It comes up with four elements of revenge; an agent, a recipient, a harm intended by the former, and a harm done by latter which provokes the revenge. It emphasizes both agent-internal conditions for getting revenge and agent-external ones. You'll see along the way that the discussion would contrast revenge onto related phenomena like getting even and retribution.
"Philosphers have considered whether revenge is inevitably a bad thing; they have also considered whether it is irrational. (See Elster 1990, Unicake 2000, and references sited there.)"
In contrast, Robert Stainton focus will be on a related but more on a distinct issue that one cannot be ignored when revenge is being evaluated.
Stainton wants to investigate the act of getting revenge for both the mental state and the external result. He is so sure that some things can be vengeful too. He said that people can be vengeful as well as people's products. He said that a vengeful law is made to get vengeance and a vengeful weapon is a fashioned so as to get revenge. But his focus on this paper are not about vengeful things but the act of getting revenge.
According to Stainton, seeking to harm someone in response to a bad thing they did to you is not yet to seek vengeance. You supposed to seek harm a person so they won't harm you again. He called it deterrence and not revenge.
Another article that I found in Union College website entitled, "Punishment and Revenge" by Leo Zaibert.
"Philosophers tend to believe that to punish and to take revenge are vastly different activities. Consider the ancient view put forth by Protagoras, in Plato’s Protagoras:
No one punishes wrongdoers putting his mind on what they did and for the sake of this – that they did wrong not unless he is taking mindless vengeance, like a savage brute. One who undertakes to punish rationally does not do so for the sake of the wrongdoing, which is now in the past – but for the sake of the future, that the wrongdoing shall not be repeated, either by him or by others who see him or by others who see him punished."
Philosophers have different views and approach in regards to revenge but some philosophers believe that it is a bad thing, and wrongdoings are not to be repeated. People see vengeance as a way of proving that they’re not weak and in order to prove that, they take control of another’s life, the one who took control of them. Vengeance is simply hurting the people who hurt you for you to feel better. It brings out the worst in you and maybe come to a point where you do major things like killing. You hurt people who hurt you because you think that they also deserve that. However, there’s a common question between revenge and justice being the same thing. In philosophy, when somebody tries to seek for vengeance, they want to make things right and make the person who sinned against them suffer some sort of harm. Some people seek for justice instead of revenge but if they find no solace in the outcome or no justice can be applied, they go to the other means, still seeking for justice but on a personal level that is revenge. Technically, they’re different. Justice serves to satisfy our desires for revenge.
Revenge doesn’t fix anything, it just make things harder for you. It doesn’t take away the hurt and the pain but merely puts more bad vibes into your life. Forgiveness is far better than revenge, though it doesn’t really fix the situation that fast but in time, it will surely heal the pain and make you forget the hard times. Just consider the pain or what you’ve been through as a lesson and make it as your inspiration to be a better person. Learn to forgive. Learn to let go. Don’t hold grudges because it brings you no good. Forget what hurts you in the past but never forget what it taught you. Revenge is never about getting even but is always a form of falling below another person. Only forgiveness allows you to rise above. In the long term, the less we practice vengeance and the more we practice forgiveness; the happier we will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment