What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Anyone who thinks that revenge/vengeance is logical needs to ignore the fact that the universe works like a mirror. What we send out into the universe is automatically sent back to us so we can experience how it feels ourselves.
Ultimately forcing us to answer the question, when will it end.
Love and blessings Don
2007-03-15 00:58:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't believe in revenge and I don't believe that vengence is sweet. I would not seek vengence and/or revenge. Why should I? Would that make me any better? Or bitter? So on the positive side of revenge and vengence? I wouldn't stoop down to their level and mirror their thoughts and/or actions. Now that's revenge and the sweet side of vengence. Trust Me, that's not being a doormat, that's saving a life, let alone, the sanity.
2007-03-15 01:38:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Smahteepanties 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Revenge or vengeance or retribution or vendetta consists primarily of retaliation against a person or group in response to a perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of revenge resemble or echo the concept of justice, revenge usually has a more injurious than harmonious goal. The vengeful wish consists of forcing the perceived wrongdoer to suffer the same pain that they inflicted in the first place, or of making sure that the wrongdoer can never inflict such an injury upon anyone else.
Revenge is a hotly contested ethical issue in philosophy. Some feel that, at the very least, the threat of revenge is necessary to maintain a just society. In some societies, it is believed that the injury inflicted in revenge should be greater than the original one, as a punitive measure. The Old Testament philosophy of "an eye for an eye" (cf. Exodus 21:24) tried to limit the allowed damage, in order to avoid a vendetta or series of violent acts that could spiral out of control -- instead of 'ten-fold' vengeance, there would be a simple 'equality of suffering'. Detractors argue that revenge is a simple logical fallacy, of the same design as "two wrongs make a right." Some Christians interpret Paul's "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19, King James Version) to mean that only God has the moral right to exact revenge. Indeed, every major religious system contains some method for the mediation of disputes and for the limitation of vengeance by imputing a sense of cosmic justice to replace the often faulty justice systems of the world of men.
2007-03-15 00:32:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by JJ 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
All of the answers to your question that got a positive rating seem to say
"Vengeance is sweet"
and have a positive view of it.
Were you looking for people to agree with you, or were you actually asking a philosophical question?
Let's say someone killed your brother. You think it's wrong enough that you seek revenge. Would you kill them, yourself believing that killing is wrong, or would you seek revenge because you believe the killing of YOUR BROTHER was wrong? What if your brother did something that justified that person's revenge against your brother, like he raped that person's daughter or something equally horrible? And what if after seeking revenge, someone who knew all of the facts felt justified in seeking revenge on YOU?
Vengeance is sweet until it is brought down upon you.
But even so, in each case, it must be well thought out and PURELY justified vengeance.
2007-03-15 04:16:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by prof. hambone 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This assumes that a kinfolk would be keen to maintain on your legacy of revenge and that the different will besides. It additionally assumes that revenge is very own, as in one on one. it ought to no longer be. it must be an entire team. And a individual won't take revenge on you in the event that they theory the guy you killed deserved it. All this skill that because of the fact of a few tussle considered one of my and somebody elses ancestors have been given in and my ancestor replaced into killed that i might circulate to the decendant of the assassin and kill him. it is retarded. Revenge is short-term, and should no longer be drawn out, and no remember if it extremely is, its ridiculous and gets people nowhere. look on the wars between jews, muslims, and christians. they are killing eachother for stuff that handed off over 2000 years in the past. Do they even have self assurance that their gods choose them to circulate slaughter one yet another over a technicality? I doubt it. much extra ascinine is the muslim sects in Iraq. the version between them initially is who the surely successor to Mohammed could have been 1500+ years in the past. One mentioned the subsequent in blood line, the different mentioned next in religious score. What the hell?! they are conserving alive a 1500+ 3 hundred and sixty 5 days old argument of a bearucratic place! it could be like a 1500+ 3 hundred and sixty 5 days criminal conflict of who's next CEO of a organisation-the son/daughter on the CEO, or the guy precise under him in bearucratic heirarchy? different than each and every person is death over the muslim variations. it is all approximately means and dominance, and so is revenge.
2016-10-02 04:01:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by condom 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oh yes - I certainly do - but circumstances must warrant it. Don't sweat the small stuff. But if your partner is being unfaithful - leave the house but put raw prawns into the hem of the curtains - or dial the time in a distant country and leave the phone off the hook. Lol I can think of lots of ways to get revenge. Never done it though.
2007-03-15 00:34:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I prefer to say Retribution.
I live by Lex Talionis. Everything must be balanced out. Each action taken against me must be repayed, whether kind or cruel. So clearly... yes... I believe in it.
It isn't generally for emotional reasons though, but rather a demonstration of actioned causality and an internal demand for fairness. If I know I have accidentally wronged someone I will even deliver myself to them and allow them to "balance the score" against me. I live in the knowledge that this is how the world is kept in balance.
Folks who "turn the other cheek"? Doormats... all of them.
2007-03-15 00:50:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nihilist Templar 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Revenge is a moral imperative. Without the thirst for revenge there would be no courts, no judges, no law enforcement. After all any form of punishment is just revenge under another name, one more pallatable to society, but it is just simple revenge.
2007-03-16 01:06:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by kveldulf_gondlir 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe in revenge. What goes around comes round
2007-03-15 00:48:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by gandhi1078 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Vengeance may seem very sweet to the one who wants revenge, but to others it seems very cruel unless it is justified by a very big cause.
2007-03-15 00:34:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by SilentShadow 3
·
0⤊
0⤋