tiepolo Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 A recent installment... ...got me thinking on the question of revenge, and its moral nature. Say someone was the victim of a wrong that cannot be repaired, and some time elapsed. Would it be moral, theoretically, for the victim to seek revenge? Does revenge after an interval count as an act of aggression? I would tentatively say not, since the sufferer of the original wrong continued to be plagued by vengeful feelings arising from the original injustice, which count as part of that transgression. Does the original aggressor deserve a chance to make an apology that is not desired, and to make excuses, and to sate their conscience without actually undoing any of the original harm? Is it not legitimate for the former victim to want nothing from a past tormentor but to see that tormentor suffer?
cynicist Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 It's not self-defense if it occurs afterwards (I'm assuming by revenge you mean violence towards the original attacker). That makes it an act of aggression. Think about it this way: If my parents beat me as a child does that mean it is morally permissible to beat them when they are elderly?
MMX2010 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 It's not self-defense if it occurs afterwards (I'm assuming by revenge you mean violence towards the original attacker). That makes it an act of aggression. Think about it this way: If my parents beat me as a child does that mean it is morally permissible to beat them when they are elderly? I find that question ironic because the parents sure-as-heck think so. (That's why they switch from spanking to verbal aggression as soon as the child becomes old enough, and strong enough, to hit them back.) But, overall, you're right. It's not self-defense if it occurs afterwards.
Recommended Posts