The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Timsup2nothin]

If you don't consider that revenge that is fine, no reason to argue about the term here. There are lots of different motivations for retaliation (if I can use that term), as you all have mentioned, whether that be to show devotion, show you are not to be messed with, or as a deterrent, etc.

In order to be revenge, then, by your definition, it must be motivated, at least in large part, by a desire for retribution. I'm all for these different reasons for someone to retaliate, but I'm also for retribution on it's own terms. Sometimes, it ain't about a deterrent, it ain't about protecting society from a hazard, or showing your devotion to your wife. Sometimes, it's about holding someone accountable for what they did.

It's always possible if you are so inclined to give a reason other than retribution for retaliation. We are notoriously bad at knowing our true motivations when we do things, lots of good studies have shown this, but that doesn't demonstrate you are wrong about your motivations. Of course, only you know them, so I won't try to tell you otherwise.

So I won't be able to convince you that you are motivated by retribution, but there are lots of stories and examples I could give about people enacting revenge for the primary purpose or retribution, at least according to them. And, of course, I think they acted morally.

I have no doubt that plenty of actions are taken that are motivated by revenge or retribution, whichever you prefer. I don't agree there is any morality to that, or that it has any long term workability for society.

I do...whatever...to you. Rather than take action that is reasonable and necessary for your security, you need a "pound of flesh" and consider it moral as the wronged party to get such retribution. Not only does your beyond reason action make you then just as morally eligible for some retribution the other way, but your apparent need to inflict harm makes you yourself a threat that merits at least consideration of a preemptive defense. Eventually we can't even remember who took the first eye, but we're all blind.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

I do...whatever...to you. Rather than take action that is reasonable and necessary for your security, you need a "pound of flesh" and consider it moral as the wronged party to get such retribution. Not only does your beyond reason action make you then just as morally eligible for some retribution the other way, but your apparent need to inflict harm makes you yourself a threat that merits at least consideration of a preemptive defense. Eventually we can't even remember who took the first eye, but we're all blind.

I do not believe that is entailed by my view. It's an error to think retribution is beyond reason, it's a perfectly valid premise in a moral framework, and there is lot of logic to how it works. It has to be controlled, it has to be proportional as to prevent escalations, it has to be justified, but it does have a place. If someone properly consults all their moral intuitions, you will find that they, in principle, cannot be justified alone. It's a big circle, they are justified on the basis of other moral beliefs, and if you trace them all the way back with will find they either go in a circle or you just hit rock bottom. Those are the only two possibilities.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do not believe that is entailed by my view. It's an error to think retribution is beyond reason, it's a perfectly valid premise in a moral framework, and there is lot of logic to how it works. It has to be controlled, it has to be proportional as to prevent escalations, it has to be justified, but it does have a place. If someone properly consults all their moral intuitions, you will find that they, in principle, cannot be justified alone. It's a big circle, they are justified on the basis of other moral beliefs, and if you trace them all the way back with will find they either go in a circle or you just hit rock bottom. Those are the only two possibilities.

Proportional is an issue though.

Say you killed my brother. I demand the death penalty as retribution for you taking my brother away from me. You have eight brothers, so effectively I am inflicting on all eight of them what you inflicted on me. Near as I can make out my brother isn't getting, or even seeking, any retribution at all, so your brothers are in the same position I was and are just as much entitled to retribution for damages done them out of nowhere as I was.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Preventing escalations is an issue, and it's complicated. Which is why my support for revenge is limited and highly qualified. The simple answer to your hypothetical is that a justified act of retribution wouldn't entitle the brothers to retribution. If they went after you that wouldn't be virtuous or right.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Preventing escalations is an issue, and it's complicated. Which is why my support for revenge is limited and highly qualified. The simple answer to your hypothetical is that a justified act of retribution wouldn't entitle the brothers to retribution. If they went after you that wouldn't be virtuous or right.

They lost a brother, I lost a brother. Seems they have just as much right as I have.

 

[AmazonQueen]

They lost a brother, I lost a brother. Seems they have just as much right as I have.

Yep, thats the principle vendettas work on. And until someone involved is prepared to accept some other principle theres no reason they should ever end.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

They lost a brother, I lost a brother. Seems they have just as much right as I have.

