I got a question.
Why is revenge seen as such a negative thing in the West?
Revenge for me is nothing more than justice.
People that do harm to other people deserve harm done to them.
It is the natural way of things, and the only way to prevent this harm from being repeated.
So, from where does this negative perception of revenge comes from?
Why is revenge not seen as justice in the West?
Good question. I suppose some of our distinguished fellows, having studied Laws, will have far better and more detailed explanations, but my own opinion is that revenge is hot, personal and partial (and leads to an endless cycle or revenges, a world of infinite little tribal wars), while justice is cold, detached and impartial, and relies on a set of detailed rules equal for all, namely, the Law.
It's all part of the social contract and the state's monopoly of violence. At least since the Renaissance states have actively worked to stablish and maintain a monopoly of legitimate violence, with justice courts, lawyers, policemen, prisons, etc, while revenges, duels, vendettas and private armies were forbidden.
In addition, justice courts are seen as far more than a system to punish evildoers. In fact, I would say their first purpose is keeping the public peace, justice only the second, no matter how important; add to this the relatively modern (originated around 1850, perhaps?) idea that harsh punishment wasn't working to reduce crime but rather the opposite, it was converting petty hungry thiefs and the like in tough, embittered criminals... hence the reformist concept of rehabilitating delinquents rather than merely punishing them, if at all possible.
Oh, and I bet you are going to be mercilessly bombed with variants of the 'you are an Arab at heart'.
Well, I was referring to revenge as punishment from the State point of view, as is seen by a democratic society today. I really don't understand what's wrong with killing a proven murderer or rapist.
Especially a mass murderer as the Lockerbie bomber.
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 01:16:36 AM
Well, I was referring to revenge as punishment from the State point of view, as is seen by a democratic society today. I really don't understand what's wrong with killing a proven murderer or rapist.
Especially a mass murderer as the Lockerbie bomber.
Because the proven murderer or rapist can contribute to society in other ways- law is concerned with the welfare of society, so every unjustified killing is a crime, and if the person cannot be proven tangibly to be a detriment to society, the killing cannot be justified.
Revenge is not considered justice because laws exist for the protection of the whole society- revenge only benefits, and possibly harms all but, the individual who was wronged.
Siegy, there were two pillars framing the entrance to the Temple of Salomon - Iakin and Boaz - Justice and Mercy. Without Mercy, Justice is just revenge - it loses its moral quality and breeds more revenge, winding up the vicious spiral.
The main purpose of a civilized society is to suppress an individual's desire for violence in the interest of the communal tranquility.
I follow the teachings of Bronson.
One of our legal system primarily functions to prevent the sort of revenge-cycles and blood fueds that have dominated world history, by providing a civilized fair system that people agree to.
It doesn't always work perfectly as people in the west still take matters into their own hands from time to time.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2009, 01:37:13 AM
Without Mercy, Justice is just revenge - it loses its moral quality and breeds more revenge, winding up the vicious spiral.
I don't know if there is a requirement that Justice have an element of mercy in it (after all mercy is by definition rather arbitrary, if by rule you are supposed to be merciful than it really isn't mercy it is an entitlement and standard practice) but that is the basic idea yes.
Revenge destroys society.
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 01:16:36 AM
Well, I was referring to revenge as punishment from the State point of view, as is seen by a democratic society today. I really don't understand what's wrong with killing a proven murderer or rapist.
Especially a mass murderer as the Lockerbie bomber.
Many if not most Americans see punishment as the primary purpose of the penal system, why we end up with clowns like Joe Arpaio.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 25, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
Many if not most Americans see punishment as the primary purpose of the penal system, why we end up with clowns like Joe Arpaio.
Hey man people love Joe Arpaio...that does reflect rather poorly on us doesn't it?
All I can say is that in our society we don't have that many mores and societal pressure keeping people in line. There is a need for fear and self interest to be a force to keep people from committing crimes.
I love Sheriff Joe.
