Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

So is the concept of women as anything more than property. That's why appeals to tradition are logical fallacies.Whether a thing is judged as "good" or "bad" depends entirely on a person's system of ethics. Many people, especially in the US, have a "rights-based" ethical system, and they consider certain rights forfeit when violating the rights of others. Others subscribe to authoritarian ethics - "good" and "bad" are determined entirely by the authority figure, and what's good one day can be bad the next depending on the dictates of the authority. This encompasses many Biblical literalists for whom God is the supreme moral authority, and others use nothing but applicable laws (ie, if it's legal, it's ethical).I'm much more of a utilitarian. Whether I judge an action to be "good" or "bad" depends mostly on net harm or benefit to society. Killing the thief provides no benefit (death penalties for theft have existed in the past without stopping the crime) that cannot be accomplished with a living thief (recovery of the stolen goods or monetary reimbursement), while causing significant harm (loss of a potentially productive member of society, the risk involved in a violent confrontation to you, the thief, and innocent bystanders, the emotional damage to a dead thief's family and friends who are also innocent of the crime, etc). I value human life pretty highly (as I view this life as the only chance we get), and I'm big on second and even third chances for all but the most heinous of offenses in the hopes that a person who was previously a net drain on society can become a net gain.

No, basic instinct is just to make use of the adrenalin that floods your body for one of two purposes: fight or flight. If you're in your own home flight is not normally an option, as your sub-consious already considers your home the safest place to be and also if you have family in the house at the time. If you choose not to fight then all that's going to happen is that the hormones in your body will start working against you causing panic and/or fear paralysis. The phrase 'frozen in fear' hasn't been coined for no reason you know. It's not an emotional response, it's a physiological response. You have very little control over it We're not talking about any human life. We're talking about a specific human life, one that will cause you -at best- intense psychological damage or -at worst- extinguish your own life and that of your loved ones.Is those persons' life worth anything at all? or these one's. No, IMO their lives ain't worth shit. Some human lives (as above) just shouldn't be replaced. why would you want to?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Of course it does!On a psychological level it helps to propagate a sense of justice -or 'karmic effect'- across society. People start to feel that if you do something bad it'll come back and bite you.On a more practical level, since many thieves are repeat offenders, killing the thief very likely prevents more misery and/or harm being inflicted upon other innocent parties. But that's my whole point: it's *not* a choice. Choice implies clear thinking and reasoning ability. These are luxuries you just don't have when woken out of bed at 4am by the sound of broken glass.Revenge has nothing to do with this. In such situations you're just following physiological responses that have been honed by millenia of evolution. Revenge doesn't even come into it.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Being frozen in fear and staying out of the thief's way is generally the very best course of action anyway. Everyone involved is far more likely to escape with their lives if confrontation is avoided.And while we have very little control on what we feel, we do have control over what we do with it. A rush of adrenaline is no excuse for murder, and doesn't make rushing in for a confrontation any less stupid. Again, we do have control over our actions, even if not over our feelings. Then I find you to be a very bad person.Perhaps, because I consider you to be a very bad person, that gives me the right to kill you? After all, I would consider it beneficial for society if nobody had your system of ethics.We clearly have very different ethical systems. If someone broke into my apartment and stole my TV, I'd be angry, and certainly very afraid, but under no circumstances would I support killing someone over a $1400 television. I don't care how much he's stolen. The vast majority of the time an intruder is not interested in any sort of confrontation, only in stealing.If an intruder enters the room where I and my girlfriend are hiding, the situation changes somewhat. The best outcome is always to have the intruder simply not find you, take what he wants and leave; as finding you becomes more and more likely, confrontation in self-defense becomes a better option (potential benefit is decreasing, potential detriment is increasing). In other words, when it becomes apparent that my life or the life of another is in imminent danger, I would support responding with force, lethal or otherwise as available. Until that point, I'll hide and call the police. I simply don't find myself to be the sole arbiter of whose life is worth what. Perhaps the thief is deperate and sees no recourse but to steal. Perhaps he's under the influence of a mind-altering substance and doesn't realize what he's doing. The point is, I have no idea who this person is beyond the fact that he's entered my home. It's very easy to dehumanize a nameless intruder, and I tend to avoid dehumanizing human beings. I'd much rather see him in jail, where there is at least a possibility that he will turn his life around, than dead on my floor. Because, as the thread title implies, two wrongs don't make a right. Because, as I said in my initial response, the problem with "an eye for an eye" is that everyone winds up blind. Because I don't have a desire to kill another human being, and would do so only under the most dire of circumstances. Because I value every human life as one that can potentially be a benefit to society (with the exception of those who have perpetrated such heinous crimes that there is no amount of benefit that can change the balance, ie Hitler, Bush 2 etc). Because many people do stupid and immoral things in their lives, and can still turn out to be good people later on. Because I consider the consequences of my actions, including the effect they may have on others in the case of a missed shot hitting a bystnder, or simply the emotional trauma of killing someone's child/parent/sibling/spouse/friend...and the emotional trauma I would experience from taking a life.Should I continue?I find your sig to be interesting considering your opinions: In what way is killing someone over taking replaceable physical property fair? In what way is it justice?You sound rather like the very "tough guy" I spoke of earlier.Think on this: if it's unethical for the thief to kill you over a $1400 TV, what makes it ethical for you to kill him over the same thing? Clearly we aren't talking about self-defense here. Do you consider your right to own property superior to another person's right to live?

