Thread: Vengeance and Retribution

Do you agree with this statement?

That one is evil if he responds in vengeance or retribution to an evil? One is evil just like the evil that done him wrong because it has infected him and made him commit evil in turn. Therefore justice is an evil principle. A flawed theory that states that "I" am entitled to do evil because of the evil done to me. Justice and the justice system is based on one of the oldest principles disguised in new age deception; an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Only the justice system has removed the direct reflex of action and consequence and given the sole power of vengeance to one person or group. And in one religion it is only God who gives vengeance and retribution. Therefore not only are those who believe themselves the executioners a logical fallacy but a religious violation. Because in assuming that power, they dress up in a mockery of that all powerful One.

Therefore, in this, we see to turn the other cheek is the true path. To resist evil even when confronted with it oneself, that evil find no ground with which to leap from and in the attempt falls to nothing. Madness is voided.

If this is true, then the ultimate evolution of human thought is separating from the confines and impulses of physical thinking. From evil- leaving behind the physical base for the idealic one- the one he has always been struggling to his whole life. The thing he has been reaching for.

Of course, this calls for the unthinkable. That we let evil reign despite ourselves in the hopes that it will tire itself into non-existence because evil perpetuates through infection and reflection of itself in its victim. Something that requires the deepest faith to believe in for truly you risk all and certainly evil will be done- unhindered but emboldened, briefly, by the retraction of immediate consequence. But I believe that he moral one would destroy it down the line. Not one inflicted upon it by the victim but the on inflicted upon himself because of his actions to the victim.

What is evil without another evil in turn. If evil were to attempt to rule it mus get you to do evil as well. So even though it may abuse you it will attempt to command you. If all people refuse to do evil- whether directly or indirectly- evil cannot sustain itself for their is no one evil that can perpetuate itself disproportionately to the good. If he has succeeded it is because he was allowed. Evil has infected and been reflected and has thus grown by the sake of its victims.

An action always returns, directly or indirectly. If it is absorbed and reflected by the target of the action the karmic return is actually more direct but less intense. If it is not is is less direct but more intense. A prolonged reckoning that will come slowly but devastate surely.

Evil begets evil. And when you dress fighting evil- indeed, fighting itself, as "good", you have become another link in that spiraling chain of evil that perpetuates the same cycle again and again and again. It must be understood that a great strength resides in the ability to reject that evil that charades as good. Let is pass over and away and accept its passing in spite of the marks. The greatest strength is seeking peace in everything. It is a spiritual strength.

Imo, the *evil* is the result of peoples' insistence that actions must be classified as either good or evil. Good and evil are two sides of the same coin, and come from the same impulse. It's humans who have decided that one or the other must exist, and that one comes from God and the other from the devil.

Originally Posted by makmugens

Do you agree with this statement?

The rest of your post is full of emotional moronic outbursts and self-absorbed nonsense.

Your question is not of a philosophical nature.

Read up on what "philosophy" is. It will help you.

Originally Posted by Paralogic

The rest of your post is full of emotional moronic outbursts and self-absorbed nonsense.

Your question is not of a philosophical nature.

Read up on what "philosophy" is. It will help you.

You have absolutely no manners. Read up on how to respond politely to someone before you post. A88hole.

Sounds like a justification of apeasment. This is not something I can stand behind. If an evil is commited, a justice must set it right.

Biblically speaking, the God thing is really big on revenge and the "eye for an eye" principles that we follow (sort of) in modern day law. Unfortunately, we humans use only a single strategy to deal with every misbehavior. Prison. As far as I know, the God thing never even suggested prison and I think we would be wise to adjust our punishments to fit the crimes.

Of course, we desperately need to improve our purported Justice system. Any falsehoods or concealments of evidence should result in the lawyers receiving severe punishment instead of the "oh well, an innocent guy was in prison for 25 years, no biggie" attitude. Also, jurists being picked from a bunch of ignorant "common men" is really stupid. Jurists should be professionals who know what to ask for in evidence and aren't influenced by fiery rhetoric. Then, we could learn something from Sharia punishments. Rapists lose their genitals, thieves lose their hands and murderers lose their eyes, ears and tongues. Stocks and whippings would be much more effective than imprisonment.

