they were disliked, and how the public would react to the shocking nature of the crime (as you defined it).

MrGeezer

Come back here the next time someone posts a shocking story about a murder, and pay attention to how many people say stuff like "skin him alive" or "deatth is too easy; instead, slowly torture him for the next 50 years".

In other words, yes. There are indeed people who WOULD be happy at seeing people who they hate being tortured or dismembered or otherwise suffering some horrible and shocking indignity. If enough people feel that way, with enough other people just plain not caring, then you would indeed have your "net increase in happiness".

By that very standard, raping corpses wouldn't increase anything, since it wouldn't increase the suffering of the victims. It was still just some nonsense you thre in there for shock value.

And, yes, people have emotional reactions to viscous crimes. However, if faced with the reality of brutal torture, I doubt most people would actually find a value in torturing criminals. If they did, it may increase net happiness, but then we get into a different discussion of whether or not net happiness should be valued.

There is nothing wrong with revenge. 'Don't get mad, get even' -Robert F KennedyDeX2010

"You can believe any quote you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

"an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"

paranoied624

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]...that effect being a sense of profound relief that another scumbag has been put out of our misery. :D

MrGeezer

The problem being that it is SHOCKINGLY easy to morally justify doing horrible **** to someone once you've labelled them as a scumbag.

That's why I am so freaking glad that I live in a country where "being a scumbag" usually doesn't result in their rights being revoked.

Take the case of this human ****stain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuel_Smith

Here's a guy who raped and murdered several people over the course of his life, beginning at age 16. After he was convicted and imprisoned, he murdered a female prison guard; even after his lawyers dragged the staff of the prison through the worst mudslinging imaginable, he was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983.

This is exactly the kind of person that the TC and several others would have revenge upon. If the family of one of his early victims had gotten to him sooner, many people would still be alive, or at least been spared serious physical and emotional harm. If the state had done its job much earlier and executed this ****, the prison guard may still be alive. As it stands, that scumbag still lives, and gets his meals and place to live, courtesy of NY's tax-payers. How is that "justice?" Or how would revoking his rights be a bad thing?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]...that effect being a sense of profound relief that another scumbag has been put out of our misery. :D

OrkHammer007

The problem being that it is SHOCKINGLY easy to morally justify doing horrible **** to someone once you've labelled them as a scumbag.

That's why I am so freaking glad that I live in a country where "being a scumbag" usually doesn't result in their rights being revoked.

Take the case of this human ****stain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuel_Smith

Here's a guy who raped and murdered several people over the course of his life, beginning at age 16. After he was convicted and imprisoned, he murdered a female prison guard; even after his lawyers dragged the staff of the prison through the worst mudslinging imaginable, he was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983.

This is exactly the kind of person that the TC and several others would have revenge upon. If the family of one of his early victims had gotten to him sooner, many people would still be alive, or at least been spared serious physical and emotional harm. If the state had done its job much earlier and executed this ****, the prison guard may still be alive. As it stands, that scumbag still lives, and gets his meals and place to live, courtesy of NY's tax-payers. How is that "justice?" Or how would revoking his rights be a bad thing?

And if one of the victims' family had decided to take justice into their own hands, but thought that someone else was responsible for the crime what then? And are you serious? If rights can be revoked then how are they rights?

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

The problem being that it is SHOCKINGLY easy to morally justify doing horrible **** to someone once you've labelled them as a scumbag.

That's why I am so freaking glad that I live in a country where "being a scumbag" usually doesn't result in their rights being revoked.

worlock77

Take the case of this human ****stain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuel_Smith

Here's a guy who raped and murdered several people over the course of his life, beginning at age 16. After he was convicted and imprisoned, he murdered a female prison guard; even after his lawyers dragged the staff of the prison through the worst mudslinging imaginable, he was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983.

This is exactly the kind of person that the TC and several others would have revenge upon. If the family of one of his early victims had gotten to him sooner, many people would still be alive, or at least been spared serious physical and emotional harm. If the state had done its job much earlier and executed this ****, the prison guard may still be alive. As it stands, that scumbag still lives, and gets his meals and place to live, courtesy of NY's tax-payers. How is that "justice?" Or how would revoking his rights be a bad thing?

And if one of the victims' family had decided to take justice into their own hands, but thought that someone else was responsible for the crime what then? And are you serious? If rights can be revoked then how are they rights?

What of the rights of his victims? He was willing to revoke the rights of six people to live; why should we respect his rights more than he respected theirs.

You're assuming a mistake would have been made. I'm not.

What of the rights of his victims? He was willing to revoke the rights of six people to live; why should we respect his rights more than he respected theirs.

OrkHammer007

- That's a dangerious assumption to make friend.

- Because rights are rights, and if the state can take anyone's rights away then they can take everyone's rights away, and thus they aren't rights to begin with.

[QUOTE="DeX2010"]There is nothing wrong with revenge. 'Don't get mad, get even' -Robert F Kennedyworlock77

"You can believe any quote you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]You're assuming a mistake would have been made. I'm not.

What of the rights of his victims? He was willing to revoke the rights of six people to live; why should we respect his rights more than he respected theirs.

worlock77

- That's a dangerious assumption to make friend.

- Because rights are rights, and if the state can take anyone's rights away then they can take everyone's rights away, and thus they aren't rights to begin with.

2.)So... let me see if I have this straight: this... "person"... kills six people, rapes several others, and gets free room and board for life... while the families of his victims get the satisfaction of knowing that even though this piece of **** still breathes, his "rights" aren't being violated in any way, because people who haven't done anything wrong MIGHT have their rights violated if his rights are.

...nope, no matter how many times I read that, it still looks like a twisted justification to leave that "person" alive, and his "rights" intact.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="DeX2010"]There is nothing wrong with revenge. 'Don't get mad, get even' -Robert F KennedyDeX2010

"You can believe any quote you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

No, I'm not assuming anything there. That quote's been around forever and everybody knows it. I'm just not sure it was Bobby Kennedy who coined it.

2.)So... let me see if I have this straight: this... "person"... kills six people, rapes several others, and gets free room and board for life... while the families of his victims get the satisfaction of knowing that even though this piece of **** still breathes, his "rights" aren't being violated in any way, because people who haven't done anything wrong MIGHT have their rights violated if his rights are.

...nope, no matter how many times I read that, it still looks like a twisted justification to leave that "person" alive, and his "rights" intact.

OrkHammer007

Again, if the state can take anybody's rights away then they can take everybody's rights away. Once the precident has been set that's it. Are you really willing to sacrifice rights to sate fleeting emotions?

There is nothing wrong with revenge. It's natural and humane.

However, in order to prevent chaos we have our WONDERFUL and PERFECT justice system to inflict consequential fear and judicial punishment.

I'll just say that if someone were to murder someone in my family I would not be leaving it up to the "justice system". I would want justice by my own doing.

[QUOTE="paranoied624"]

"an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"

Overlord93

"you talk the talk but do you walk the walk?"

There is nothing wrong with revenge. It's natural and humane.

However, in order to prevent chaos we have our WONDERFUL and PERFECT justice system to inflict consequential fear and judicial punishment.

I'll just say that if someone were to murder someone in my family I would not be leaving it up to the "justice system". I would want justice by my own doing.

Optical_Order

No, the Justice system is not perfect. No institution created and opereated by humans ever will be. But it's what we have and it's important. If we want a functioning society there must be law. The law is the bedrock of society. And if we take "justice" into our own hands we toss aside the law and thus weaken society's foundations.