I disagree. It's a course of action that places you in the intruder's mercy. You are *assuming* best intentions on the intruder's behalf. It's not up only up to you to avoid confrontation. If the intruder desires confrontation you can't avoid it. The only thing you can do is make sure you come out on top. Like I said, it's a response that has evolved over millenia with very good reason: it helps people survive. It's anything but stupid. And again, it's a physiological response, *not* a feeling. If you feel threatened in your own home and you have a gun nearby you're going to use the gun not start doing some soul-searching. Since I'm not in your home, posing a clear and present danger to you, that probably wouldn't be justified. Since I'm not in your home, posing a clear and present danger to you, your opinion of my ethics is pretty irrelevant. How do you know he's there to steal your TV and not beat you up, rape your wife and torture your kids? Why are you assuming best intentions on behalf of the intruder? Wrong. In the UK violence or threatening behavior is used in 10% of burglaries. That's a significant percentage. Why are you assuming best intentions on behalf of the intruder? It's not about putting a value on life, it's about accepting that someone's right to life shouldn't diminish your right to life. Exactly! Like I said, you don't know if he's there to steal your TV or to beat you up, rape your wife and torture your kids. how very noble of you! I wonder if that's what you'll be thinking when you hear your front door being kicked in at 4am ? I don't particularly care where he is as long as he's no longer a threat to me, my family and my property. the benefit of "an eye for an eye" is that people don't abuse other people unless they're prepared to lose an eye. Neither have I. So do I. That doesn't mean that I will allow others to trample all over my right to life. Being burgled, tortured and killed by a potentially good person is no consolation now, is it? First, you're *assuming* that they're only going to take replaceable property, I'm not. Second, killing someone who's intruded in your home and therefore represents a clear and present danger to you and your family is as fair as they come, IMHO. Third, allowing someone's right to live to infringe upon other people's right to live is patently unjust and unfair and therefore removing their life under such circumstances is just. Because he's killing me to steal my TV. I, on the other hand, am killing him in fear of my and my family's safety. His rights cannot infringe my rights. SImple as that.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I like to think of justice, or maybe I'm thinking of retribution, as, if and when wronged by another, an appeal to a third party, such as the state, to bring some sort of closure to the problem.Wheras revenge is, when wronged, one seeking to promote closure by whatever means the wronged believes to be sufficient: "Taking the law into their own hands", if you will.

Thanks, anglagard. I enjoy hearing words of wisdom people have acquired throughout their years.

I find that interesting. She becomes "upset", and because she becomes "upset", she desires others to feel her pain. I mean no disrespect to your wife, honestly, but this common response to a wrong, that so many of us have, seems to border on sadism. Why this pervasive urge amongst us to desire others, and for some, to take pleasure in, the experience of suffering?