Quote from: MachiavelliRevenge is a dish best served cold
Quote from: Strix on August 25, 2009, 08:53:08 AM
Quote from: MachiavelliRevenge is a dish best served cold
Quote from: Khan
In Space
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 25, 2009, 08:57:34 AM
Quote from: Strix on August 25, 2009, 08:53:08 AM
Quote from: MachiavelliRevenge is a dish best served cold
Quote from: Khan
In Space
Quote from: Khan"He tasks me! He tasks me! And I shall have him. I'll chase him round the moons of Nibia and round the Antares maelstrom and round perdition's flames before I give him up!"
You see kids, that is high quality nerdliness in action. Bravo Strix.
Quote from: KirkKHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
Quote from: KirkKHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
Quote from: Khan
No. No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
I think Western democracies should learn some game theory. Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.
The premise is not entirely accurate because retibution is one of the accepted purposes of criminal punishment in Western legal systems. It simply is not the sole purpose. But it is there, if for no other reason than to recognize the reality of its emotional pull and therefore to safeguard the perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
Even the most crude forms of criminal justice start from the assumption that although retribution needs to be recognized as a basic human impulse, a fundamental purpose of any system of justice is to control and limit that impulse. Placing some kind of basic regulation and control on the retributive impulse is a pre-requisite to maintaining any kind of organized society.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 09:29:29 AM
I think Western democracies should learn some game theory. Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.
That is a deterrence rationale, not retribution.
I really don't understand.
Why is revenge seen as a bad thing?
I don't mean revenge by the individual, of course. I agree the State should have monopoly on violence. What I am asking is why society at large sees revenge, as in punishment for criminal actions, as something negative. Punishment proportional to the crime committed, of course.
In my mind, reeducation is morally acceptable only for petty criminals.
A murderer should be punished to the maximum any given country's laws allow to, and not waste our time thinking of the reeducation of this murderer. That's what I mean by revenge. "You are a convicted killer, and so we will kill you or put you in jail for the rest of your life without possibility of parole (or whatever you call it)".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 09:48:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 09:29:29 AM
I think Western democracies should learn some game theory. Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.
That is a deterrence rationale, not retribution.
Isn't deterrence one of the goals of the legal system?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 08:46:20 AM
One of our legal system primarily functions to prevent the sort of revenge-cycles and blood fueds that have dominated world history, by providing a civilized fair system that people agree to.
An eye for an eye... so archaic... so middle-eastern!
G.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 10:07:19 AM
Isn't deterrence one of the goals of the legal system?
It used to be a major goal of the legal system but that has changed. The legal system is less able to deter behavior because it has reduced the retribution that society seeks for criminal and deviant behavior. Alternatives to punishment and retribution is the new "in" thing. Instead of "punishing" individuals the legal system now identifies the problem, offers education/counseling, and provides the individual with a second chance (or third, fourth, fifth).
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 09:29:29 AM
I think Western democracies should learn some game theory. Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.
Tit for tat with misunderstandings has a rather obvious failure mode.
Revenge is not a valid motive.
Revenge does not set anything right and doesn't bring the dead back to life.
Punishment. Punishment is a valid motive. Bringing a cosmic balance back in order.
The proper punishment for the bomber is death.
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 09:29:29 AM
I think Western democracies should learn some game theory. Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.
Tit for tat with misunderstandings has a rather obvious failure mode.
The random act of forgiveness would take care of it.
It always annoys me when revenge is regarded to as a completely irrational action. To me, revenge is a very rational reaction on a social level. It lets people know that if they wrong someone badly enough, they would invite great wrath unto themselves, so great that it would be self-destructive for the person carrying out the revenge. That terrorizing prospect tends to deter people from acting in a way that provokes revenge in the first place.
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 10:01:21 AM
I really don't understand.
Why is revenge seen as a bad thing?
I don't mean revenge by the individual, of course. I agree the State should have monopoly on violence. What I am asking is why society at large sees revenge, as in punishment for criminal actions, as something negative. Punishment proportional to the crime committed, of course.
In my mind, reeducation is morally acceptable only for petty criminals.
