People Who View Rational Vengeance as a Positive or Neutral Thing

[Thalassa]

Since I just observed in a thread made for E1s (and I am not an E1) that quite a few people seem to be offended, mortified, or miffed they'd be viewed as vengeful and my response is "lolwut" I'm curious as to how many people view vengeance as a positive or neutral thing.

When I was about 20, I used to go around saying "I am karma." It was because I tended to view bringers of very bad things as deserving of swift and meaningful correction, because I think a lot of evil happens in the world due to benign neglect i.e. "I don't want to get involved" "I don't want to be viewed as mean" (this is the worst in my opinion, if you're so pretentious and self-righteous that your entire motive is that you want to be liked or viewed as nice by others...not that you actually strive to BE kind or fair) or whatever.

So many people get away with so much. I've actually had to curb my vengeance with maturity, examining how it was harming me when taken to extremes, and how vengeance MUST BE RATIONAL...it must serve a purpose or teach a lesson, otherwise it's just emotional melodrama that creates a perpetuating cycle of human stupidity (you know, like how people have been warring in the Caucusus region for 500+ years, that's when you know, just mayhaps, vengeance should become a more rational rather than emotional act, when it's eating your societies and your own families alive.)

Of course as a counterphobic 6, I feel a deep need to be involved in my community, and at the same time face my fears and have strong allegiances, so I guess from an enneagram perspective this would be a natural thing for me.

I've done a lot of reading on how anger can alert us, but should not be a driving force. The anger should be acknowledged, examined for the lesson involved, but then put aside to explore how the solution to the problem can proceed without it always being fueled by anger.

An example would be the difference between how PETA and the Humane Society handle animal rights. PETA is clearly too consumed with anger.

Anyway, it's just something I accept about myself, even in situations where I've acknowledged my sense of vengeance may have been inappropriate or out of hand.

Is this cultural? Ethical? Personality related? What?

 

[Lark]

I dont believe in vengence but I do believe in natural consequences.

I think revenge is fine and would support public policy which enabled or facilitated it, such as providing kin the opportunity to exact capital punishments or the commuting of sentences were legitimate grievance and public protection aspects prevail in what would otherwise be condidered criminal.

In some cases forgiveness is a ridiculous idea but anger and holding on to anger is like drinking poison in the hope someone else will die.

 

[tinker683]

I see a couple of problems with this line of thinking:

1) You are under the assumption that you are somehow in the proper position to enact or carry out "justice" in this particular case. You've essentially taken up the role of the vigilante and are attempting to justify it.

2) Unintended consequences. By attempting to create balance, you may in fact only be further worsening it or causing further problems in the future (in other words you could be escalating the issue, not resolving it).

I view vengeance as neither positive or negative, bt simply a choice someone makes that carries with it it's own consequences. Whether those consequences are positive or negative I think is relative to the individual you ask (for example: killing a criminal might make the streets a little safer but it would deprive a spouse or family member of a loved one).

My two cents

 

[Thalassa]

In some cases forgiveness is a ridiculous idea but anger and holding on to anger is like drinking poison in the hope someone else will die.

I agree whole-heartedly with this statement. Especially when people interpret the word "forgiveness" to mean tolerating, accepting, or allowing something to go on.

No. You can forgive someone while stopping them from their destructive actions, or parting yourself physically from their company to protect yourself, or still disapproving of their choices.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Vengeance in and of itself is not something I would consider good. Whatever positive consequences you think will come from it, you should focus on making a case for those, and not vengeance itself.

From a utilitarian perspective, vengeance is mistaken. It's essentially the idea that if some causes suffering, it should be responded to by creating more suffering. That's fundamentally not compatible with utilitarianism unless you can demonstrate there is a longer term consequence that makes up for the suffering you've caused in seeking revenge. The only way I could think of that happening is through deterrence. Maybe revenge will deter people from doing more harm. I happen to find that very impractical. I suppose when human beings lived in small hunter-gatherer groups, revenge would have been more pragmatic because it was easy to keep track of who did what and there was really no where to run or hide. Society today is just too complex for individual acts of vengeance to effectively deter, so it becomes suffering on top of suffering with no practical payoff.

Also, the statement "I am karma" sounds pretty self-aggrandizing, if I understand that correctly.

 

[Thalassa]

I see a couple of problems with this line of thinking:

1) You are under the assumption that you are somehow in the proper position to enact or carry out "justice" in this particular case. You've essentially taken up the role of the vigilante and are attempting to justify it.

