Justice or revenge?

[kvnchrist]

What separates these two issues and what can we use as a guideline so that wrongs can be addressed without overstepping the morale and ethical guidelines that keeps society from turning on itself.

[HeyYou]

Semantic difference. That's it. Take murder, for example. Do we put the killer to death? Is that 'justice'? The victim is still just as dead, killing the killer isn't going to bring anyone back. Or, do we put them in storage for the rest of their life? A place to sleep, cable TV, three squares a day. To me, that most certainly is NOT justice. Why should the killer live, while the victim is dead? So what ends up happening is, we extract revenge on the killer, by killing him as well.

[Tidus44]

Justice and revenge are not opposites, thus the premise of the debate is flawed.

Justice does not exist except as a social concept. It is simply a belief or worse, an opinion, of acceptable ethics or mores during a period of time. Justice does not address the wrong doings within a society. It is an acceptable form of revenge. Revenge is an act of punishment, expiation or retaliation.

Thus justice and revenge are synonymous.

 

The idea that "wrongs" (whatever the heck that means) are addressed by justice or revenge is flawed and identifies a corrupt and pathological society that has no ability to rise above the most basic of animalistic instinct and lacks any capacity of munificence, prudence or compassion.

 

To believe that there is a system of justice is to fool oneself into thinking a society has moral values. There is only a legal system where it is more important to serve the rules than the individual.

[kvnchrist]

Justice and revenge are not opposites, thus the premise of the debate is flawed.

Justice does not exist except as a social concept. It is simply a belief or worse, an opinion, of acceptable ethics or mores during a period of time. Justice does not address the wrong doings within a society. It is an acceptable form of revenge. Revenge is an act of punishment, expiation or retaliation.

Thus justice and revenge are synonymous.

 

The idea that "wrongs" (whatever the heck that means) are addressed by justice or revenge is flawed and identifies a corrupt and pathological society that has no ability to rise above the most basic of animalistic instinct and lacks any capacity of munificence, prudence or compassion.

 

To believe that there is a system of justice is to fool oneself into thinking a society has moral values. There is only a legal system where it is more important to serve the rules than the individual

Why do you assume by my using "or" that I am saying the two are in opposition to one another. If a waiter asked you if you'd like Coffee or tea, would you assume the same thing.

 

Justice does exist as a social concept, if it didn't we could not agree on the laws that guide us as a society. The entire concept of a society is the idea of coming and living together in peace and laws provide a reasonable expectation of doing that. The idea of justice is to bring equality to that society and have standing penilties for ignoring those laws.

 

Revenge is a personal act of agression towards a proposed slight, either real or imaged. Justice on the other hand requires first proof of the issue and then the weighting of penilties against the proven wrongs. They are not in any way synonymous.

 

Society uses laws to rise above animaistic behavior, sense animalistic behavior provides only for the might and not the right. There are no morale or ethics involved in animalistic behavior only a fight for survival. Society does have moral guidelines that mst be adhered to in order for that society to exist. Without those there are no standards and without those, no society just a bunch of people living close to one another.

[Beriallord]

Justice is usually imposed by the legal system of society toward someone who breaks a law, and revenge is usually carried out by an individual as a way to cope with a personal grievance against another.

[WarRatsG]

Justice is a broader term. It can apply to anything, because it is about creating a fair solution to a problem. I caused the car crash, I pay for the damage I caused.
Revenge is only about causing injury to a person who previously injured or wronged you. A criminal can enact a revenge on another criminal, but not necessarily in a context that might be called justice. You insult me, I send the boys around to your house.

[HeyYou]

how do you get justice for murder? There is no 'fair' solution. The victim is still dead. Nothing can change that.

[Tidus44]

I simply made the statement that the premise of debate is flawed as no opposing position is entertained. The premise is that the only acceptable means of addressing “wrongs” (again, what does that mean) is by punishment or revenge which are seen as separate issues. Justice and revenge are not separate issues but synonymous within a flawed and corrupt legal system that is supported by a morally bankrupt society.

 

By definition;

Revenge; to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit; to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.

While the definition does not eliminate the possibility of revenge being a personal act, it does not limit it to a personal act either.

 

Justice; moral rightness; equity; conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

 

Not everyone agrees with laws, and certainly do not agree that laws guide society to live in peace, to be moral or just or to be ethical. None of those concepts have any basis other than opinion within a period of time. What one sees as moral, just or ethical was immoral, unjust and unethical in the past and likely will be in the future.

Nor is there agreement that laws achieve justice by bringing equality to a society. Legal systems are established solely to punish and exact retribution because someone did something a segment of society says is unacceptable. Laws are made for the benefit of that segment of society that places materialistic values above moral ones.

The necessity for a society to make laws identifies a corrupt and morally bereft society. If a society was ethical, moral and just there would be no need for laws.

A society that places punishment and revenge above compassion, prudence and benevolence is animalistic with the pathological need to use violence against those deemed undesirable because they do not conform to an opinion.

 

A couple of other commentaries on justice.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ

[kvnchrist]

I simply made the statement that the premise of debate is flawed as no opposing position is entertained. The premise is that the only acceptable means of addressing “wrongs” (again, what does that mean) is by punishment or revenge which are seen as separate issues. Justice and revenge are not separate issues but synonymous within a flawed and corrupt legal system that is supported by a morally bankrupt society.

 

By definition;

Revenge; to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit; to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.

While the definition does not eliminate the possibility of revenge being a personal act, it does not limit it to a personal act either.

 

Justice; moral rightness; equity; conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

 

Not everyone agrees with laws, and certainly do not agree that laws guide society to live in peace, to be moral or just or to be ethical. None of those concepts have any basis other than opinion within a period of time. What one sees as moral, just or ethical was immoral, unjust and unethical in the past and likely will be in the future.

Nor is there agreement that laws achieve justice by bringing equality to a society. Legal systems are established solely to punish and exact retribution because someone did something a segment of society says is unacceptable. Laws are made for the benefit of that segment of society that places materialistic values above moral ones.

The necessity for a society to make laws identifies a corrupt and morally bereft society. If a society was ethical, moral and just there would be no need for laws.

A society that places punishment and revenge above compassion, prudence and benevolence is animalistic with the pathological need to use violence against those deemed undesirable because they do not conform to an opinion.

 

A couple of other commentaries on justice.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ

Why should there be an opposing issues when the manner in which the op was laid out was what seperates the two from eachother, not which, if any was better. There have been numourious posts about peoples opinions about what was or wasn't either justice or revenge, but no one I know of has set them side by side and dysected them.

[Tidus44]

To identify justice or revenge as the only two possible choices to address what some see as “wrongs” identifies that one segment of society has successfully instilled onto other segments of society the belief (or perhaps the fear) in what is immoral, unethical and unjust to justify the enforcement of unrealistic, unfair and prejudicial laws in order to further their own interests.

Justice is an act of revenge performed in a manner that a segment of society finds acceptable and as a means to control and oppress another segment of society. Anyone who examines the morale and ethical guidelines that supposedly keep society from turning on itself realizes that the whole system is corrupted and one sided and has nothing to do with establishing a just, moral or ethical society, it is a means to punish and to control others by fear of punishment.