Retribution and Vengeance

Vengeance is often justified as being a matter of justice. However, given there is the concept of retribution, isn't vengeance something that is distinct from justice? Aren't retribution and vengeance different things? In so far as human interactions are concerned, how does your moral compass advise you on this matter?

In a small pond filled with hungry fish, the act of fishing never gets raised to a fine art.

It just gets turned into a job. Which, I guess, is good as long as one enjoys their job.

Sounds boring AF if you ask me.

@fmf said
Vengeance is often justified as being a matter of justice. However, given there is the concept of retribution, isn't vengeance something that is distinct from justice? Aren't retribution and vengeance different things? In so far as human interactions are concerned, how does your moral compass advise you on this matter?

If retribution is justice applied, then vengeance makes it personal. Otherwise retribution, as justice, is arbitrary.

@FMF

Vengeance is a primitive form of justice. It belongs to a period in the history of humankind when an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, clan feuding, blood feuding, honor killings, and so on, were the accepted norm. Civilized peoples have more temperate concepts of justice.

@suzianne said
In a small pond filled with hungry fish, the act of fishing never gets raised to a fine art.

It just gets turned into a job. Which, I guess, is good as long as one enjoys their job.

Sounds boring AF if you ask me.

You don't want to discuss this topic?

@secondson said
If retribution is justice applied, then vengeance makes it personal. Otherwise retribution, as justice, is arbitrary.

When it comes to human interactions, are acts of vengeance morally sound?

@moonbus said
@FMF

Vengeance is a primitive form of justice. It belongs to a period in the history of humankind when an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, clan feuding, blood feuding, honor killings, and so on, were the accepted norm. Civilized peoples have more temperate concepts of justice.

How would you define the difference between retribution and vengeance?

@fmf said
How would you define the difference between retribution and vengeance?

Some modern dictionaries and current usage may consider the two words to be equivalent. However, I would cite Webster's unabridged dictionary (that's the big fat library edition) as the definitive reference for what proper (American) English would still recognize to be a legitimate and useful distinction between the two:

"Vengeance: punishment inflicted in return for an injury or an offense; retribution; often, also, passionate or unrestrained revenge. Etymology: from old French "vengier", cf vendetta."

"Retribution: 2. the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment according to the deserts of the individual. Etym. from Latin retributio."

From these two definitions, it follows that "vengeance" is related to the motive (or passion) of the aggrieved avenger, whereas "retribution" is related to the (objective or legal or moral) desert of the receiver without regard to the motive or passion of the distributor.

Among civilized peoples, punishment is meted out by a dispassionate civil authority (i.e, the court system in a Rechtsstaat). Among primitive peoples and the Mafia, punishment is meted out by the aggrieved party or his family (e.g., blood feuding, honor killing). The former typifies retribution, the latter vengeance.

@fmf said
When it comes to human interactions, are acts of vengeance morally sound?

Following on the heels of moonbus' post above, considering the definitions of the terms and moonbus' logic, I'd say no.

But,
Retribution is the morally sound respons to those who break the law or otherwise inflict pain and suffering on the innocent and law abiding citizens.

@secondson said
Following on the heels of moonbus' post above, considering the definitions of the terms and moonbus' logic, I'd say no.

But,
Retribution is the morally sound respons to those who break the law or otherwise inflict pain and suffering on the innocent and law abiding citizens.

We can perhaps say we know what vengeance is FOR.

It is FOR the satisfaction of the wronged/vengeful party, right?

What is retribution FOR?

And who is it for?

Should retribution be solemn and cold-blooded?

If it is dispensed with anger, does that make it more akin to vengeance?

@fmf said
We can perhaps say we know what vengeance is FOR.

It is FOR the satisfaction of the wronged/vengeful party, right?

What is retribution FOR?

And who is it for?

Yes, I think vengeance carries the connotation of satisfaction that the wrong doer feels the pain he/she inflicted on their victims.

Retribution is the act of inflicting on the lawbreaker the reaping of what they have sown.

It is for the lawbreaker.

@fmf said
Should retribution be solemn and cold-blooded?

If it is dispensed with anger, does that make it more akin to vengeance?

Retribution should be deliberate and just.

Nothing wrong with anger. Does not injustice make you angry?

@secondson said
Retribution should be deliberate and just.

Nothing wrong with anger. Does not injustice make you angry?

I agree, retribution should be just and deliberate, but also proportionate and dispassionate.

There is an article in the U.S. Bill of Rights specifying that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishment. This was specifically formulated to rule out the prior practise of kings and tyrants, who sometimes meted out punishments specific to one criminal and specifically designed to be horrifically painful. In a modern Rechtsstaat, punishments shall be the same for all convicted of the same crime, not for the purpose of inflicting pain or gratifying the bloodlust of spectators. For example, executions in the U.S. are to be carried out solely for the purpose of ending the life of the convict, quickly and efficiently, and not in public. This in contrast to, for example, Pakistan, where public floggings are mandated for some crimes, or Iran, where convicts are hanged the slow way (by strangling, not by breaking the neck) in public arenas.

@moonbus said
I agree, retribution should be just and deliberate, but also proportionate and dispassionate.

There is an article in the U.S. Bill of Rights specifying that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishment. This was specifically formulated to rule out the prior practise of kings and tyrants, who sometimes meted out punishments specific to one criminal and specifically designe ...[text shortened]... , where convicts are hanged the slow way (by strangling, not by breaking the neck) in public arenas.

Makes perfect sense. Good posts moonbus. 🙂