Why is vengence wrong?

[Niku]

hmm, this was completely normal in Rome for hundreds of years. They literally went to the Coliseum and watched people kill each other because it was simply just good entertainment. The most advanced civilization for 1000 years loved and embraced blood sport. I think this says a lot about us as a species.

This doesn't say anything about who I am. Speak for yourself.

[Catharlex]

hmm, this was completely normal in Rome for hundreds of years. They literally went to the Coliseum and watched people kill each other because it was simply just good entertainment. The most advanced civilization for 1000 years loved and embraced blood sport. I think this says a lot about us as a species.

It does. It speaks a lot of us as a civilization to have left something so barbaric in the past, where it should be.

[Logonov]

It does. It speaks a lot of us as a civilization to have left something so barbaric in the past, where it should be.

oh yes its gone, now its replaced by gang violence, wife burnings, beheadings in the middle east. Blood sports like american football, things like MMA and UFC, boxing do terrible things to people and we bet on all of that. thousand of fans pile into stadiums for football and chant racist slurs sparking the enormous campaign accross europe. Saddam Hussein was hung its still common in several countries. A soldier in the middle east just killed 18 civilians without provocation according to popular reports. A white american blew up a building in oklahoma. 70 years ago a man and his lackeys tried to wipe a group of people of the planet. 15 years ago a african culture tried to grind another into dust. We also have the killing of christians by muslims in nigeria. back from end of the civil war to now the KKK still spreads its influence and kills innocent. 50 years ago the chinese suppressed human culture in tibet by burning monasteries and killing hundreds of thousands. We have genocide in Darfur.

ah yes, but we have definitely evolved as a species, our evil violent ways have really just up and vanished. Things didnt change in 2000 years and it wont change in another 2000. so long ago we killed with swords and spears, now we just kill with guns and bombs. nothing changed, were just monkeys in suits.

[mea]

If i can seek vengeance; to take revenge - i will make sure it can't backfire. I will make sure the person is unable to retaliate. That is the ultimate revenge - to put a person in a position where they are overcome with desire to retaliate, but are rendered helpless by the inability to do so. Be it physical or consequential deterrent or barrier.

There's nothing wrong with vengeance, as long as you can prevent it from being cyclical. Everything can be deserved, no matter how horrible the punishment there is an action that calls for it.

Edit: Nothing more puke-inducing and gullible than the 'violence is barbaric' and 'this says something about us as a species' nonsense.

[Nuvuk]

Because it makes you feel better about yourself and its wrong to feel good you must suffer and be in misery. Sorry bout that that was my cynical side but really its how you where raised. If you where raised not to hurt others you will find it hard. Also I dont know if this is just the western culture or the rest of the world is involved in this idea but it is believed doing the hard thing is better than doing the easy thing.

[Deleted]

Vengance is not wrong, well most of the times.

[bekilrwale]

Vengeance is wrong is a bunch of bull crap, and two wrongs doesn't make a right is also bull crap. For instance if someone murdered my daughter and i went to kill him how would disposing of a murderer and ridding society of a dangerous criminal who will more than likely kill again not make a "right"? I guess removing criminals from the vicinity of law abiding, peaceful citizens is a bad idea.

[Grizzly Willy]

Edit: Nothing more puke-inducing and gullible than the 'violence is barbaric' and 'this says something about us as a species' nonsense.

Yes, violence should be encouraged! Let's hold rallies where we tie down every single priosner and stone them to death! Let's return to the days where we burned people at the stake! Hey, I know a good idea. Let's take these horrible people, send them to a remote island, and nuke them! That's a grand display of moral maturity, right?

Ah, but of course, you're going to say that we should do this. I'm sorry that I find unnecessary human suffering to be a vile and unfortunate aspect of mankind. I hope someday that large conflicts could be solved without the use of bloodshed, but until people keep saying that it's perfectly cool and awesome that we can go rape and kill each other, we're never going to get there.

@berkilwale

Like I've said before, it's not within your right to kill the person that murdered your daughter. Why? Because taking another humans life (and yes, no matter how disgusting or vile or heinous the act is, the person who committed it is still a person) in turn makes you a murderer and somebody who should removed from society.