A murderer should be punished to the maximum any given country's laws allow to, and not waste our time thinking of the reeducation of this murderer. That's what I mean by revenge. "You are a convicted killer, and so we will kill you or put you in jail for the rest of your life without possibility of parole (or whatever you call it)".
Because it is not enlightened & it doesn't work.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2009, 10:48:37 AM
Because it is not enlightened & it doesn't work.
It can be unenlightened but than again so isn't the behavior that is being punished.
And it does work, there is no single greater individual deterrent against repeat offenders than the death penalty with incarceration a close second.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 10:07:19 AM
Isn't deterrence one of the goals of the legal system?
yes but it is distinct from retribution. you keep conflating the two.
QuoteIt always annoys me when revenge is regarded to as a completely irrational action. To me, revenge is a very rational reaction on a social level. It lets people know that if they wrong someone badly enough, they would invite great wrath unto themselves, so great that it would be self-destructive for the person carrying out the revenge. That terrorizing prospect tends to deter people from acting in a way that provokes revenge in the first place
See you use the word "revenge" but what you are actually talking about is deterrence.
Retibution is about making people pay for what they have done because that is a right or just result in itself, regardless of its effectiveness in deterring offenses.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2009, 11:42:06 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 10:07:19 AM
Isn't deterrence one of the goals of the legal system?
yes but it is distinct from retribution. you keep conflating the two.
QuoteIt always annoys me when revenge is regarded to as a completely irrational action. To me, revenge is a very rational reaction on a social level. It lets people know that if they wrong someone badly enough, they would invite great wrath unto themselves, so great that it would be self-destructive for the person carrying out the revenge. That terrorizing prospect tends to deter people from acting in a way that provokes revenge in the first place
See you use the word "revenge" but what you are actually talking about is deterrence.
Retibution is about making people pay for what they have done because that is a right or just result in itself, regardless of its effectiveness in deterring offenses.
I never even talked about retribution as you define it, so I don't know how I can be conflating the two concepts. I merely made a utilitarian argument about the benefits of two related concepts that are largely looked down upon in the West. Acts of revenge on an individual level lead to some level of deterrence on the social level.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 10:43:10 AM
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 09:29:29 AM
I think Western democracies should learn some game theory. Tit for tat, with an occasional but rare act of forgiveness, is the most effective method of discouraging actions detrimental to society.
Tit for tat with misunderstandings has a rather obvious failure mode.
The random act of forgiveness would take care of it.
Leaving you screwed from all time between misunderstanding and forgiveness. Unless the forgiveness happens a lot more often than misunderstanding, this is not great.
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 12:14:17 PM
Leaving you screwed from all time between misunderstanding and forgiveness. Unless the forgiveness happens a lot more often than misunderstanding, this is not great.
On average it would work out.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 12:15:19 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 12:14:17 PM
Leaving you screwed from all time between misunderstanding and forgiveness. Unless the forgiveness happens a lot more often than misunderstanding, this is not great.
On average it would work out.
To make this obvious, I'm going to assume that a message is misunderstood 1 in 4 rounds (alternating between player 1 and 2 as to who misunderstands), and that 1 in 8 rounds a party forgives (picking a player who would otherwise defect if possible; if both would defect, alternating between 1 and 2).
T1 Coop Coop
T2 Coop Coop
T3 Coop Coop
T4 Coop Defect (misunderstanding by Player 1)
T5 Defect Coop
T6 Coop Defect
T7 Defect Coop
T8 Defect Coop (forgiveness by Player 2, misunderstanding by Player 2)
T9 Coop Defect
T10 Defect Coop
T11 Coop Defect
T12 Defect Defect (misunderstanding by Player 1)
T13 Defect Defect
T14 Defect Defect
T15 Defect Defect
T16 Coop Defect (forgiveness by Player 1)
T17 Defect Coop
T18 Coop Defect
T19 Defect Coop
T20 Defect Defect (misunderstanding by Player 2)This is not working out on average.
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 12:35:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 12:15:19 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 12:14:17 PM
Leaving you screwed from all time between misunderstanding and forgiveness. Unless the forgiveness happens a lot more often than misunderstanding, this is not great.
