When is vengeance legitimate?

@avalanchethecat said
Ah I see. I'm not sure I feel that vengeance is a necessary response in the absence of authority. Some form of punitive response is probably justified and may well be prudent, of course. That seems to me to be more of a moral obligation than an exercise in revenge, though I accept you might find the distinction tenuous.

I think in most countries, even in the advanced developed ones, just punishment is a rarity .

@rajk999 said
So a just punishment is simply state enforced vengeance.

No I don't think so. The punishment is necessary because we are social animals, and as such we all bear some responsibility towards maintaining that society. In our society, the state shoulders most of that burden in our stead. The function of punishment is not to gratify the wronged, it is to censure the wrongdoer and deter others from transgressing.

@rajk999 said
I think in most countries, even in the advanced developed ones, just punishment is a rarity .

Oh I don't know, I think the judiciary in the UK does a pretty good job in the main. Being a human institution, there are always going to be failures and errors, of course. Not to mention corruption.

@avalanchethecat said
No I don't think so. The punishment is necessary because we are social animals, and as such we all bear some responsibility towards maintaining that society. In our society, the state shoulders most of that burden in our stead. The function of punishment is not to gratify the wronged, it is to censure the wrongdoer and deter others from transgressing.

Well something is missing there. The purpose of just punishment must also be to fix the wrong and make amends with the wronged. Failure to do this means that the wrong and the wronged go unresolved and unsatisfied respectively.

@rajk999 said
Well something is missing there. The purpose of just punishment must also be to fix the wrong and make amends with the wronged. Failure to do this means that the wrong and the wronged go unresolved and unsatisfied respectively.

Certainly when the punishment was agreed there would have been some consideration of the nature of the consequences of the transgression. Statue and case-law sanctions have been agreed, after all. Making amends to the wronged is a difficult area however. In order to accomodate this, one would need to be able to quantify the amount of suffering inflicted, and I don't think that's really possible.

@fmf said
When is it morally sound and morally unsound?

Most types of retribution or punishment can be considered "vengeance".

A killer sentenced to life in prison is a sort of vengeance. The only difference is that vengeance is carried out personally, while "justice" is merely vengeance carried out by the state. If someone imprisoned a murderer in their basement, that would be considered vengeance.

So the question then is, when is it morally sound to personally deliver punishment for a wrong, a.k.a. vengeance? There is no objective answer to this. But there is a danger in carrying out justice personally, given that people can be blinded by bias, emotion, etc., where as justice by the state is ideally done objectively and by weighing evidence. We can't entrust the average person to rightly weigh when wrong has been done, and what the punishment should be, compared to a deliberative body set up by the a government. Yes, some governments can be deeply flawed or corrupt, but that's a different topic.

So given the average person can't be trusted to soundly deliver justice by their own hands, I'd see vengeance is usually not justified.

@avalanchethecat said
No I don't think so. The punishment is necessary because we are social animals, and as such we all bear some responsibility towards maintaining that society. In our society, the state shoulders most of that burden in our stead. The function of punishment is not to gratify the wronged, it is to censure the wrongdoer and deter others from transgressing.

I think just punishment, carried out by the courts, has justice for the victim at the heart of the judgment, and justice for the victim is in part to avenge what has happened to them. A just punishment is not something detached and clinical.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think just punishment, carried out by the courts, has justice for the victim at the heart of the judgment, and justice for the victim is in part to avenge what has happened to them. A just punishment is not something detached and clinical.

That's not how I see it, but I'm not a legal professional. I think just punishment is supposed to be detached and clinical. Would you argue that a just punishment (edit- for the same transgression) should vary according to the degree of suffering inflicted?

@avalanchethecat said
That's not how I see it, but I'm not a legal professional. I think just punishment is supposed to be detached and clinical. Would you argue that a just punishment (edit- for the same transgression) should vary according to the degree of suffering inflicted?

Yes I would. The reason Courts allow a victim statement:

'A Victim Personal Statement (VPS) gives you the opportunity to explain in your own words the impact that the crime has had on you and your family.'

@avalanchethecat said
Certainly when the punishment was agreed there would have been some consideration of the nature of the consequences of the transgression. Statue and case-law sanctions have been agreed, after all. Making amends to the wronged is a difficult area however. In order to accomodate this, one would need to be able to quantify the amount of suffering inflicted, and I don't think that's really possible.

I disagree. Making amends is often very easy. A man commits an armed robbery, steals $10,000 worth of cash and merchandise. There is no bloodshed. In my backward country, he is never found due to incompetent police. In an advanced country he is found and is sent to jail for 6 months. That is not justice. That is just the authorities pretending to take control and deliver justice.

Justice is ensuring the perpetrator is made to repay the $10,000 that he stole.

The only time making amends is impossible is when there is death involved. Everything else has a monetary value that can be quantified and criminals must made to pay. That is justice.

By the way in my area after several robberies and several failed attempts by the police to catch the crook, he is eventually caught by the villagers and is beaten almost to death and sent off to the hospital. That is vengeance and also justice.

@sonship said
I am waiting to see if you are contradicted by FMF as readily as he does me.Why do I get the feeling that with you, your presentation of the Bible is more tolerable?

You asked me if there is ever a time when vengeance is a legitimate response? I don't know whether you think I "contradicted" you or not because you just ignored my answer.

@avalanchethecat said
I cannot think of an instance where vengeance, as distinct from the application of just punishment, is a morally correct course of action.

I think the word retribution, as distinct from vengeance - because I think they mean something slightly different- might be useful in bridging the gap between "punishment" [and what its purpose is] on one hand, and "vengeance" on the other.

@avalanchethecat said
I cannot think of an instance where vengeance, as distinct from the application of just punishment, is a morally correct course of action.

If someone murdered my wife or child I would hunt them down and kill them. I would feel completely justified in doing so and would have no compunction in watching their blood spill into ground where they fell.

@divegeester said
If someone murdered my wife or child I would hunt them down and kill them. I would feel completely justified in doing so and would have no compunction in watching their blood spill into ground where they fell.

The fact that you can hunt the man down, means that the police did not apprehend the murderer. Also you having to carry out your own vigilante justice, means that you dont trust the government's criminal justice system. Both point a failed justice system in the UK, contrary to what avalanchethecat said.

@divegeester said
If someone murdered my wife or child I would hunt them down and kill them. I would feel completely justified in doing so and would have no compunction in watching their blood spill into ground where they fell.

I'm sure very few people would criticise you for following this course. I'm not convinced it's the morally correct course of action, but an entirely understandable response.