In some cases, especially when I was younger, there were particular events that appear so morally clear cut that the person has acted out of sadistic selfishness or something close to it, that vengeance seems completely appropriate.

I think "romantic vengeance" is common, too, in people who feel they have been wronged by the opposite sex; however, this is completely irrational and it's something I have real hopes of completely growing out of. It just perpetuates a cycle of abuse that gets carried through generations, and I don't necessarily mean physical abuse, but emotional or psychological abuse.

I do think that a lot of people react out of hurt, in those cases.

But the specific issue I'm talking about I think is observing, from the outside, that someone has perpetuated an act that is clearly wrong and giving them a taste of their own medicine.

You'll be happy to know, though, that an ESFJ friend of mine recently suggested we take vengeance upon someone, and I actually demurred, though I acknowledged he deserved it, my line of thinking now is that ..basically what you said...there are only rare instances where you should presume yourself to be the arbiter of justice, and even if you are convinced that the other person is CLEARLY wrong (and trust me this person is) I don't want to bring bad karma back on to myself.

I want to expend all of my passionate energy building good for myself and others rather than focusing so much on acting against what I see as evil.

On the other hand, I still must act; I just must act with a more rational form of retribution, like my example. I want to be the Humane Society instead of PETA, I think.

I think. A part of me still wants to throw red paint on people, or douse them in gasoline, light them on fire, and push them down the stairs.

2) Unintended consequences. By attempting to create balance, you may in fact only be further worsening it or causing further problems in the future (in other words you could be escalating the issue, not resolving it).

I view vengeance as neither positive or negative, bt simply a choice someone makes that carries with it it's own consequences. Whether those consequences are positive or negative I think is relative to the individual you ask (for example: killing a criminal might make the streets a little safer but it would deprive a spouse or family member of a loved one).

My two cents

I think the death penalty in extreme cases is the most rational course of action.

 

[Thalassa]

Vengeance in and of itself is not something I would consider good. Whatever positive consequences you think will come from it, you should focus on making a case for those, and not vengeance itself.

From a utilitarian perspective, vengeance is mistaken. It's essentially the idea that if some causes suffering, it should be responded to by creating more suffering. That's fundamentally not compatible with utilitarianism unless you can demonstrate there is a longer term consequence that makes up for the suffering you've caused in seeking revenge. The only way I could think of that happening is through deterrence. Maybe revenge will deter people from doing more harm. I happen to find that very impractical. I suppose when human beings lived in small hunter-gatherer groups, revenge would have been more pragmatic because it was easy to keep track of who did what and there was really no where to run or hide. Society today is just too complex for individual acts of vengeance to effectively deter, so it becomes suffering on top of suffering with no practical payoff.

Also, the statement "I am karma" sounds pretty self-aggrandizing, if I understand that correctly.

I was 20, and it was a half-joke.

My ENFP friend thought it was hilarious.

Oh, also about small hunter-gatherer groups: I think the South may still operate under this kind of thinking, being what is known as an Honor Culture.

I think I internalized a lot of aspects of my Honor Culture, even if I have the intelligence or maturity as an adult to question them.

Maybe I am an Fe type!

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I was 20, and it was a half-joke.

My ENFP friend thought it was hilarious.

Oh, also about small hunter-gatherer groups: I think the South may still operate under this kind of thinking, being what is known as an Honor Culture.

I think I internalized a lot of aspects of my Honor Culture, even if I have the intelligence or maturity as an adult to question them.

Maybe I am an Fe type!

They may continue to use that kind of thinking, but they don't and can't have a society where it is constructive.

 

[Thalassa]

They may continue to use that kind of thinking, but they don't and can't have a society where it is constructive.

O rly? Then please explain to me why the South has maintained a very cohesive culture in the face of massive changes in other parts of the country. Or why Japan is one of the most ancient and revered cultures (another Honor Culture, want to discuss why we felt like we had to drop an H-bomb on them? Their sense of death before dishonor).

I think some anarcho-capitalist libertarians, who are decidedly not Southern, espouse forms of personal vengeance or self-protection over preemptive governmental institutional structures of punishment or social control.

Honor cultures are that in which small groups of people maintain personal integrity as a word of bond (like in the South the idea that your word is as good as your name, this can be settled on a handshake, etc....and surprisingly, you really can trust a lot of old-fashioned people in the South because of this) and the flip-side of that being you take justice into your own hands.