Retribution is about punishment for a wrong committed, for harming someone innocent, for doing something unjustified. If the retribution was justified, there is no valid case for a return act of retribution.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Based just on this comment I don't think you are operating from a standard definition of "revenge." Someone walks up to me while I'm minding my own business and slaps me I'm likely to break several of their bones, but that isn't motivated in the least bit by revenge. They are a hazard to be neutralized, period. And, yes, there may well be more "socially prescribed" means of neutralizing such a hazard, but that's a different issue.

Now, if some designated "law enforcement representative" happens to be there and wants to follow an agreed upon systematic method for neutralizing the hazard but I demand the "satisfaction" of breaking bones, that would be an example of revenge as motivation.

So when you smashed that guy's van up for beeping his horn at you because he didn't want to drive around you, that was just because he was a hazard to be neutralised was it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Retribution is about punishment for a wrong committed, for harming someone innocent, for doing something unjustified. If the retribution was justified, there is no valid case for a return act of retribution.

The brothers lost a brother. They were harmed, and they were innocent.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So when you smashed that guy's van up for beeping his horn at you because he didn't want to drive around you, that was just because he was a hazard to be neutralised was it?

Nope, that was because I am unashamedly violent and he volunteered.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Lol. That's nice. So it wasn't that you even harboured any particular bad feeling for him, just that you generally walk around with barely contained rage just looking for a legitimate outlet. Sounds fun.

 

[El_Machinae]

The reconciliation process that we are experimenting with in Canadian courts is vastly less retributive. It has flavors of Retribution, but will not ever actually touch what people want in their hearts when they first hear about the crime. And yet, it seems to buy quite a bit of peace.

Any punishment of criminals creates victims of their loved ones. There's no way around it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Nope, that was because I am unashamedly violent and he volunteered.

You get a like because although you're a terrible person that was the best line I've seen yet.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Lol. That's nice. So it wasn't that you even harboured any particular bad feeling for him, just that you generally walk around with barely contained rage just looking for a legitimate outlet. Sounds fun.

Not really looking. As I said, he definitely volunteered. He even repeated his volunteering after I had made sure he understood what he was doing. No shame in that game...and I was pretty dispassionate while I was wrecking his truck, so I don't think the 'rage' accusation is justified.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

The brothers lost a brother. They were harmed, and they were innocent.

Sure, it sucks for them, but that doesn't change the logic of it. You performed a justified act of revenge. They were caught in the middle of it, but they have no case for retribution against you as you did nothing wrong. They were harmed because their brother committed an unjustified act of murder, and got what was coming to him. That is the end of it.

Nope, that was because I am unashamedly violent and he volunteered.

So you're strongly morally opposed to retribution but violence for #fun is totally kosher. Lol, in that case I think I'll call it a day.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you're strongly morally opposed to retribution but violence for #fun is totally kosher. Lol, in that case I think I'll call it a day.

There was nothing about it that was "for fun," and I have made no claim of moral superiority justifying that incident, or any other. For the most part I consider the whole "morality" topic to be window dressing people spread around in an effort to avoid acknowledging that human beings are violent creatures. In fact, horrifically violent. The only thing that makes me different is that I accept that as just the facts of the situation so I consider every day that I don't have to kill anyone for meat to be a win against nature.

 

[metalhead]

I have lived with cats almost all my life and we've never used any negative reinforcement on them.

We taught my cat to stay off the kitchen counters by squirting her with water, or angrily tossing her off. She got the message pretty quickly.

She also had a habit of biting people who were petting her. I would swat her nose and firmly tell her no when she would lunge at me. Eventually, she learned. She'd still snap at me, but unlike with the few other people who she'd let pet her, she'd stop herself before biting.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not really looking. As I said, he definitely volunteered. He even repeated his volunteering after I had made sure he understood what he was doing. No shame in that game...and I was pretty dispassionate while I was wrecking his truck, so I don't think the 'rage' accusation is justified.

Still, it's hardly something Mr Spock would have done.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Lol. That's nice. So it wasn't that you even harboured any particular bad feeling for him, just that you generally walk around with barely contained rage just looking for a legitimate outlet. Sounds fun.

Hey that sounds just like Hulk Is @Timsup2nothin the Hulk?!? Tim's a superhero! I knew it!!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Still, it's hardly something Mr Spock would have done.

Well, no. But Spock isn't even human so that's not much of a standard. Among Star Trek characters I tend to identify more with Seven of Nine.