Justice and Revenge

Silent Lion · February 1, 2016 at 4:31 AM Official Post

I always like me a serious discussion :=_=:

A few questions for everyone, I'd be interested to know.

1) Is there a difference between justice and revenge?

my take

No. I take the justice system (not the same as justice) to be a combo of revenge and punishment. The difference between those two things is the intention: revenge is undertaken for emotional reasons, the idea that somebody deserves to suffer, whereas punishment is supposed to be correctional, intended to prevent some behaviour from happening again. But when someone talks about justice as a concept, they're usually talking about some moral-like force, about getting what you deserve, which to me is no more than emotional gratification, which is revenge. So, as most commonly meant, justice = revenge.

2) Is revenge ok?

my take

No. Revenge causes more harm than it solves (remember we're not talking about punishment here). Revenge is simply the external effects of hatred. A calm and enlightened approach leads to better outcomes, imo. But there's a snag here, because I know that if someone did something terrible like kill one of my close family, I would be ridonculously hurt and would probably seek revenge. I think, given enough stimulation, most people would stoop to revenge, no matter their normal attitude. So is revenge ok? No. It is understandable? Definitely. Is it forgivable? I don't know. To go further on that question gets thorny. Just because something's normal or understandable, that doesn't make it right, and therefore should it be forgivable? But then, people need some room for mistakes.

3) Does punishment work?

my take

Sometimes. There is certainly a place for deterrents in teaching ethical behaviour, from childhood onwards. Having a civilised word doesn't always cut it. I don't think corporal (violent) punishment works in the long term. The threat of physical punishment can produce immediate results if severe enough, but it also causes resentment and the probability of even worse behaviour at a later stage. And if punishment is abusively severe, the victim is likely to become abusive later on - that has been well documented. The problem is that most people have very little understanding of psychology and how things affect a person. And when someone does something wrong, it's very easy to be clouded by the desire for revenge and convince yourself it's something different. Punishment has a place, then, but should be used with care and scepticism.

_LS_ · February 2, 2016 at 7:32 AM Official Post

Without taking too much time to compose my thoughts here.

1. Is there a difference between Justice and Revenge?

Display Spoiler

They're both entirely artificial human constructs that people take way too seriously. Yes, they're different. One is an attempt to rationally respond to misdeeds, the other is an emotional response to a perceived misdeed. But the common cultural idea that Justice is some highminded good and revenge is the basest of evils is a little silly.

2. Is Revenge Okay?

Display Spoiler

For what definition of revenge? If we're going to use the definition I posited above (Revenge is an action against an individual, motivated by an emotional response to a perceived misdeed) then it ranges the gamut from pettiness to murder I suppose. I can't imagine revenge being "good," but it's certainly human.

3. Does punishment work?

Display Spoiler

If it does, it's incidental. The goal of punishment isn't to fix a problem. The goal of punishment is to associate an unwanted behavior with an unpleasant result. It's an entirely backwards-facing methodology which rarely gives any thought to the future.

**Kaynil** · February 6, 2016 at 2:30 AM Official Post

Quote from Silent Lion

1) Is there a difference between justice and revenge?

Yes. Justice is about being just. Revenge is about making someone pay for what they did, in many cases it involves extracting a bigger cost. It is about personal gratification and dominance.

I think revenge and justice get mixed because both are related to fairness. The reason a person feels retaliating is because they don't feel justified the original blow. Since justice is about fairness many people go black and white ona situation and expects an eye for an eye kind of solution to be synonymous with justice.

This reminds me of the King Solomon and the tale taht scared me off as a kid.

"King Solomon"

I might be a bit off in details but the gist is the following: Two women, one with a baby of a few days old, entered the court of the King to solve their problem. They were living under the same roof they had given birth around the same time but one of the babies had died the night before. The one without the creature claimed to be the real mother and that the other woman had stolen her baby and exchanged for the corpse. The woman with the kid kept assuring to be the real mother and that the first woman was trying to keep her baby because she lost her own. So King Solomon called for a sword and gave the verdict to divide the baby and give a half to each. Soon enough once of the woman cried out for the baby's life and asked to just give the baby to the other woman. Solomon then decided she was the real mother and gave the son to her.
Even though the bible version makes clear she was actually the real mother and the other woman still bitter with her own baby death as being fine with the split verdict, I don't think it is what really matters. We have two people claiming to be the parent and one baby. The way justice is imparted here is that without doubt the baby ended up in the arms of the person that cared for the creature the most. It was never the main point to divide the child but to create a gut response that revealed what kind of feelings they had for the baby. The kid would have a better future that way.