Originally Posted by makmugens

Do you agree with this statement?

That one is evil if he responds in vengeance or retribution to an evil? One is evil just like the evil that done him wrong because it has infected him and made him commit evil in turn. Therefore justice is an evil principle. A flawed theory that states that "I" am entitled to do evil because of the evil done to me. Justice and the justice system is based on one of the oldest principles disguised in new age deception; an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Only the justice system has removed the direct reflex of action and consequence and given the sole power of vengeance to one person or group. And in one religion it is only God who gives vengeance and retribution. Therefore not only are those who believe themselves the executioners a logical fallacy but a religious violation. Because in assuming that power, they dress up in a mockery of that all powerful One.

Therefore, in this, we see to turn the other cheek is the true path. To resist evil even when confronted with it oneself, that evil find no ground with which to leap from and in the attempt falls to nothing. Madness is voided.

If this is true, then the ultimate evolution of human thought is separating from the confines and impulses of physical thinking. From evil- leaving behind the physical base for the idealic one- the one he has always been struggling to his whole life. The thing he has been reaching for.

Of course, this calls for the unthinkable. That we let evil reign despite ourselves in the hopes that it will tire itself into non-existence because evil perpetuates through infection and reflection of itself in its victim. Something that requires the deepest faith to believe in for truly you risk all and certainly evil will be done- unhindered but emboldened, briefly, by the retraction of immediate consequence. But I believe that he moral one would destroy it down the line. Not one inflicted upon it by the victim but the on inflicted upon himself because of his actions to the victim.

What is evil without another evil in turn. If evil were to attempt to rule it mus get you to do evil as well. So even though it may abuse you it will attempt to command you. If all people refuse to do evil- whether directly or indirectly- evil cannot sustain itself for their is no one evil that can perpetuate itself disproportionately to the good. If he has succeeded it is because he was allowed. Evil has infected and been reflected and has thus grown by the sake of its victims.

An action always returns, directly or indirectly. If it is absorbed and reflected by the target of the action the karmic return is actually more direct but less intense. If it is not is is less direct but more intense. A prolonged reckoning that will come slowly but devastate surely.

Evil begets evil. And when you dress fighting evil- indeed, fighting itself, as "good", you have become another link in that spiraling chain of evil that perpetuates the same cycle again and again and again. It must be understood that a great strength resides in the ability to reject that evil that charades as good. Let is pass over and away and accept its passing in spite of the marks. The greatest strength is seeking peace in everything. It is a spiritual strength.

I disagree.... indeed I disagree in so many ways that it is difficult to figure out where to begin.

First of all, vengeance and justice are not the same thing. Vengeance is a personal attempt to exact retribution on someone you believe has wronged you. The single biggest problem with personal vengeance is that it is often directed and conducted from an emotional bias. It is often directed at the wrong target; it is often disproportionate in effect.
Let's say a man comes home and finds that his wife has been raped. She describes the attacker and the man is convinced it is Joe from the next village. He goes to Joe's house in the middle of the night, kills Joe and rapes Joe's wife in retaliation. That's an example of excessive retaliation, particularly where an innocent was purposefully targeted.
If he later finds out that it wasn't Joe, but another man that looks like Joe... well you can see where personal vengeance can be a big problem.

Justice is a different matter. The fundamental principle of justice is to make the victim whole inasmuch as is possible. The second principle of justice is to discourage anyone repeating this behavior that harms through punishment and deterrence. The third major difference is that Justice takes the matter out of the hands of the victim (the person least likely to be rational and unbiased about what should be done and how) and puts in the hands of either the community (jury) or professionals (judges). In well-ordered nations there are objective standards about evidence, eyewitnesses, what it takes to convict, and what punishments may or may not be inflicted.

The differences are HUGE.


Since you reference certain biblical teachings, I will briefly do likewise.
Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Furthermore, I believe that "turning the other cheek", taken in proper context, is about refusing to take personal vengeance for insults and slights.... it doesn't mean you're supposed to stand there while someone sticks your children on spears.


