Thank you, Coffee Jelly, for a great question!
Vengeance is usually defined as punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong (thank you, Google). The question is: Is an act of vengeance – call it, X – ever justifiable?
An action can be justified in different ways. Is X legally justifiable? That would depend on the consequences of X, events leading up to X, and ultimately the legal system. Every state in the world has at least a slightly different legal system, so it makes little sense to try to give a final answer to this question. For example, in Islamic Criminal Law, retaliation is one way to legally punish wrongdoing (as mentioned in Koran), but it is handled mostly by state officials, not the ‘victim’.
Next: Is X politically justifiable? Some illegal political groups have been taking revenge on former state authorities or institutions for years. This means that for some people it is justifiable to take revenge for the sake of political progression. On the other hand, some other political groups claim that vengeance is not politically progressive or ideologically appropriate.
Now for a third and perhaps more philosophically relevant question: Is X morally justifiable? To answer this question, we must first find out how to evaluate the moral status of an action. One may:
- adopt a form of moral consequentialism and claim that it is the consequences of X that determine whether it morally permissible; or
- adopt a form of deontology and claim that moral justification is simply determined by whether X is right or wrong, according to a set of rules.
The most popular form of deontology is Kantianism. For Kant, one must be able to universalize a maxim in order for it to be adoptable. Let our maxim be ‘one shall take revenge’. This maxim is universalizable only if its adoption by everyone does not lead to a contradiction. If everyone takes revenge whenever they are wronged, then in that world everyone would take revenge on their revengers too; and that would lead an infinity of unrevenged victimhood – that is, a contradiction. (Think of Gandhi’s quote, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”) Our maxim cannot be universalized. So, according to Kantianism, vengeance is not morally justifiable.
If one adopts the most popular form of consequentialism – namely, utilitarianism – then in order for X to be justifiable one needs to show that X brings about more happiness and well-being. It is not impossible to imagine a scenario where taking revenge brought about such consequences, but it is clearly far-fetched; typically, X means more harm, and therefore less happiness and well-being. So, according to utilitarianism, too, vengeance is not morally justifiable (in typical cases, at least).
One final thought, though: there are several different forms of consequentialism. It is possible to adopt a form of consequentialism where consequences aren’t measured entirely by happiness and well-being. A consequentialist may claim that under certain circumstances vengeance is morally justifiable if it is the only way to purvey equality, fairness, or desert.
All in all, I would say it is not impossible to justify vengeance. Plus, it provides a solid premise for detective and serial-killer films!
What do you think? Is vengeance ever justifiable? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: Cain and Abel, by Titian (16th century)
I got my BA and MA degrees in Philosophy at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Currently I am a third year PhD student and a full-time research assistant in the same department. I am mostly interested in normative ethics with a special focus on rule-consequentialism. I am most amazed by David Hume's and Immanuel Kant's ideas; for me, these two philosophers dealt with many philosophically meaningful questions that are still relevant today.
Yes, revenge under certain conditions is justifiable. You need to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions either way, but you must first be very clear that revenge is justifiable in the situation.First you must verify the reasons for the original slanderous actions perpetrated on you by the attacker. Ask them the purpose or reason. Maybe there was something they felt slighted about and they perpetrated a public humiliation on you. Now, I wouldn’t consider that justification enough to enact revenge but you can decide. If the person felt wronged they should have told you and discussed it in private with you. You could have ironed out all the concerns, apologized for the miscommunication of you thoughts or the hurt feelings and resentment you created. And hopefully one or both gain an understanding and grow in both intellectual and emotional wisdom. However if, for example, if someone slanders you publicly, in front of friends and family for their own gain within the family. If you can prove the fabrication on their part if you can prove that what they are claiming is slander untrue or completely fabricated, then present that evidence to them and a 3rd party that is neutral and make them explain why they took such an action against you. If they are cowardice and refuse to explain or gaslight you by trying to tell you it didn’t happen or that you are just overly sensitive then have at it. Aristotle stated that “revenge is analogous to punishment. We punish people for stealing so that they will refrain from stealing in the future. Similarly, we seek revenge because we believe the offender wronged us; we want to cause him pain so that he will not wrong us in the future.” Tomas Bacon had this to say on the subject; “The most tolerable sort of revenge is for those wrongs which there is no law or remedy, but then let a man take heed the revenge be such as there is no law to punish; else a man’s enemy is still beforehand.” Bacon goes on to say that the score should be even, not to have one party or the other above the other. That the revenge should you make you even, not a gain or loss, but even with the person who thought so little of you that they lied and slandered you in front of friends and family in a casual setting completely out of place. Some people travel with agenda’s and do not care who’s character they hurt or injure as long as they get what they want. They have an agenda and you are merely a patsy. These people need to understand they will on slander your good name which you have worked through your actions and choices because they can or they want to promote themselves.