Image by Gordon Johnson from http://Pixabay.com

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!" - Character Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride.

___________

A different take on REVENGE from Tony SIngh on https://www.quora.com/

This is something I have never understood. At the risk of sounding like a deranged psychopath, I think revenge is a totally fine and fair thing to pursue.

People like to throw bite-sized philosophy and platitudes like “Violence is wrong”, or “Hurting someone is wrong”, or “What’s the difference between you and them?”.

The last one particularly gets me. Well, the difference will become clear if you’ll bother to correct your platitudes.

Violence is not wrong. Aggression is wrong.

Now let’s get our definitions straight. Violence is an act, or more correctly, it is an attribute of an act. A property. An act that brings (usually physical) harm to someone else, has the property of violence and is aka, a violent act. That’s what it is. However, there can be several motivations to violence.

Now, tell me if you’re willing to make this statement, with all the moral weight you usually give to the platitudes above:

“Violence, no matter when, or why, or who inflicts it upon whom, is always, always, universally, wrong.”

I’ll take a bet that you can’t. It doesn’t feel right, does it? There are plenty of situations where a much stronger and more ethically sound case can be made for violence, as opposed to against it.

Now let’s talk about aggression.

As I said before, violence is an attribute of an act. And a violent act can have several motivations. An act of aggression, is a special kind of violent act which does not have any prior violent act as its motivator. It is, basically, unprovoked violence, as opposed to defensive, vengeful, or retaliatory.

That right there, is the problem. That right there, is the difference. I suppose people who say “well if you kill him what’s the difference between you and them!” would say the same thing to an American soldier fighting a Nazi in WWII. One and the same, absolutely no difference at all. Right?

No. Violence is useful sometimes. It helped solved the Nazi problem, as a popular someone on Quora puts it. For a more trivial example, here’s something to observe. When I was a kid, there would be plenty of scuffles between boys. Over the randomest of things. However, as we grew up, the scuffles and short-tempered brawls became few and far-between, eventually dying out altogether.

You see, back in the day, there was not much in the way of consequences to aggression. You slug someone, they pull you to the ground, and you rip a piece of clothing or two. But that’s when we were kids. The chances of serious injury were next to none. However, as I grew up, the actual physical fights stopped, because of a certain realization. Now, there were consequences. The punches became harder, the body slams more painful, and any damage (both physical and to the relationship) more permanent. You knew if you threw the first punch, you will have no say in how strong a punch comes back. You’ll lose control of the situation. The fear of extraordinary retaliation effectively put a stop to aggression.

Aggression is a special kind of violence, and for the most part, this is the one that’s wrong and not justifiable.

Revenge, as opposed to aggression, does have a prior violent act as its motivator. And this is not wrong.

An act of vengeance can serve several purposes, including punishment, discouraging further transgression, catharsis, closure for the victims and their loved ones, and reinstituting a sense of justice when the ordinary mechanisms do not seem to deliver.

Consider this thought experiment. If we were to institute a law, under which no matter what kind of an evil, vile terrorist or rapist or murderer is apprehended, the criminal justice system will treat them in a most comfortable manner. Rest assured, they will be confined, so they will not be a risk to the public. They will receive intense (but not violent or harmful) therapy and rehab, so you can be sure everything will be done to make them a better person than they came in.

But, other than this, they will live comfortably. They will have a decent, safe place to stay, will be able to make calls, browse the internet, meet mostly anyone who comes to visit and whenever, and basically live an unfettered life except the confinement and rehab.

How do you think this will fly with the victim who was raped? With the family of the one who was murdered in cold blood? With the children of those who were blown to smithereens?

It would not fly very well. The reason for that is that even though most of us would like to think that we are super-civilized and beyond such “petty” emotions, it is little more than fantastical and wishful thinking. The kind that people who are not personally in the toils of tragedy, often indulge in at their leisure. “Stroke their moral ego”, so to say.

Even though we would like to think that overall safety and rehab and humane treatment is all we care about, a very important part of making the victims feel like justice has been served, is punishment. The punitive aspect. The feeling that yes, the one who transgressed against us, paid for it dearly. That for a crime so severe, the punishment was equally so severe that no one would dare try it again. It is basically the vengeful side of justice delegated to the state.

This feeling is important. It’s cathartic. It makes you feel safe. It helps you get closure, restores faith in fairness and justice in the world, and helps you move on. It definitely does help cope with loss too.

It is crucial for well-being. A major act of unfairness that goes unpunished can literally wreck the mental health of a person. Yes, some people are able to accept and internalize injustice, or find peace some other way, or are able to move on without exacting revenge. More power to them. But that does not make it the only right thing to do. Moreover, it is not just about bringing peace and tranquil to the victims, but it is also a matter of principle.

Not retaliating to violence, or not getting revenge or punishment or whatever, and condemning people for wanting this basic tenet of fairness, literally flies in the face of all our ethical maxims that we preach. The first most important one being the Golden Rule — “Do as you would be done by”. You are literally telling the perpetrator that the Golden Rule is not really golden after all. You can treat people however you want, and rest assured that the same won’t come to you. In my mind, it totally messes up the Karmic balance in the universe. That’s the best way I can put it. It just feels not right in your bones.

When an act goes unavenged and unpunished, when unfairness is allowed to thrive, persist, and fester, there cannot be a harmonious society. There can only be a sick one, where there really are no consequences for some evil behavior.

Another major ethical maxim that I like to consider is Kant’s categorical imperative. It says that the right thing to do, is that which you can wish everyone would do. It’s universalizable. Kant’s ethical theory eventually gave birth to the concept of human rights, and is one of the most rigorous ethical theories we have.

So, if you ask me, if I can honestly wish that every victim of aggression and unwarranted violence be avenged, and every such perpetrator be punished without shame or hesitation, I’d say yes.

Revenge is not always wrong. Retribution and punishment are not always wrong. They are in fact necessary.