In my teens and part of my twenties I had a deep and prevailing conviction that this was morally correct behavior, and you know what? JTG1984 believes in vengeance, and places honor much higher than I would, and his mother's family is Japanese.

I asked Simulated World once if certain kinds of Fe could look like Fi. Like maybe Honor Culture Fe looks like Fi because of the emphasis on personal integrity and personally enacted vengeance.

I think he disagreed, though, because he's also from the South; but I've never discussed specifically the Honor Culture phenomenon with him.

 

[tinker683]

In some cases, especially when I was younger, there were particular events that appear so morally clear cut that the person has acted out of sadistic selfishness or something close to it, that vengeance seems completely appropriate.

I think "romantic vengeance" is common, too, in people who feel they have been wronged by the opposite sex; however, this is completely irrational and it's something I have real hopes of completely growing out of. It just perpetuates a cycle of abuse that gets carried through generations, and I don't necessarily mean physical abuse, but emotional or psychological abuse.

I do think that a lot of people react out of hurt, in those cases.

But the specific issue I'm talking about I think is observing, from the outside, that someone has perpetuated an act that is clearly wrong and giving them a taste of their own medicine.

You'll be happy to know, though, that an ESFJ friend of mine recently suggested we take vengeance upon someone, and I actually demurred, though I acknowledged he deserved it, my line of thinking now is that ..basically what you said...there are only rare instances where you should presume yourself to be the arbiter of justice, and even if you are convinced that the other person is CLEARLY wrong (and trust me this person is) I don't want to bring bad karma back on to myself.

I want to expend all of my passionate energy building good for myself and others rather than focusing so much on acting against what I see as evil.

I don't think of it as karma so much as it has been my observation that shitheads typically do get what's coming to them, in the end, even if a lengthy bit of time has to pass before whatever "it" is comes to pass.

These discussions always interest me because eventually it usually boils down too I respect and follow the law so long as it's convenient for me, but when it's not, then I'm somehow justified in breaking the law or usurping it

It makes me wonder just how much people believe our justice system or in the concept of justice. As far as I'm concerning, that line of thinking is a slippery slope.

On the other hand, I still must act; I just must act with a more rational form of retribution, like my example. I want to be the Humane Society instead of PETA, I think.

I think. A part of me still wants to throw red paint on people, or douse them in gasoline, light them on fire, and push them down the stairs.

You and me both, though substitute throwing them down the stairs with locking them inside a portable toilet and rolling it down a hill so when they get to the bottom they can mingle with the rest of the crap.

I think the death penalty in extreme cases is the most rational course of action.

I would concur. Certainly there are times when oppressive people need to be stood up too or taken down as I feel it would be morally reprehensible to do nothing than watch a crime take place. The point I was trying to make though is violence tends to beget violence and most of the time people who act out on their feelings of retribution without regards to the law tend to make the situation only worse. "Rational" vengeance to me would be the retribution carried out with the fullest understanding and acceptance of the proceeding consequences of whatever action it is you choose to take.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

O rly? Then please explain to me why the South has maintained a very cohesive culture in the face of massive changes in other parts of the country. Or why Japan is one of the most ancient and revered cultures (another Honor Culture, want to discuss why we felt like we had to drop an H-bomb on them? Their sense of death before dishonor).

There are a lot of problems with this question, but I'll try to keep it simple.

One, I don't necessarily have any reason to be impressed with the areas you reference, particularly the south eastern USA. It's debatable to what extant they can make the claims you've claimed for them. I do notice that both the south USA and Japan have a massive xenophobic streak, I'd suggest that has more to do with cultural cohesion (whether or not cultural cohesion is even a good thing).

Secondly, nothing you say shows us that these societies are succeeding (if they are) because of honor culture, and not in spite of it. Japan does have one, but it's frankly been really watered down from what it used to be. As it stands, the significance of an honor culture in a society does seem to inversely correlate with its development. Third world countries and so-called failed states or zones of chaos show us the strongest honor cultures, while the advanced first world democracies tend to show us the weakest honor cultures. Japan might be the biggest exception there, but then modern Japan's honor culture has no comparison to Afghanistan's. This trend continues within countries. The south east may have the strongest honor culture, but it is frankly also the least advanced region of the USA. It has the worst education, the worst health, and the most poverty, last I checked. Problem pockets exist in the rest of the USA, of course, but generally the south east is the worst off.