You are completely within your right to make sure the person gets the proper punishment, which should be, regardless of the method, a complete removal from society. Now, whether that method is by execution (for particularly heinous crimes) or life in a single 10ft by 10ft cell with no niceties (entertainment, for example) and a bland meal containing the bare minimum of nutrients, is to be determined. At the point, though, the life sentence would be a slow death sentence. The person would probably be driven insane by a lack of external interaction, but at that point we're not concerned with their well being, we're just concerned about making sure they live the rest of their lives out in a place far, far aware from the rest of humanity.

On a side note, I suppose I should clarify my stance. I am all for the ultimate removal of an individual from society. My issue comes with the method of the killing, and the implications that go along with it. If the only way for the person wanting revenge to satisfy their anger is to have the perpetrator killed, and the crime meets the severity of the demand, I don't see why that person shouldn't be killed, or treated to a nice life behind bars. If the death sentence, which would be as quick and bloodless as possible, is too costly, and life in prison is affordable, then they should be sealed away.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

The problem is that its emotional an bias. Vengeful people usually just run with the first story they hear and rarely consider all the facts. An outside source simply doesn't have the feelings to jump to concluions as rapidity.

[Simulacrum]

Eh, vengeance works fine up to a point. But when you have to deal with living around billions of other human beings, some of whom have nuclear weapons, it sometimes has to take a back seat for pragmatic reasons.

Doesn't help that people don't always think the same way. So somebody does something stupid, somebody kill htem for it (or whatevre), somebody else kills that guy for doing that, because they didn't think that what the first guy did was deserving of such harsh retribution, then he gets offed... etc. We have this kind of crap happening all over the world even today. The only thing that seems to prevent it is the leviathan.

[mea]

Yes, violence should be encouraged! Let's hold rallies where we tie down every single priosner and stone them to death! Let's return to the days where we burned people at the stake! Hey, I know a good idea. Let's take these horrible people, send them to a remote island, and nuke them! That's a grand display of moral maturity, right?

Ah, but of course, you're going to say that we should do this. I'm sorry that I find unnecessary human suffering to be a vile and unfortunate aspect of mankind. I hope someday that large conflicts could be solved without the use of bloodshed, but until people keep saying that it's perfectly cool and awesome that we can go rape and kill each other, we're never going to get there.

@berkilwale

Like I've said before, it's not within your right to kill the person that murdered your daughter. Why? Because taking another humans life (and yes, no matter how disgusting or vile or heinous the act is, the person who committed it is still a person) in turn makes you a murderer and somebody who should removed from society.

You are completely within your right to make sure the person gets the proper punishment, which should be, regardless of the method, a complete removal from society. Now, whether that method is by execution (for particularly heinous crimes) or life in a single 10ft by 10ft cell with no niceties (entertainment, for example) and a bland meal containing the bare minimum of nutrients, is to be determined. At the point, though, the life sentence would be a slow death sentence. The person would probably be driven insane by a lack of external interaction, but at that point we're not concerned with their well being, we're just concerned about making sure they live the rest of their lives out in a place far, far aware from the rest of humanity.

On a side note, I suppose I should clarify my stance. I am all for the ultimate removal of an individual from society. My issue comes with the method of the killing, and the implications that go along with it. If the only way for the person wanting revenge to satisfy their anger is to have the perpetrator killed, and the crime meets the severity of the demand, I don't see why that person shouldn't be killed, or treated to a nice life behind bars. If the death sentence, which would be as quick and bloodless as possible, is too costly, and life in prison is affordable, then they should be sealed away.

Good post, but uh.. if you need to state your opinion, there's no need to twist my post into something i didn't write at all. It makes you look stupid - you probably are not, but it does; i suggest you stop it.

Also, you must have misinterpreted my post pretty badly - because in the response to berkilwale, you stated something close to what i intended to say. Basicly, what you wrote, you wrote to yourself. Noone said what you countered.

Also, nothing can 'say something about us as a species'. The only race with the idea of morals are humans, in other words we have no comparison. So no, it doesn't say anything about us as a species. Maybe aliens with moral principles are worse. Then all it says is that we're relatively good as a species.

