- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
I saw a thread of it, but the question was very vague.
Want to know how your moral code deals with revenge, what justifies it, and to what extent it can be applied.
I find that a commonly held approach says that it should be the legal system as an authority the only one who should judge & deal punishment, and if that were to fail, it just means that the justice system must be revised. For example, there was a case in which a mother purposefully murdered her daughter, but she ended up free from consequence. In such case, we can say that justice failed, and it should be adjusted properly so that these types of things don't happen again, but ultimately it follows that this authority solely has the right to act and deliver punishment, and no one else (if you don't agree with this, you can also post your thoughts).
But what happens when the justice system cannot deal with it because of real life limitations?
This is why the approach I'm asking about is practical (how'll you'll actually follow on your convictions) and not theoretical (the pretty thing written only on paper).
We're also under the assumption that there's no karma nonsense where by leaving them, they'll magically get what they deserve. Or that somehow they'll fuck up by their own hand, when it's not necessarily the case and is in fact unlikely of happening. But this is potentially your argument, so if you believe this, feel free to tell.
I can put some examples to give context, but you can bring your own:
Let's say someone comes to your property and vandalizes it (paints on it, destroys it, throws stuff at it from far away, etc) but you didn't have or just couldn't put security cameras/similar to protect it/catch the person, or it just wasn't enough, the police cannot do anything about it. Does this in theory give you the right to take revenge on this person, and to what extent? What if you saw them initially, and eventually you learn who it was but have no way of proving it, would you consider revenge if you know you'll get scot-free?
What if you learn that your neighbour kicked your pet that was running outside (on either your or public property), but again you have no way of proving it? Would you end up slashing his tires or something, and would that be a fair tradeoff?
What about if the annoyance is just constant but mild? Like someone going out of their way to be a negative in your day, but not to the point where it's illegal? Like being purposefully noisy near your property.
I've also heard of people annoyed specifically at pitbulls, where they condemn the owner to a great degree, but the pet as well. So the pitbull will end up injuring the other dog (in this case your own), does that justify any action taken outside of the law?
For this you can assume that the transgressors were not punished even after your reports.
Want to know how your moral code deals with revenge, what justifies it, and to what extent it can be applied.
I find that a commonly held approach says that it should be the legal system as an authority the only one who should judge & deal punishment, and if that were to fail, it just means that the justice system must be revised. For example, there was a case in which a mother purposefully murdered her daughter, but she ended up free from consequence. In such case, we can say that justice failed, and it should be adjusted properly so that these types of things don't happen again, but ultimately it follows that this authority solely has the right to act and deliver punishment, and no one else (if you don't agree with this, you can also post your thoughts).
But what happens when the justice system cannot deal with it because of real life limitations?
This is why the approach I'm asking about is practical (how'll you'll actually follow on your convictions) and not theoretical (the pretty thing written only on paper).
We're also under the assumption that there's no karma nonsense where by leaving them, they'll magically get what they deserve. Or that somehow they'll fuck up by their own hand, when it's not necessarily the case and is in fact unlikely of happening. But this is potentially your argument, so if you believe this, feel free to tell.
I can put some examples to give context, but you can bring your own:
Let's say someone comes to your property and vandalizes it (paints on it, destroys it, throws stuff at it from far away, etc) but you didn't have or just couldn't put security cameras/similar to protect it/catch the person, or it just wasn't enough, the police cannot do anything about it. Does this in theory give you the right to take revenge on this person, and to what extent? What if you saw them initially, and eventually you learn who it was but have no way of proving it, would you consider revenge if you know you'll get scot-free?
What if you learn that your neighbour kicked your pet that was running outside (on either your or public property), but again you have no way of proving it? Would you end up slashing his tires or something, and would that be a fair tradeoff?
What about if the annoyance is just constant but mild? Like someone going out of their way to be a negative in your day, but not to the point where it's illegal? Like being purposefully noisy near your property.
I've also heard of people annoyed specifically at pitbulls, where they condemn the owner to a great degree, but the pet as well. So the pitbull will end up injuring the other dog (in this case your own), does that justify any action taken outside of the law?
For this you can assume that the transgressors were not punished even after your reports.