In short, honor culture does not make a good name for itself.

I think some anarcho-capitalist libertarians, who are decidedly not Southern, espouse forms of personal vengeance or self-protection over preemptive governmental institutional structures of punishment or social control.

I think anarcho-capitalist libertarians maintain one of the worst socio-economic ideologies ever conceived, so this certainly doesn't change my opinion any.

Honor cultures are that in which small groups of people maintain personal integrity as a word of bond (like in the South the idea that your word is as good as your name, this can be settled on a handshake, etc....and surprisingly, you really can trust a lot of old-fashioned people in the South because of this) and the flip-side of that being you take justice into your own hands.

I have some reservations about how meaningful it really is in the south. That aside, why did you think you needed to explain what an honor culture is to me?

In my teens and part of my twenties I had a deep and prevailing conviction that this was morally correct behavior, and you know what? JTG1984 believes in vengeance, and places honor much higher than I would, and his mother's family is Japanese.

...okay?

I asked Simulated World once if certain kinds of Fe could look like Fi. Like maybe Honor Culture Fe looks like Fi because of the emphasis on personal integrity and personally enacted vengeance.

At this part, I couldn't care less about such a question, so that's for you to figure out.

 

[EJCC]

To answer the questions in the OP: I think it's in our nature. Even monkeys have a sense of fairness and justice, to a limited extent; studies have been done on it, and there are videos of experiments on YouTube. I could see the desire for Just Punishment as being a necessary extension of that sense. But I do think that what happened in the Type 1 thread about "vengefulness" is a good example of how it's also personality-related, even though I'm pretty sure that the glorification of revenge, regardless of how it's suppressed (or not), is universal.

To talk more about "vengeance" in general: I'm all about justice, but justice and vengeance are not the same thing. If you're "vengeful", then you take revenge on those who have done you (or your loved ones) wrong. Which sounds good in theory, and oftentimes appeals to me in the abstract, but in my opinion -- and perhaps in the opinion of other type ones (though I have no way of knowing that either way) -- revenge is not productive. It may give a very base form of satisfaction, but oftentimes you end up sinking to their level in order to exact it. So, in your quest for justice, your judgment is so clouded by anger* that you end up sacrificing your own principles for The Greater Good -- in essence, becoming a hypocrite. "An eye for an eye" essentially means "Let's do the same wrong act in return for this other wrong act, because it doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as I'm doing it for the right reasons".**

So, I strive to not be vengeful, because vengeance is essentially running away from the right path, instead of towards it. And if someone calls me vengeful, that means they're accusing me of something that I try very hard not to do.

*Like you talked about astutely in the OP, [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION].

**Edit: I think this may be roughly the point that [MENTION=8485]tinker683[/MENTION] has been making, about the slippery slope -- which I completely agree with.

 

[Thalassa]

There are a lot of problems with this question, but I'll try to keep it simple.

One, I don't necessarily have any reason to be impressed with the areas you reference, particularly the south eastern USA. It's debatable to what extant they can make the claims you've claimed for them. I do notice that both the south USA and Japan have a massive xenophobic streak, I'd suggest that has more to do with cultural cohesion (whether or not cultural cohesion is even a good thing).

Secondly, nothing you say shows us that these societies are succeeding (if they are) because of honor culture, and not in spite of it. Japan does have one, but it's frankly been really watered down from what it used to be. As it stands, the significance of an honor culture in a society does seem to inversely correlate with its development. Third world countries and so-called failed states or zones of chaos show us the strongest honor cultures, while the advanced first world democracies tend to show us the weakest honor cultures. Japan might be the biggest exception there, but then modern Japan's honor culture has no comparison to Afghanistan's. This trend continues within countries. The south east may have the strongest honor culture, but it is frankly also the least advanced region of the USA. It has the worst education, the worst health, and the most poverty, last I checked. Problem pockets exist in the rest of the USA, of course, but generally the south east is the worst off.

Way to generalize, Professor; actually the worst ranked public school in the nation is in Chicago. Outside of Arkansas, most appear to be in the Midwest, or in urban inner cities.

I went to high school at a high school that is now recognized as an International Baccalaureate school. We had the best choral department in the county, and the year after I graduated, my favorite English teacher won best teacher for the entire state. Of North Carolina.

