TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,724
Note/Disclaimer: I do NOT support nor condone acts of violence or any illegal acts. This is simply for philosophical and theoretical discussions only.
With that said, what are your thoughts on the concept of vengeance/revenge? Personally, my two cents on vengeance is that, it depends on the situation and generally, if there are other solutions and if vengeance would only worsen the situation, then it's better to pursue other options before resorting to vengeance. I'm not the kind of person who believes in the bullshit of "two wrongs don't make a right," "stooping down to their level" when exacting vengeance or taking revenge. Granted, I accept that there are conditions and situations where vengeance is warranted. For the second quote, in regards to the vengeance taker stooping down to the aggressor/perpetrator's level, I don't see it that way. This is because the aggrieved (victim in this case) has been wronged (and assuming it is actual harm), then the victim is simply trying to right the wrong, settle the score. It does not make the victim the same level as the aggressor or perpetrator. That is simply shaming language rhetoric and other garbage that society likes to spew to quell dissent.
Scenarios where vengeance can be justified:
Scenario #1:
In a lawless society (or even tribes back in the ancient times, before there was a legal system), where the rule of law and government is weak, then the only way to settle disputes and wrongings, getting redress would be vengeance. Of course, in modern society with governments (especially in first world countries) many people who have redress and other grievances go to legal avenues (courts, legal system, lawyers, and etc.) to resolve conflicts and issues. More often than not, most disputes are resolved without going to trial, or even as much as legal action. So in short, if there were no government, rule of law (or such that it is weak), then humans by default would resort to vengeance and vigilantism in order to settle conflicts and disputes, because otherwise, they would continue to be victimized and harmed until they seek redress.
Scenario #2:
Similar to the first one, if all legal avenues have failed, the government is corrupt, the masses will do nothing to help someone who is actively seeking proper redress (for actual wrongs) and then with nothing left, then vengeance would be the most strategic, logical choice for an individual to take. Such situations are not common and in fact, rare, but it nonetheless exists. Case in point, let's use the school kid in primary school for example. As of the late 90's and early 2000's zero tolerance regulation has been rampant in public schools across the nation. This has done more harm than good, but here I'm not going to go off tangent to discuss about it but just using it as an example. In such a situation, should the school system fail to rectify the situation with the bully and the victim (by punishing both the bully and victim), then the victim's parents are left to seek legal action/threaten legal action against the school and school district, however should that fail, and the victim is left with no choice but to fight and get punished along with the bully, then it is usually better to go down with vengeance on the bully than to just be a victim and still lose. In short, if you are going to lose, you might as well bring down the enemy or do as much damage as possible to the enemy to make the most out of it.
There are many other scenarios where vengeance is worth it and can be justified (might not always be legal in certain cases, but really legality is irrelevant when laws aren't being equally or reliably enforced and the victim has no other ways of recourse). What are your thoughts on vengeance and revenge in general? Do you support it or against it and why?
With that said, what are your thoughts on the concept of vengeance/revenge? Personally, my two cents on vengeance is that, it depends on the situation and generally, if there are other solutions and if vengeance would only worsen the situation, then it's better to pursue other options before resorting to vengeance. I'm not the kind of person who believes in the bullshit of "two wrongs don't make a right," "stooping down to their level" when exacting vengeance or taking revenge. Granted, I accept that there are conditions and situations where vengeance is warranted. For the second quote, in regards to the vengeance taker stooping down to the aggressor/perpetrator's level, I don't see it that way. This is because the aggrieved (victim in this case) has been wronged (and assuming it is actual harm), then the victim is simply trying to right the wrong, settle the score. It does not make the victim the same level as the aggressor or perpetrator. That is simply shaming language rhetoric and other garbage that society likes to spew to quell dissent.
Scenarios where vengeance can be justified:
Scenario #1:
In a lawless society (or even tribes back in the ancient times, before there was a legal system), where the rule of law and government is weak, then the only way to settle disputes and wrongings, getting redress would be vengeance. Of course, in modern society with governments (especially in first world countries) many people who have redress and other grievances go to legal avenues (courts, legal system, lawyers, and etc.) to resolve conflicts and issues. More often than not, most disputes are resolved without going to trial, or even as much as legal action. So in short, if there were no government, rule of law (or such that it is weak), then humans by default would resort to vengeance and vigilantism in order to settle conflicts and disputes, because otherwise, they would continue to be victimized and harmed until they seek redress.
Scenario #2:
Similar to the first one, if all legal avenues have failed, the government is corrupt, the masses will do nothing to help someone who is actively seeking proper redress (for actual wrongs) and then with nothing left, then vengeance would be the most strategic, logical choice for an individual to take. Such situations are not common and in fact, rare, but it nonetheless exists. Case in point, let's use the school kid in primary school for example. As of the late 90's and early 2000's zero tolerance regulation has been rampant in public schools across the nation. This has done more harm than good, but here I'm not going to go off tangent to discuss about it but just using it as an example. In such a situation, should the school system fail to rectify the situation with the bully and the victim (by punishing both the bully and victim), then the victim's parents are left to seek legal action/threaten legal action against the school and school district, however should that fail, and the victim is left with no choice but to fight and get punished along with the bully, then it is usually better to go down with vengeance on the bully than to just be a victim and still lose. In short, if you are going to lose, you might as well bring down the enemy or do as much damage as possible to the enemy to make the most out of it.
There are many other scenarios where vengeance is worth it and can be justified (might not always be legal in certain cases, but really legality is irrelevant when laws aren't being equally or reliably enforced and the victim has no other ways of recourse). What are your thoughts on vengeance and revenge in general? Do you support it or against it and why?
