I searched to see if this had been a topic before and couldn’t find anything. I know this must have been talked about before, but I’m looking to focus on this alone without necessarily specific incident.
What is the difference between justice and vengeance?
Normally we promote that justice is when the greater good is served in the act. And vengeance ts the retribution for selfish or egotistical ends.
Justice.
Vengeance.
[size=75]from dictionary.com[/size]
So is this defined simply by how the public views it? Or does the intent of the act matter? And if so, is it simply the intent, or both the intent and the perception of the act matter?
How do we tell the difference or is there even a difference?
Sorry if this has already been discussed to death.
There are four basic types of justice and five basic types of vengeance. There are sub-categories by combining the basic types. I could tell what these categories are, but only if you are a fellow ninja. But if you were a fellow ninja you would not need to ask.
All ninjas aside, I think this is a very, very good question. In short, I’d say that vengeance is a kind of justice, in a sense. Now, to quote from something I just posted:
Now - what we’re talking about here is the thing about which I believe the original poster wasn’t talking - which I’ll simply call social justice. We’re not talking about objective justice.
Quickly, I think the direction in which the action is being performed distinguishes the two.
Vengence is thought of generally as a person afflicting retribution on an individual or institution for something that individual or institution had already done, according to an individual’s internal code of conduct.
The way I’m looking at it right now, social justice can come in two forms, but either goes like this - a society acting on a person in direct response to an action that person has taken that specifically violates that society’s code of conduct.
The two different forms I think make the primary difference between simple vengeance and social justice. I think that an entity has the innate tendency, at the very least, to preserve its existence. To this end, a social network has the tendency to preserve its existence - so it removes the threats to its existence and proper functioning. (Now, I DO NOT believe that it has the right to kill any person or deny it a host of other rights - as I believe that the very diversity in nature plays into definitions of human rights.) This process seems less to be based in retribution and vengeance and more in self-preservation, which is where I believe originates the fact that justice comes with positive connotations and vengeance comes with negative connotations (and because religious people can be obsessed with justice (of their own flavor) – and I suppose also retribution, for that matter - but its billed as justice).
So, when you have people on the jury hollering for a criminal to hang, I think you’re talking about vengeance, and when you’re sending people who are incompatible with a particular society to an isolated life of relative normality, you’re talking about the second form, above, of social justice. In simple terms - a action being performed on B because of an action B performed - there’s never really a difference, or at least, not one that I can see.
I agree with Glenn when you seek justice it is because someone is not guilty and they are trying to prove that or if someone is guilty then you are trying to prove that. Justice comes through the legal system. Vengeance is when some takes something into their own hands and tries to seek justice on your own. For example, a mother’s vengeance if someone kills her daughter and he doesn’t get convicted so she takes matters into her own hands and kills the man herself. That is what vengeance is.
So justice can only be meted out with a judicial system? I think you’re setting up a double standard here. If vengeance is only justice enforced by someone who is not legally designated to dispense justice, I fail to truly see the difference. Wouldn’t it still be justice? And if only the government can have justice, then I think we are setting ourselves up for danger.
Also, I know it’s just a phrase, but what about kharmic justice? Would it then be kharmic vengeance? I’m trying to determine if there is an inherent difference between justice and vengeance. I disagree that it is only a legal difference, but I welcome the opinions of those who think so.
My main point of contention for the legal aspect is, if the judicial system hands out justice, can they have vengeance? Or would that just be justice?
Justice can be considered the organization of rights granted by a ruling force, which for the stronger, is an act of allowance and distribution. There is no inherent ‘justice’ for animal life. It must be formulated through a social relationship between castes- it must be an effort to protect one weaker type from another weaker type, niether of which determine the reality of the justice granted to them by the ruling class. Justice can be understood as a higher power used to regulate social activity from a height- from a force that is unaffected by weaker natures.
Vengence is a reactionary force, what Nietzsche called ressentiment. Revenge is a slavish intention, it is a matter of recompense for a stronger nature against its impotency- the failure of the weaker type to establish rule, and instead, be conditioned by it.
The genealogy of morals are in revenge; thou shall be like me. I cannot, so you should not.
