With respect to punishment, one is gratuitous and not proportional to the crime, whereas the other is deserved and proportional.

Punishment is a means to make different individuals comply to the system. The system, however, emerged because of the general benefits of a shared system (regardless of emotions or thoughts on vengeance).

Rather sir, it is vengeance that has evolved from the natural concept of justice.

Well, isn't an eye for an eye ''deserved and proportional''? Yet the law seems to disregard/condemn such a philosophy.

Well, isn't an eye for an eye ''deserved and proportional''? — TheMadFool

Symbolically yes, but literarily no.

I think I should disagree. Modern law considers an eye for an eye (or vengeance) as primitive. ??

Symbolically yes, but literarily no. — Agustino

Please clarify.

I don't get it

I think I should disagree. Modern law considers an eye for an eye (or vengeance) as primitive. ?? — TheMadFool

Modern law - and liberalism itself - are highly deluded about the nature of the world.

Someone kills my wife, and the police, for whatever reason (say the person who did it is too powerful and important), does nothing about it. I hunt them down and devote my entire life to annihilating them and his family to the very last member. That is vengeance. But why have I taken vengeance on him? What provoked me to do it? Injustice. Vengeance is always a response to injustice, and thus presupposes the concept of justice.

Please clarify. — TheMadFool

Well, literally, "an eye for an eye" means if you pluck my eye out, I should pluck yours out. But obviously the deserved punishment for an action doesn't have to be proportionate in this literal sense. For example, what do you do if you have no eyes? (and hence it's impossible to pluck one of yours out?) How should you be punished then? Does it mean that in that case there is no proportionate punishment?

I assume you are referring to punishment. When you commit a crime and are found guilty, you are sentenced a harm (fine, jail time, and, in some cases, death). It may be true that this system, from an evolutionary biological perspective, probably has its roots in our feelings of fairness and empathy being violated, thus producing feelings of anger and a desire to harm the transgressing individual. However, law also allows for societies to work and live together in a more uniform way, so there is a lot more to law and justice than those feelings.

I admit that my experience with philosophy of law is restricted to one college course, but I can say the distinction between justice and vengeance is considered a very important part in some circles (namely retributive justice) within the philosophy of law. First, generally speaking, we must remove the non-retributive aspects of punishment; things like deterrence theory, rehabilitation efforts, isolation efforts, and punishment meant to restore the community. These influence the law and we see and are not based in anything that can be called vengeance. We are then left with retribution. At its core, retributive punishment assumes that people who do wrongdoing deserve punishment- that evil acts, so to speak, deserve some kind of punishment that is correlated to the amount of harm their crime committed. There are constant arguments about what crime deserves what punishment and how the factors surrounding each individual's crime on a case to case basis affects the punishment due. In other words, the law constantly wants to check itself to make sure it is not giving out punishments that are overbearing or turn proper justice (the right amount of punishment) into vengeance (overbearing punishment based on the feeling to hurt the offender, not what the offender actually deserves).

After all that, the question remains: does the retributive theory of justice hold up (does justice equal proper punishment based on deserving said punishment)? In my mind, no. First, law (at least in the United States) assumes that an individual cannot undergo cruel and unusual punishment. Judges cannot give sentences that involve torturing people, even though it appears to be the case that some offenders deserve a level of punishment that involves torture for their crimes. We even argue about whether the death penalty and solitary confinement are "cruel and unusual". Second, given we find "eye for an eye" justice to be immoral, it remains to be seen how the retributive theory actually corresponds the notion of punishment (harm to the offender) to the notion of desert (what harm the offender deserves). If stealing 300,000 dollars does not equate to 300,000 dollars’ worth of punishment, how does it ever equate? Lastly, I do not believe people have free will, so I find personal responsibility to be faulty and hold that no one ever deserves any form of punishment or praise in the sense that people usually mean when they say "he deserves life in jail".