On average it would work out.
To make this obvious, I'm going to assume that a message is misunderstood 1 in 4 rounds (alternating between player 1 and 2 as to who misunderstands), and that 1 in 8 rounds a party forgives (picking a player who would otherwise defect if possible; if both would defect, alternating between 1 and 2).
T1 Coop Coop
T2 Coop Coop
T3 Coop Coop
T4 Coop Defect (misunderstanding by Player 1)
T5 Defect Coop
T6 Coop Defect
T7 Defect Coop
T8 Defect Coop (forgiveness by Player 2, misunderstanding by Player 2)
T9 Coop Defect
T10 Defect Coop
T11 Coop Defect
T12 Defect Defect (misunderstanding by Player 1)
T13 Defect Defect
T14 Defect Defect
T15 Defect Defect
T16 Coop Defect (forgiveness by Player 1)
T17 Defect Coop
T18 Coop Defect
T19 Defect Coop
T20 Defect Defect (misunderstanding by Player 2)
The flaw in your analysis is that forgiveness must be random, not with a predictable cycle. In practice, misunderstanding would also be random, but I guess that part is up to you to define.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 12:52:42 PM
The flaw in your analysis is that forgiveness must be random, not with a predictable cycle. In practice, misunderstanding would also be random, but I guess that part is up to you to define.
It's not a flaw in my analysis. Random or not, misunderstandings are going to introduce unwarranted defections until forgiveness sorts them out. If the frequency of misunderstandings is high enough relative to forgiveness, forgiveness
will not sort them out. The predictable cycle was to avoid claims that I was cherrypicking a worst-case random scenario.
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 01:28:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 12:52:42 PM
The flaw in your analysis is that forgiveness must be random, not with a predictable cycle. In practice, misunderstanding would also be random, but I guess that part is up to you to define.
It's not a flaw in my analysis. Random or not, misunderstandings are going to introduce unwarranted defections until forgiveness sorts them out. If the frequency of misunderstandings is high enough relative to forgiveness, forgiveness will not sort them out. The predictable cycle was to avoid claims that I was cherrypicking a worst-case random scenario.
Obviously few systems are going to work with people who are unable to reliably perceive reality most of the time.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 01:28:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 12:52:42 PM
The flaw in your analysis is that forgiveness must be random, not with a predictable cycle. In practice, misunderstanding would also be random, but I guess that part is up to you to define.
It's not a flaw in my analysis. Random or not, misunderstandings are going to introduce unwarranted defections until forgiveness sorts them out. If the frequency of misunderstandings is high enough relative to forgiveness, forgiveness will not sort them out. The predictable cycle was to avoid claims that I was cherrypicking a worst-case random scenario.
Obviously few systems are going to work with people who are unable to reliably perceive reality most of the time.
Right. How rare are you expecting to find misunderstandings, and how often are you expecting to forgive?
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 10:01:21 AMIn my mind, reeducation is morally acceptable only for petty criminals.
A murderer should be punished to the maximum any given country's laws allow to, and not waste our time thinking of the reeducation of this murderer. That's what I mean by revenge. "You are a convicted killer, and so we will kill you or put you in jail for the rest of your life without possibility of parole (or whatever you call it)".
The recidivism rate among released murderers is much lower than that of petty criminals. So why do you think that it we have a better chance to reeducate petty criminals than murderers? Maybe we should execute all shoplifters (very likely to reoffend) but try to reeducate the murderers? :P
Numbers: http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/BJS%20Recidivism%20Study.pdf
Quote from: ulmont on August 25, 2009, 01:53:08 PM
Right. How rare are you expecting to find misunderstandings, and how often are you expecting to forgive?
I expect misunderstandingsto be quite rare. Most of the time people in any culture get along just fine, meaning that they choose to cooperate without a hitch.