Quote from Silent Lion

2) Is revenge ok?

I think that in general revenge is a negative mindset because it means you're not moving from situations and letting your pride being your pilot. The bitterness that comes with it is a natural human emotion that would be unhealthy to bottle and ignore. Revenge fantasies are a normal coping mechanism. So in itself the idea of revenge seems to be a part of humanity to me. The intention and severity of the actions moved by revenge are the issue and not the revenge in itself. If said revenge means the harm of one or more individuals then that form of revenge is not okay.
So for example, if killing is wrong, killing for revenge is still wrong.

Quote from Silent Lion

3) Does punishment work?

I didn't really connect Justice with punishment until the question. I don't think we can answer a contundent yes or a contundent no. It depends on the situation, the punishment and what it is the point of it. Negative reinforcement is one of the reasons you get a punishment and in the basic level it works. You associate the bad action with pain. The problem with this comes that it is not really changing someone's mind on something as mucha s training them to control their impulse toward certain things, or at least is the intention. Punishing a criminal is meant to have them stride away from crime but instead for many the lesson becomes "don't get caught". It does nothing for a person to understand why it was wrong or come to a inner resolution to stop it.

Killing a killer. Is it revenge or justice? Debate has been going on for a long time and I have no clear stance on it being the right or the wrong thing to do. Do you kill the murder to avoid more innocent bloodshed? Do you kill them because it is a life for a life penalty?Do you kill them to show dominance over other people that might be thinking on killing?

Should someone who killed but shows remorse been treated any better than that of an unrepentant one?

I don't know. I just feel taht when I was a kid Justice was a crystal clear black and white situation but as I grew up became this complex things where my beliefs became challenged by books, video games and other media.

Silent Lion · February 6, 2016 at 5:22 AM Official Post

Punishment is a difficult area, because it may be undertaken as a deterrent and an emotional response at the same time, making it very difficult to say 'this is revenge' or 'this is not revenge'. When the state punishes someone through the justice system, that's meant to correct the behaviour (which is why prisons are sometimes called correctional facilities). Except, if that was really the sole intention, why do we always talk about justice for the victim or for the bereaved? Shouldn't it be justice for the victims that might be in the future? Clearly punishing people, even when the state does it, is meant for emotional satisfaction, at least in part. The problem with punishment is that we naturally want it to be right. If someone wrongs us, we want to take revenge, and therefore we will find ways to convince ourselves it's the right thing to do. That's why it took so long to ban corporal punishment from schools - kids can be darned irritating, so hitting them MUST be right. That's a problem with humans in general, we decide what we want to be true, then figure out how to argue that it is. So if you kill a killer, however you choose to put that into words to make it sound right, what's the purpose? What's the effect you hope to have for people's benefit? I mean, you could imprison them instead. There's no evidence to show that there's less murders in countries with the death penalty, so that can't be it.

But there is an argument for punishment too. According to behaviour psychologists, operant conditioning (punishment and reward) can be very effective. But it has to be immediate - which might explain why putting people in prison doesn't work as a punishment, because too much time passes between the crime and the punishment. It also has to be consistent, which is why people who get speeding fines often speed again, because the crime is inconsistently punished. And then there is the issue of long-term effects, especially in children, where children who are physically punished are more likely to become aggressive as adults. http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralp…introopcond.htm

But the threat of punishment, if consistently maintained over a period of time, can be very effective and long-lasting. One example many of us might be familiar with from school. I was (/am) a submissive geeky kid. Being around me wasn't exactly the place to be, unless you felt sorry for me and wanted to make some kind of point. The response of the males to this was to keep calling me gay (or many other words for the same thing). It was so drilled into me as a negative thing, the idea that if I kept being socially backwards I would somehow become gay or be identified as gay, that it sticks in me even now as something quite threatening. I know, of course, that it's rubbish, but if someone ever asks me anything about my orientation or sexual experiences, I feel quite panicky, and feel desperate to assert my straightness. It's an emotional response - I can control and repress my actions, but I cannot control that emotional response. That to me is an effective display of operant conditioning. I'll wager that you might have similar baggage carried with you from your school days.