In short, I find that justice based on retribution (the common version of justice in much of theoretical law in the U.S.) to be nothing more than unjustified vengeance fueled by emotion and a vague, incoherent notion of desert. However, there may be other conceptions of justice that do not rely on desert that may be true and do not require vengeance to fuel them.

I would say that the two are about the same but the words themselves are imbued with meaning in order to arouse different feelings. Was Edmund Dantes seeking vengeance or justice? It all depends upon one's point of view.

When you say "law" you mean whatever is subscribed to as law where you at, which in most cases already decided politically, historically, by statute. I think that means that law describes the normal scope or frame of reference of acceptable human behavior within a normative group.

Some, like Agamben, suggest that " the particular structure of law has as its foundations in the propositional structure of human language." apparently because language is "the perfect element in which interiority is as external as external is internal" (Hegel).

The law is not about sanction or punishment but about guilt.

I would say that the two are about the same but the words themselves are imbued with meaning in order to arouse different feelings. Was Edmund Dantes seeking vengeance or justice? It all depends upon one's point of view — Rich

So, are you closing the discussion by alleging the issue is too subjective to deserve further analysis?

So you're saying ''vengeance'' is a disproportionate response to an offense. However eye for an eye is evidently proportionate to an offense, thus according to you, it falls under justice. Yet, generally speaking, this philosophy of justice is considered immoral.

Having thought about it a little more I think justice differs from vengeance in that justice involves some degree of compassion and forgiveness on the part of the victim and the law which is not the case with vengeance. Perhaps the feeling is that one should not stoop as low as the offender. To add such an approach makes justice disproportionate to the crime, the victim suffering more than the offender. Be the bigger person, so to speak. I think we can interpret this at a social level but I shall not go into that here.

I don't get it — TheMadFool

The justice system exists because there were benefits for different individuals to comply to a shared system, and thus avoid the bad effects that vengeance had on their society. For example, medieval Italy was plagued by wars between vengeful families. It was bad for all of them. Hence the emergence of a shared justice system. So now punishment is not vengeance but correctional care, or a means to motivate members of a society to comply to its shared system.

Having thought about it a little more I think justice differs from vengeance in that justice involves some degree of compassion and forgiveness on the part of the victim and the law which is not the case with vengeance. Perhaps the feeling is that one should not stoop as low as the offender. To add such an approach makes justice disproportionate to the crime, the victim suffering more than the offender. Be the bigger person, so to speak. I think we can interpret this at a social level but I shall not go into that here. — TheMadFool

:-}

However eye for an eye is evidently proportionate to an offense, thus according to you, it falls under justice. Yet, generally speaking, this philosophy of justice is considered immoral. — TheMadFool

You are interpreting an eye for an eye literally. If that's the case, and a man with no eyes, plucks one of my eyes out, how shall he be punished? Either he shall not be punished, as there is no proportionate punishment, and hence justice can't be done, or justice needs to be done and he needs to be punished. If he needs to be punished somehow, then OBVIOUSLY your assumption that the proportionate punishment is equivalent to the offence is wrong - because in this case his punishment will not be equivalent to his offence.

I ask because, although I don't know much about the philosophy of law, it appears to me that the justice system seems to have evolved from a natural emotion/concept - vengeance. And it also seems to me that the law wants to, or at least tries to, distance itself from vengeance. — TheMadFool

I recently read an essay (Ritual Epistemology) by Sarah Perry on what she labels as post-rationalism, or the view that rationality is helpful only to a certain point, and that all these liberal beliefs that pure reason and science and all that will not deliver us into a utopia or provide meaning to our lives. Rather, what provides stability and purpose is more often than not rather irrational rituals, including the justice system.

As Perry argues, the justice system is not necessarily about finding the truth but simply coming to a verdict. The rituals, such as the dimensions of the justice building, the flowy black garments of the justices, the Miranda rights, the strict rules of conduct and behavior within the courtroom, etc. all work together to conceal the irrationality of our justice system and make it seem like it's legitimately finding "the Truth" of the matter.