Though Texas has the worst healthcare in the nation, the Texas is this weird South-Western outlaw kind of state, it's not at all the genteel old South, and you can get excellent health care in West Virginia; much better than Nevada, for example.

Also, it's much easier to buy a house and own property as a poor person in West Virginia than as a middle-class person in Los Angeles or San Francisco, CA.

You seem to have an usual bias against the South, a rather skewed one at that. Sure the South has its bad points, but it also has its good points, and it's not your bastard excuse for everything you hate about the U.S.

The U.S. South is a scapegoat. Nothing more, nothing less.

In short, honor culture does not make a good name for itself.

Honor cultures are a little of both, actually. They have good and bad points just like other cultures.

I think anarcho-capitalist libertarians maintain one of the worst socio-economic ideologies ever conceived, so this certainly doesn't change my opinion any.

Oh I know, and I did not suggest that it would.

I have some reservations about how meaningful it really is in the south. That aside, why did you think you needed to explain what an honor culture is to me?



...okay?



At this part, I couldn't care less about such a question, so that's for you to figure out.

Start here.

 

[Coriolis]

What is the difference between vengeance and justice? Must justice be obtained through a socially sanctioned process (e.g. invocation of public law, enforced by official police and courts)? What if this process fails? Sometimes natural consequences catch up with people who do wrong, but not always. Allowing someone to get away with wrongdoing is neither justice nor vengeance.

Personally, the only vengeance I ever seek is justice, and justice is centered on admission of guilt and restitution. In other words: if you did something wrong, admit it, take responsibility, and fix it to the best of your ability or provide some alternate compensation.

 

[EJCC]

What is the difference between vengeance and justice? Must justice be obtained through a socially sanctioned process (e.g. invocation of public law, enforced by official police and courts)? What if this process fails? Sometimes natural consequences catch up with people who do wrong, but not always. Allowing someone to get away with wrongdoing is neither justice nor vengeance.

Personally, the only vengeance I ever seek is justice, and justice is centered on admission of guilt and restitution. In other words: if you did something wrong, admit it, take responsibility, and fix it to the best of your ability or provide some alternate compensation.

^ Exactly.

I'd been defining vengeance as essentially meaning punishment, so a vengeful person would be someone who wants to punish others for their wrongs. My needs in return for a wrong -- which are generally the same as yours -- don't require punishment.

 

[gromit]

Meh. Vengeance is typically more hassle than it's worth in my experience.

And then again, I've never had anything truly horrific happen to me or any of my own as the result of another person's decisions/stupidity. So perhaps I would be vengeful.

Is this cultural? Ethical? Personality related? What?

A bit of all, I would guess. For me it's probably a combination of personality and culture.

 

[gromit]

Re: cultural component

You know, my whole city and several neighboring towns and cities shut down for an entire day to find one man who is suspected to have set off an explosion which killed 3 and injured almost 200.

And now he is in the hospital, in custody.

Some people are praying for him. Some people hope he dies. Some people want him to survive so he can give more information/so he has to answer for his crimes. Most people I've encountered are glad that it's over and that they can go outside again. I think they are just grateful that he is no longer able to cause more harm.

 

[wolfy]

This is interesting.

I quite like the idea of vengeance. Some of my favorite movies are vengeance based, feel good movies like Mad Max etc. On a more realistic level vengeance seems a hassle, but isn't something I haven't indulged in. Even if only a little. I think there is a part of me that holds onto a thirst for vengeance which I find a bit of a hassle. Sometimes when I am standing around I have flashbacks to wrong doings, dumps of adrenaline in my system, short anger attacks. All fun and games.

 

[WALMART]

I don't mind the eye for an eye mentality.


I personally try to rise above hateful action, but I've never had anything all that bad happen to me or mine.

 

[Bamboo]

I've been exploring vengeance more in my life.

I've generally found it to be inconvenient. That said, there does appear to be a visceral emotional payoff which, despite the fact that humans want to be reasonable and logical, I question if we can truly rise beyond. I don't think we have evolved beyond our need for symbols and rituals. Taking vengence is a typically strongly symbolic act.

Vigilantism does give me some pause, and I think it should for any reasonable person who has carefully examined their behavior and found flaws in perception (inevitable), however the reality of life is that we either impose our irrational will on the world around us in some form or we're dead. There's no way around that. So you have to be extremely careful.