samosasauce
Active Member
What do you believe the difference between revenge and justice is? Perspective? Everything? Nothing? Reasoning? What do you think? Explain.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Revenge vs. justice?
- Thread starter samosasauce
- Start date
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Justice is just loftily worded revenge.
samosasauce
Active Member
Agreed, to a certain extent
Skwim
Veteran Member
Samosasauce, here are five definitions of "justice," which do you have in mind?
justice
[juhs-tis] noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Last edited:
samosasauce
Active Member
5 mostly, but all the others as well
Skwim
Veteran Member
If it's "the administering of deserved punishment or reward," then revenge may be behind the reason for such administration. Revenge would be the reason for the justice, while justice itself would be the administration of that reason.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Justice, like the half naked statue that symbolizes it, is blind. Justice by definition should be administered by the state in one form or another. Revenge, otoh, is strictly personal. Eye for an eye sort of thing. Revenge, ostensibly, is supposed to heal you. Usually it doesn't. Justice is always better.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Dissuade others from doing the same, and the convicted from doing it again, once freed.
factseeker88
factseeker88
Revenge could mean breaking the law, Justice is the law.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]
Like pointed out it does depend in part on what definition is being used for justice since clearly not all people function under the same understanding of what justice means and entails.
For me, both are separate, different concepts. But they do overlap a little in some cases. For the most part, justice is about protecting people, and in doing so this includes imposing forms of harm/restrictions on a subset of people, based on their actions and possible future actions, and their consequences for others. Revenge on the other hand, for the most part, is about compensating certain emotions in a sense, or at least attempting to do so.
I think in more cases than not, what people desire when harmed is a muddied subset from both concepts rather than a clearly distinct desire for one or the other. Though the kind of emotions people have in this regard differs considerably from one society to another, depending on many factors including culture and the principles upon which their justice system functions.
For example, in my country's culture, the difference between revenge and justice isn't very big, and this is apparent in it's justice system. In some other countries, this is not the case, and the two concepts are much more distinct, with justice being focused on preventing harm for the most part.
That's how I view it.
A related way of looking at it, is that revenge is more emotion-based, with the intent to cause suffering of some sort (physical or emotional), and is what a subset of victims would want. Justice is something that an external set of at least fairly rational people that aren't involved in the problem itself, whether it be lawmakers or jurors or mediators or a supervisor, decide is the best way to handle this situation to deter future problems by others, protect people from the current perpetrator, possibly get helpful rehabilitation for the perpetrator, possibly give some compensation to the victim, and whatever else seems reasonable to make it as right as it can be and balance out the scales, without a primary focus on causing suffering.
I always considered revenge as giving them what they deserve out of anger and justice as giving them what they deserve out of empathy.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
"What they deserve" is anything but empathetic. It's a human bias that we associate other people's faults with their personal failing and our own faults as the product of circumstances.
Empathy would dictate rehabilitation, not "justice".
I do agree, but I wasn't talking about empathy for the victim of justice, but the others. Also, rehabilitation is not always going to work.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
No, but if it doesn't punishment certainly won't help. Rehabilitation teaches people ways to better live in society whereas retribution teaches...nothing, or at least nothing positive and especially as the primary method of correction.
I wouldn't say it teaches nothing. It is meant to strike fear into the victim to avoid the consequences. Of course, that's not always how it goes; some of them come out of it only to be madder than before.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
It teaches that something is wrong but makes no effort to teach how to correct the action because we magically assume people over the age of 18 are able to reason out every legal dispute in the book.