When it comes to the violence part, i didn't necessarily mean murdering someone. Though i think murder CAN be the best thing. For example, an extremely dangerous person might not allow himself to get captured and sent to jail, and will shoot, stab and cut until he's dead. I'll happily be responsible for the murder of those people if it saves the people who otherwise would have to restrain them. If i'm a murderer for that, then okay - i don't see murder as being bad in all contexts. For violence, i will use it if it can pacify someone who for example is beating a person i know, but the victim won't contact the police out of misguided love. If i can't prove it to the police, i'll take action. If i can choose between the perpetrator and the victim being scared and helpless, i choose the perpetrator.

This is a general example, i know there are sides to every story, but if it were this simple and true. More complex situations demand more complex actions.

[Newbryn]

Morality is quite subjective. there is no right and wrong, good or bad, black or white everything is a shade of grey. Just cause you think it is wrong doesn't make it so, it is a huge opinion. Humans have been killing each other for centuries in blood feuds, duels to the death, blood sports, and wars. Survival of the fittest is truly our most basic instinct why else would man have created war? we do it to prove superiority, and because we like to see those inferior than us crushed and stomped.

And on the subject of vengeance, if you get killed in the whirlwind motion of hate..that just means your vengeance was executed poorly and you lost

"The meaning of victory is not to defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavors, to crush utterly his every achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."

Damn that was so real man, that's how you gotta do it.

[Grizzly Willy]

@mea

I understand your point. Sorry for failing to do so in my other post.

And I can see how a civilian deciding to take down a serial killer, who has been on a murderous rampage, with lethal force would be acceptable. I think the context of the situation is vital to understanding and gauging the proper course of action in these situations.

Glad we could come to an understanding.

[Rocketsurgeon]

Vengeance is wrong is a bunch of bull crap, and two wrongs doesn't make a right is also bull crap. For instance if someone murdered my daughter and i went to kill him how would disposing of a murderer and ridding society of a dangerous criminal who will more than likely kill again not make a "right"? I guess removing criminals from the vicinity of law abiding, peaceful citizens is a bad idea.

You're muddling points so you can attach one that isn't justifiable with one that is. Things are in place in our various societies to deal with killers. They're not perfect, but they have much more oversight than you going off to be a vigilante. Your action would be unlawful and highly unlikely to be humane. You not running off to be a killer doesn't imply that the criminal would get away or that society would be continually subjected to them.
Self-defense would be another matter, obviously, but you're talking about a pursuit.


Just as forgiveness is an attribute of the strong, vengeance and resentment belong to the weak and the injured. Vengeance is not productive or constructive, it undermines justice and threatens the innocent. Noone with an eye on the future works towards revenge, nor anyone seeking to improve the world around them. Those take the legitimate paths.

[Ersula]

Vengeance is a wonderful thing. Don't let anyone lie to you. We may act like we hate it, but when Harrison Ford is hunting down the man who hurt his family, and puts a bullet in everyone who even looks at him funny, who are we cheering for?

But that was justice. Revenge and justice arn't quite the same thing. I believe that Vengeance is frowned upon in Western Society just for the sake that, when you jump to vengeance there is sometimes the possibility that you may be mistaken and taking vengeance out on the wrong person. Could that be what Justice is? Vengeance reaped by an impartial party?

Vengeance is a common topic in Korean and sometimes, japanese cinema. While this genre covers the function of vengeance, it also shows instances where vengeance is a mistake.

[Degenerator]

What is this ? Vengeance is a basic instinct within our mammalian make up. It is a trait from our ancestors that has no place in an evolved society that has art, philosophy, science, mathematics.....trying to justify it or say it isnt "wrong" is simply trying to find an excuse to satisfy and primal urge to inflict pain on someone that has caused it to you.

[Asterend]

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

[Powerogue]

vengeance tends to promote more vengeance. A good example off the top of my head from fiction being Romeo and Juliet's families having a feud that's gone on for generations. Vengeance is, more often than not, a never ending cycle propagating death and hatred.

[Deleted]

It's fine, but do too much of it and pretty soon, we will all be blind