Quote from: Zanza on August 25, 2009, 01:59:45 PM
The recidivism rate among released murderers is much lower than that of petty criminals. So why do you think that it we have a better chance to reeducate petty criminals than murderers? Maybe we should execute all shoplifters (very likely to reoffend) but try to reeducate the murderers? :P
Numbers: http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/BJS%20Recidivism%20Study.pdf
Petty crimes tend to be influenced more by class and standard of living and are less likely to be positively affected by penal rehabilitation methods? :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 25, 2009, 02:25:58 PM
Petty crimes tend to be influenced more by class and standard of living and are less likely to be positively affected by penal rehabilitation methods? :unsure:
Or influenced by things like drug addiction that are hard to rehabilitate.
Quote from: Zanza on August 25, 2009, 01:59:45 PM
The recidivism rate among released murderers is much lower than that of petty criminals. So why do you think that it we have a better chance to reeducate petty criminals than murderers? Maybe we should execute all shoplifters (very likely to reoffend) but try to reeducate the murderers? :P
Numbers: http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/BJS%20Recidivism%20Study.pdf
Yeah, I've often thought everyone should get one free manslaughter offense for that reason.
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 02:20:58 PM
I expect misunderstandingsto be quite rare.
QuoteAccording to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2009, 10:47:42 AM
It always annoys me when revenge is regarded to as a completely irrational action. To me, revenge is a very rational reaction on a social level. It lets people know that if they wrong someone badly enough, they would invite great wrath unto themselves, so great that it would be self-destructive for the person carrying out the revenge. That terrorizing prospect tends to deter people from acting in a way that provokes revenge in the first place.
I totally agree. Thanks for putting into words what I was trying to say.
Quote from: Grallon on August 25, 2009, 10:18:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 08:46:20 AM
One of our legal system primarily functions to prevent the sort of revenge-cycles and blood fueds that have dominated world history, by providing a civilized fair system that people agree to.
An eye for an eye... so archaic... so middle-eastern!
G.
Oh nigga really? Aren't you the one always crying out for revenge against the Middle Easterns?
Actually, all criminals should be executed.
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 07:56:43 PM
Actually, all criminals should be executed.
Even people who commit victimless crimes ?
Quote from: Jaron on August 25, 2009, 08:30:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 25, 2009, 07:56:43 PM
Actually, all criminals should be executed.
Even people who commit victimless crimes ?
There is no such thing as a victimless crimes. Of course, there are somethings that are crimes that shouldn't be, and there are some things that aren't crimes that should be. Nevertheless, execution is necessary to ensure public order.
Quote from: Zanza on August 25, 2009, 01:59:45 PM
The recidivism rate among released murderers is much lower than that of petty criminals. So why do you think that it we have a better chance to reeducate petty criminals than murderers? Maybe we should execute all shoplifters (very likely to reoffend) but try to reeducate the murderers? :P
Numbers: http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/BJS%20Recidivism%20Study.pdf
Of course it is lower among released murderers. Most murderers that get released committed their crimes against a specific person or for a reason created by specific circumstances. The particular person is now dead and those circumstances may never align again to create that particular reason leading to another murder e.g. my wife makes me so angry I lose it and kill her or I blow through a stop sign and crush someone in the crosswalk. Those murderers that engage in multiple killings will never be released so do not factor into the equation. Drug dealers, users, robbers, etc, and so forth are engaging in a lifestyle of their choosing that they will ultimately return to upon release especially if societal retribution isn't that great.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 25, 2009, 08:43:10 AM
I follow the teachings of Bronson.
Hookay, Couseen Larry!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faltechllc.com%2Fserendipity%2Fuploads%2Fperfect-strangers.jpg&hash=b97185b7af4fc9241bab7d770456f8a40ea6151b)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 25, 2009, 10:44:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 25, 2009, 08:43:10 AM
I follow the teachings of Bronson.
Hookay, Couseen Larry!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faltechllc.com%2Fserendipity%2Fuploads%2Fperfect-strangers.jpg&hash=b97185b7af4fc9241bab7d770456f8a40ea6151b)
:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F_2eKJ5-L4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7XQrF93ZGM
Quote from: Jaron on August 25, 2009, 07:27:37 PM
Aren't you the one always crying out for revenge against the Middle Easterns?
Not revenge, sanitation.
G.