Finally, I believe that it is immoral to stand by and do nothing while seeing evil done. To me, a man who stands by passively and does nothing while a child is raped in his presence, is himself nearly as guilty of this evil as the man who did it, if he had any reasonable chance of stopping it through action. Self-defense, and defense of others, is also an entirely different matter from taking vengeance. It is about doing what is necessary to protect the innocent from the terror of evil actions perpetrated by evil persons.


In brief, I think your position is deeply flawed and that you should rethink it with great care.

Originally Posted by Goshin

I disagree.... indeed I disagree in so many ways that it is difficult to figure out where to begin.

First of all, vengeance and justice are not the same thing. Vengeance is a personal attempt to exact retribution on someone you believe has wronged you. The single biggest problem with personal vengeance is that it is often directed and conducted from an emotional bias. It is often directed at the wrong target; it is often disproportionate in effect.

Justice is a different matter. The fundamental principle of justice is to make the victim whole inasmuch as is possible. The second principle of justice is to discourage anyone repeating this behavior that harms through punishment and deterrence. The third major difference is that Justice takes the matter out of the hands of the victim (the person least likely to be rational and unbiased about what should be done and how) and puts in the hands of either the community (jury) or professionals (judges). In well-ordered nations there are objective standards about evidence, eyewitnesses, what it takes to convict, and what punishments may or may not be inflicted.

I see what you are trying to say but I can't fully endorse it. Justice and vengeance are not exactly the same, but justice is vengeance. But, like you said, one tends to be an emotional response and one tends to be more emotionally detatched in an effort to prevent the repetition of the crime, ideally.

Justice merely wants justifiable proof that the person deserves the vengeance of society. That is what justice is. It is the vengeance of society for a crime done against it or in contradiction to it's laws or values. You steal, you go to jail. You lie, you go to jail. Vengeance is a word that brings to mind extreme scenarios like the one you just wrote but, in truth, merely means a punishing action to a received or perceived crime.

Since you reference certain biblical teachings, I will briefly do likewise.
Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The rulers are not a terror to good works, lol. What world are you living in? I say that light-heartedly, not sharply.

Furthermore, I believe that "turning the other cheek", taken in proper context, is about refusing to take personal vengeance for insults and slights.... it doesn't mean you're supposed to stand there while someone sticks your children on spears.

That is a good thought and many people share it but that is ultimately an interpretation you took from the words you read. You say proper context but there is no other amplifying text provided in the sayings of Jesus that says turn the other cheek...let our justice system handle the rest. In fact he says that God is the only one allowed vengeance. I think I remember that much.

The point of my post, though, was to ask whether your vengeance- whether immediate or through the justice system- was morally correct? You are not seeking justice so that others do not do the same, you want your own grievances addressed and the law of the land says you have to go through the government to do so. While there are good aspects to the justice system there are also faulted ones. It is the same with vengeance. What is good and what is faulted come down to a matter of opinion.

Finally, I believe that it is immoral to stand by and do nothing while seeing evil done. To me, a man who stands by passively and does nothing while a child is raped in his presence, is himself nearly as guilty of this evil as the man who did it, if he had any reasonable chance of stopping it through action. Self-defense, and defense of others, is also an entirely different matter from taking vengeance. It is about doing what is necessary to protect the innocent from the terror of evil actions perpetrated by evil persons.

In brief, I think your position is deeply flawed and that you should rethink it with great care.

In short, that is another opinion of yours and, ironically, that is an emotional feeling you are basing your conclusion on. But I did not say stand by and do nothing. I said responding to something in turn- an eye for an eye. I hit you, you hit me. If I saw someone hitting a woman and I rushed in to defend her from the blows and remove her from the area, that is not vengeance nor is it justice because no action was done to punish the other person.

If I beat the other guy to a pulp, that is vengeance. If I throw him in jail, that is vengeance. Doing it through the justice system is not really "not vengeance" just another way of carrying it out.

But I suppose when I used the word 'evil' I overstated it. Maybe I should have said 'wrong' or 'misguided'.

But lastly, most importantly, this is not my position or opinion. It is a thought I had and I took a devil's advocate approach to it. Because it is instinctive of us to address a wrong done to us in kind. But in the same way one says that peace is defended with war, I was wondering on the logic of the morality in punishing violence with violence. I just wanted to hear how people turned it over in their own heads. Thank you for replying, though. It did help clarify some things.