The stronger type does not seek revenge because it is not threatened.
Moral altruism can be reached by either the enforced rules upon a mass by a stronger type, or the disintegration of strength through the equalization of power by the sheer number of mediocrity. Master morality and slave morality are, in the twentieth century, becomming obscure for various reasons. Mainly because of technology, which promotes the decline in physical health- the first requisite for the capacity to rule and enforce values.
Hmm… vengence or justice? What I like to call “the Batman question.” (I love when I can allude to comic books in philosophical soliliquies.)
I beleive the sense of justice stems from human morality which itself stems from empathy, (not from a need to keep the ants in line as Hobbes would have you beleive.)
Vengence on the other hand is a purely selfish motive, seeking self-fulfillment in another’s suffering. Does that necessarily mean that vengence is necessarily wrong? I don’t really know myself, but it’s something to be reflected on.
Though it’s certainly true that vengence can be absorbed into one’s sense of justice. Take for example, as mentioned earlier, Batman. True, since his parents were murdered he feels intense anger and hatred towards evil people, but Batman writers have made it clear over the years that his main drive for doing what he does isn’t vengence, but to make sure no one else went through what he did.
So I guess to boil it down, true justice is compassionate and reasoned, while vengence is spiteful and emotion driven.
It appears that moral philosophy agrees that the first virtue of all human institutions is the advancement of social justice. The standard for judgement for all institutions is–does this institution advance justice? John Rawls, in his book “A Theory of Justiceâ€, defines justice as fairness. The two words are not synonymous but the key to understanding justice is the concept of fairness. Thus an institution is judged upon how well it serves social justice.
Internet discussion forums are a relatively new human institution and I suspect that not a great deal of thought has gone into trying to determine how well this institution serves social justice. I suspect that this might be a good time to consider this question and since it is easier to grapple with a problem of this nature when we focus on a particular example I think we might focus on this particular forum.
Every thing on the Internet appears to be ‘Dodge City’—I mean that the Internet has few restraints or enforced regulations and depend almost completely upon the discretion of the individual components. I am not aware of any force outside the Internet component that would cause an Internet site to be forced off the net. It seems that we must judge a discussion forum based solely upon the degree upon which it seems to cherish justice—fairness.
I suspect we can say almost the same thing about individual humans—I mean that we humans have few restraints in the moral realm. If we chose not to accept moral obligations–what is to force us to recognize any obligation we choose not to accept? Perhaps our comprehension of justice is the only guide we all have. We see some young people in the US today accepting an obligation to serve in the military but we see far fewer not doing so. Do we see any adults accepting any obligation to serve the country commensurate with that of some of our young people?
There is no difference between Governmental Justice and Vengence.
The whole pact that society has with its extant government, regarding law and order - justice, is that the government agrees to take a measured degree of vengeance upon the perpetrator, on behalf of the victim(s). In return, society suppresses its vigilante tendancies.
Its all very well to ethicly say ‘two wrongs’, ‘who would dirty their hands’ etc… But the whole reason for the justice system remains - Vengence by proxy. The penile system is not there specifically to ‘school’ an offender in the error of his/her ways. Nor is it specifically there to protect society. Justice - Cold, blind and unforgiving - Is the vengeful sword of the common man.
First a story: A Samurai had battled endlessly and fiercely to finally reach the inner sanctuary of the man who had slain his master. At long last there would be justice for the dishonorable murder. As he stood above the murderer about to strike, the man in rage and despair, spat at the Samurai. At that, the Samurai stopped and put away his sword. He could no longer execute the man. If he had killed him at that moment he would have killed him for the wrong reasons.
What is the difference between vengeance and justice? Short answer: vengeance is personal and justice is impersonal.
The justice system is empowered by the collective to execute the will of the collective. The one who harms another is captured and carefully judged. Those who work for the justice system draw their legitimate power by following the will of the people as expressed by the laws of the land. Those who act beyond of against the will of the people are no longer serving justice. Our dream of Justice is of a blind woman who impartially and fairly weighs the world.
I would say that objective justice is karma and subjective justice is a man made interpretation. Vengeance can only be a subjective reaction. I cannot find any examples of objective vengeance