You would make a wonderful vassal.We are the state. The law *is* in our own hands, otherwise you are being ruled. As a member of the U.S.A. we fought a very violent war early in our history to avoid that.Ultimately, the law *is* what those who are wronged feel to be sufficient. As a representative democracy it is what the majority feeling is on the subject rather than per individual, but the concept is the same.How many people is the difference between vigilantism, a mob, and justice? I don't think the line is always particularly clear.

Right, hence the two wrongs fallacy. That's absolutely horrifying. Agreed. If someone were to kill me, and if one of my brothers or friends were to kill the original murderer, then the victims of my murderer have "justification" for continuing the bloodshed. It's a never-ending cycle, one that eventually eats itself alive. Me, too. But what I find most fascinating is that, even though we know this reasoning to be fallacious, and quash it's rise in our thoughts before it reaches action....we still feel an initial urge the next time we are wronged...

well said!I was going to write something along those lines but you beat me to it.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hey, that's my wife your talking about! In her defense, 1) she is hardly alone in her desire; we all feel it to some extent; and 2) she doesn't only feel it when she is the victim of the original offense. If she saw that someone was cheating you somehow, she would want there to be some repercussion visited upon the cheater. In that circumstance, you might welcome those feelings in her; it might make you feel that she recognizes your pain and is on your side. You might think that I'm a bit of a prick because of my relative lack of such feelings.

You're too kind... I agree, I retract my earlier post.

Yes, I agree to that, as mentioned previously. To an extent, yes, and thus, my dilemma about this issue. Agreed. One of my friends felt this way not too long ago. Quick story, but I was with friends, grilling and drinking. Someone grabbed my friend's hat, and threw it in the pool. In trying to avoid much of a confrontation, I said very little about the issue, just mumbled a few terse words of discouragement to the offender, and mostly just watched the situation unfold before me. My friend, the victim, quickly and quietly left, and for several weeks held a grudge against me, one that I see still emerging from time to time, about my lack of caring about him.He saw me, and continues to see me, as you mentioned, as a "prick because of my relative lack of such feelings".Oh, and welcome to EVC, AW.

I think a big part of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge/vigilantism/mob justice/etc" is the application of human rights to those accused of a crime.For instance, while popular government like a democracy or republic can at their core be described as "mob rule," in the US we also have some basic rights set down in the Constitution to prevent the type of mistreatment and abuses of the past. Rights like the right to a fair and speedy trial; the freedom from cruel or unusual punishment; the freedom of speech.The notion that we should presume innocence until guilt is proven, the notion that the punishment should be appropriate for the crime in a rational way rather than simply an emotional one, help us to prevent our emotional "gut" reactions to crime from turning our society into one of self-oppression.I was called to jury duty once on a domestic violence case. The first witness was the woman who was claiming abuse, and she was able to provide pictures showing some moderate injury.The initial reaction of basically everyone in the jury to that day's testimony was one of outrage and anger. That pathetic excuse for a man beat his girlfriend! In front of their child! And he ripped the phone out of the wall when she tried to call for help! He's a monster! Lock him up and throw away the key!Mob justice would have gone poorly for the accused. Revenge would have been taken on the woman's behalf.But the justice system, unlike what you see on TV, is designed to prevent such flash judgments. We were reminded that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and we heard the defendant's side of the story.It painted a much fuller picture. There was a physical confrontation, but it didn't bear any resemblance to the beating of a defenseless woman that we were initially led to believe. She attacked him, and her injuries were sustained when, as he tried to restrain her to stop her from hitting him, the two fell and she struck the kitchen stove causing some moderate bruising and a small cut on her head. He did rip the phone out of the wall, which is a misdemeanor. We found him guilty on that count alone, because the rest was simple self-defense.The structure of the courtroom, where we had a set procedure for hearing all of the evidence and were given explicit instructions on how to proceed with our verdict helped to separate us from our emotional responses. We were forced to think our response through, rather than simply reacting instinctively. Then, we didn't hand down the sentence - the judge does that on a separate occasion, further separating the accused from what we might think was appropriate and meting out the punishment dictated by the law.What we participated in was justice. The defendant was punished for what he did wrong, but was not punished based on our emotional responses or the bare accusation of another person. That, I think, is the difference - taking steps to ensure that only the guilty are punished, and that the punishment is moderated to what is appropriate to the harm caused by the crime.