Simple Revenge.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Most would like to delude themselves into thinking that morality, justice and collective laws bring about some idealistic standard of a “greater good” in that people fantasize fictionally that the systemization of justice is some real landscape of reality.

I would argue that “justice” is nothing more than the interests of other people in their vendettas of simple revenge.

Justice is nothing more than revenge.

Justice means nothing beyond the understanding and enacted punishment in what is established revenge.

Things like the ideals of the “greater good” or the triumph of “good” over “evil” are mere phantoms created by the imagination leading back to created hysterias correllated into operative ongoing fictions. Nothing more.

Behind every moral or form of justice there is merely a egotistical and selfish motivated desire to enact revenge on another through harm.

2

So no moralist wants to argue for their “greater good”? Interesting.

So I guess the justice system and morality really does come to simple revenge.

3

Some want people put in prisons so that they won’t harm others. Some want people put in prison in order to exact revenge.

4

Well Joker, it has been my experience in getting into discussions such as these, nothing is ever resolved, learned or achieved. It’s easy for someone to take an amoral postion since they have nothing to defend. Even if good arguments are presented for morality, they are pushed aside with the assertion that there is no such thing as morals. It becomes an excercise of futility. So, I will let someone else ](*,) .

5 
 morality , justice and collective laws is not about some idealistic standard as it is about hoping one thinks about the final consequence of ones actions . is the action taken more important then ones freedom to explore and experience life more fully .

yet for ALL victims they would rather not be in situation at all . since if one , being the victim , means that they have suffered a loss of which they preferred not to have .

in away yes . but under normal circumstances would never have arisen . people don’t go after somebody without a reason to in the first place.

revenge = provocation , provocation = revenge

greater good , triumph of good over evil , is progress of thought and attitude

hmmm... its always the victim of a crime that is made to feel guilty is it not joker ?
6

Either way it equals revenge.

7

Fair enough.

8

What does it mean to expirience life more fully?

What about consequences? Maybe if society didn’t create situations in the first place that puts people into desperation maybe there wouldn’t be so much crime.

What about the consequences of today’s modern industrialized society? Noone ever likes to speak about that.

So what? What about all the victims created out of legislated law? What about all the victims created out of whole legal systems and governments?

This is a bankrupt arguement.

Justice is simple revenge.

What does this have to do with anything?

Whatever you want to call it there still remains the element of revenge no matter who is doing the provocation.

Nah,

That is just masks and charades full of idealistic pretenses to mask the desire of revenge or the will to power by feigning some idealistic virtue.

Isn’t it interesting how the victim wishes to enact a worse harm of violence on the perpetrator of a crime which in some ways is greater severity than what was done to the victim themselves in the first place?

Isn’t interesting how the victim is so readily acquainted to using other people besides themselves to enact a violent form of revenge on another?

9

are not these victims aware of the law though ?

10

What is so wrong with revenge? It has its positive aspects, probably more than negative ones.

11

I’m in agreement, joker, in suppositions that “Justice” is a pure invention based on no apparent landscape of reality.

Let’s forget about revenge for a second. Let’s just consider the simple perpetuation of life.

Why perpetuate life?

Life seems to encourage its own perpetuation . . . .

Is that a reason why it should be perpetuated?

Someone that appears to be a threat of that perpetuation should be stopped? Because?

The same for revenge. The same for happiness. The same for specific religious values. These are all things that people practice possibly out of simple chance that they would practice it and continue practicing it because . . . well, it’s the pattern they were used to.

What are you, as a moralist, other than a simple cog in the psychological chain reaction of values encouraging values. Certainly you can make a difference. Why?

To me: Here is where the ultimate paradox comes in.

When there is no point to pursue, there is no point to exist. Those that see no point to pursue . . . probably don’t exist.

Therefore those that exist are more likely to pursue something.

The ultimate question in realizing your own values and humbling yourself before the values of others begins with Dr. Victor Frankl’s “Will to meaning” when he asks a question he believes is therapeutic: “Why don’t you kill yourself?”

So, then, Joker, why don’t you kill yourself? Not because I believe it is what you should do. But because I believe it’s an important question you must begin with. I don’t kill myself . . . probably in great partiality because my instincts direct me otherwise. In other words . . . chance. But maybe I also don’t kill myself . . . because there is meaning to my existence and my pursuance. I exist and pursue things on nothing more than the hunch that there is meaning, and eventually I could discover a reason why. But I certainly don’t claim this to be a logical reason. It’s a vague, almost random hunch.

When I want to punish people, it’s based on a hunch that I will eventually find the meaning to my reasons. When I think that nuclear holocaust should be prevented, it’s on a hunch that something meaningful is to come out of what humanity designs. A priori is separate for a reason. No calculation in the world actually means anything. But we make those calculations on the hunch that they will help us send a rocket in space or on the moon. That hunch has often proved correct. Likewise, the hunch of why . . . well it’s yet to reveal itself, but hunches have shown good track records.

Asking why you don’t kill yourself correlates with why your predictions of certain trivial facts were correct. When you dropped cutlery on the floor as a child correlates with the first time you hit someone out of anger. Predicting that the spoon would drop correlates with believing that there is a “right” thing to do.

If you can predict results, then you clearly have at least a limited understanding of purpose and that is the meaning of morality.

12

Also- you often mention facts of inadequacy within your assertions, which I also agree with. But they provide no argument for amorality. So why are they being mentioned?

Examples.

A bankrupt government. If there’s no morality, why should a bankrupt government matter?

A corrupt justice system. If there’s no morality, why should a justice system be fair?

I tend to think in terms of a diamond in the rough. The kind of imagination of Frank Miller. The world seems corrupt, and seems to get worse. No one is atoned for their actions. Justice is petty and cruel. Economy is build upon absurdities of absurdities. Taxes on taxes. Laws about laws. No wonder the modern principals encourage us to see things as meaningless. But no matter how terrible things appear . . . I find something to pursue. I can be the poor sap Frank Hardigan who gets shot for almost no reward or success, but . . . still good.

13

Revenge is contradictory in the scene of morality in that moralists proclaim brotherly love all the while they take the knife in brotherly vengeance.

Just one more facet showing the absurdity and bogus inclinations of morality.

14

Because one can. Because the biological sequence of organisms is self preservation.

Habit? So what? Why should one care about other people’s habits? Habits can be destroyed.

Because I choose not to. I do not have to justify myself.

Yet morality assumes there to be a true world almost in a religious sence that is unexpirienced and unknowable to all people.

How can somthing unknowable and unexpirienced obligate us to do anything?

Even with this post your morality is reduced to preferences, perspectives and personal inclinations relatively which still doesn’t adequately explain why people must do anything at all.

15

It doesn’t matter. But then again if nothing matters, that would mean that there is no reason and obligation to do anything, morally or otherwise in the lives of people.