There is one huge question left unanswered. If we don't like punishment, what's the alternative? I mean, some people are dangerous, so you need to at least lock them away. And teaching people how to behave ethically - can it really be done without any form of punishment?

**Kaynil** · February 11, 2016 at 4:00 AM Official Post

I think I basically agree with your points so I had nothing noteworthy to add.

I think the distinction you made about operant conditioning through punishment having to be immediate really explains not only the prison but a lot of other instances like for example your parents. I guess a human can retain some bigger lapse of time simply because cause -> effect can be understood a deduction. For example when we do something wrong and get find out many days after we know immediately why we're in trouble but a dog won't relate things as well as we do. I wonder if the argument had to do with testing animals or if actually was tested in humans, or if it is just in theory. Other than those thoughts that divert from it, I think it is an argument I can agree with as it makes sense to me.

Quote from Silent Lion

One example many of us might be familiar with from school. I was (/am) a submissive geeky kid. Being around me wasn't exactly the place to be, unless you felt sorry for me and wanted to make some kind of point. The response of the males to this was to keep calling me gay (or many other words for the same thing). It was so drilled into me as a negative thing, the idea that if I kept being socially backwards I would somehow become gay or be identified as gay, that it sticks in me even now as something quite threatening. I know, of course, that it's rubbish, but if someone ever asks me anything about my orientation or sexual experiences, I feel quite panicky, and feel desperate to assert my straightness. It's an emotional response - I can control and repress my actions, but I cannot control that emotional response. That to me is an effective display of operant conditioning. I'll wager that you might have similar baggage carried with you from your school days.

I think we all suffer from this kind of conditioning one way or another. I was pretty extroverted as a child but one too many pushes has made me prune to get anxiety for simple tasks like making a phone call, even if it is for my own interest. I get so nervous that my mind goes blank and I heard noises people are making but my brain somehow cannot interpret them into words. I also have always been called fat, regardless my weight. Only as an adult I realised taht even though I was conditioned to think of me as fat many pictures shows me in a quite healthy shape and realising that is something taht brings me to tears now. I was so ashamed of my own self image that I limited myself in everything. never joined any activity club because I know I'd be the fatty that gets shoved topa team because I was the last one to be picked. That I'd be the slowest runner. I accepted it and believed it. I am doing much better now, I think it is re-conditioning by exposing yourself to those situations and gaining confidence in dealing with them. But like you said, due the strong hold it is easy to withdrawn back to them. it is just how you learn to cope. What worked for you most of the time so you go back in the damn wheel and push the button that you think will be less likely to give you an electric shock.

Quote from Silent Lion

There is one huge question left unanswered. If we don't like punishment, what's the alternative? I mean, some people are dangerous, so you need to at least lock them away. And teaching people how to behave ethically - can it really be done without any form of punishment?

I think the problem is not really about if we should punish or not, but when to punish and how so it is not pointless.

Back to the dangerous people that might need to be locked away. This also brings the bureaucracy of the whole legal system and the human imperfection. Everything takes so long taht even an innocent person can already have their lives changed forever before they can be proven innocent. Some people being corrupts and manipulating the process. The money moving a lot under the table. People not trusting the system. It is all a mess. If people won't trust in the ones supposed to deliver the justice, why would they see with anything else than distrust the punishments and the way they are handled out?

It is already a mess to punish people of petty offenses by lumping them together with people of serious crimes and then turn a blind eye to the repe and hardships taht go in prison because we rather to believe that everyone taht is in there deserves all taht they're getting. In fact, I don't understand much the idea of sending people to jail for that kind of petty offenses in the first place. Jails are usually already overcrowded as it is.

Tags