Civil Revenge

[27x]

I was talking with one of my buddies from church the other day. They just can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that revenge can be taken without one being angry.

Example: In the times of the old testiment, Jews believed in the law, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Couldn't somone then take revenge for sake of the law, instead of being angry.

I don't believe it's impossible to say, "I want to hurt this person back," without being angry at them.

I'm not justifying vengence, I'm saying that we've catagorized it as an angry action becaues most people commit it when angry.  

[dybo]

Part of the problem is the language we use to describe "revenge." The whole concept is based around vengeance for some wrong, usually associated with negative emotions such as anger. I agree and disagree with your point. It is possible to seek vengeance without anger, especially after some time has elapsed, but vengeance is not possible without the original state of anger. So the act itself can be emotionally neutral, but there had to have been some form of anger behind it.  

[whynaut]

The categorical imperative describes ideal morality as "Treating people as ends and not means". This describes that a morality where human beings are more than tools to get what you want. If you treat humans as a tool it's immoral and if you treat human as an end in itself it is moral.

Example:
I think you are bad and I want you to stop. I hurt you in hopes that it will make you stop.
IMMORAL

I give money to charity because I want to help the people.
MORAL

Sounds simple, right? Wrong. Things get more complicated because the point is in intention, and not action.
Example:
I give money to charity because it makes me feel good.
IMMORAL [You are using helpless people to give you good feelings]

I think you are bad. I hurt you because you deserve to be hurt.
MORAL

This may sound strange, but its more moral if you think about it. If we put a criminal in prison and try to rehabilitate them, this is immoral because we are trying to use the criminal to give us a safer society. If we put a criminal in prison to directly punish him equal to the crimes he committed, this is moral because the focus is not on our ends, it is on the person and the pure judgment of that person. Of course things could spin the other way based on intentions, but that is not what we are discussing here.

In a nutshell, there are cases where revenge can actually be more moral than the alternatives. The difference is that you take revenge for them and their actions and not for yourself.  

[27x]

dybo

Part of the problem is the language we use to describe "revenge." The whole concept is based around vengeance for some wrong, usually associated with negative emotions such as anger. I agree and disagree with your point. It is possible to seek vengeance without anger, especially after some time has elapsed, but vengeance is not possible without the original state of anger. So the act itself can be emotionally neutral, but there had to have been some form of anger behind it.

Riddle me this, is an assassin is payed to take revenge, and isn't angry, is there nececarily an initial anger(I'm not talking about, "he was angry about his childhood" I'm talking about particular anger against the person he is hired to kill)? He has no ties to the people who hired him, so what happened shouldn't bother him.