I would personally argue that justice is simply institutionalized vengeance. The state-sanctioned "setting things straight", the post-hoc rationalization of inevitable inequality. It's telling that we'd rather blame a murderer for her crimes than blame the universe for existing to allow murders to occur. Someone has to take the blame.

One can analyze all one wishes but the difference between the two is a matter of taste. It is easier to root for a government of justice as opposed to one of vengefulness.

However, I do believe that the is a qualitative difference between fairness and justice, the former suggesting equality before the law.

I agree. Justice makes no sense outside of a social context.



However...a teleological question arises.

What difference (teleologically) is there between vengeance and justice?

As far as I know justice is about
1. Redressal
2. Rehabilitation
3. Deterrence

Vengeance achieves objectives 1 and 3. However it generally fails in objective 2. Justice on the other hand achieves objective 2 and 3 while sometimes failing objective 1 (we don't rape a rapist).

It appears to me that justice is more about

1. Maintaining social stability
2. Some degree of forgiveness (which has a very important role for 1 above)

Vengeance on the other hand is more about achieving an equivlence of injury (eye for an eye). Added is the danger of chaos , disruption of social harmony.

I assume you are referring to punishment. When you commit a crime and are found guilty, you are sentenced a harm (fine, jail time, and, in some cases, death). It may be true that this system, from an evolutionary biological perspective, probably has its roots in our feelings of fairness and empathy being violated, thus producing feelings of anger and a desire to harm the transgressing individual. However, law also allows for societies to work and live together in a more uniform way, so there is a lot more to law and justice than those feelings. — Chany

If you are indicating that 'feelings of anger and a desire to harm' (I prefer the description malice or ill-will, but it is pretty much the same thing) are associated with an act of vengeance but not an act of justice, then I agree with you.

However eye for an eye is evidently proportionate to an offense, thus according to you, it falls under justice. Yet, generally speaking, this philosophy of justice is considered immoral. — TheMadFool

I think the Bible passage(s) that refer to 'an eye for an eye' could be construed as an attempt to prevent redress from going to far ie no more than an eye for an eye. I don't think they are meant to be taken literally.

Well, isn't an eye for an eye ''deserved and proportional''? Yet the law seems to disregard/condemn such a philosophy. — TheMadFool

An eye-for-an-eye system is proportional justice. If somebody attacks you, and you lose your eye, you are not entitled to more than the justice of depriving them of their eye. Without proportional justice, retribution is unlimited. For my eye, you might lose your life, and the lives of your wife and children as well.

Most justice systems these days are proportional. For instance, in the case of accidentally killing somebody, you might not be liable for punishment at all (like in the case of hunting accidents where there was no premeditation, no clear negligence, etc).

An eye-for-an-eye system was a major advance over the unlimited retribution system (and this was... roughly 3000 years ago, at least in some civilizations). In Chicago, these days, crossing the street into rival gang territory can result in your losing your life. The sanctity of Crip territory is more important than the life of a Blood whose GPS (gang positioning system) was in error.

Thanks for your informative post.

But how do you explain the move away from the principle an eye for an eye (as modern justice has)?

Is there something immoral/whatever about the principle an eye for an eye that's made it lose its appeal to the modern psyche? Gandhi once said that ''an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind''.

I do not really like using the word justice because of how closely related it is to feelings of revenge and vengeance. I prefer to think of justice as something related to the "just" state of things. To me, the just state of things has nothing to do with punishing people for their wrongdoings because they committed a wrong and deserve punishment, but, rather, the just state of things is about protecting society at large, promoting stable communities, healing injuries, fostering forgiveness, and setting the criminal to become a more just individual.

GHANDI was playing on the phrase, "an eye for an eye". He was, of course, a pacifist, and "an eye for an eye" justice would tend to be violent. But "an eye for an eye" is also a figure of speech. It sounds like a vengeance system, which it is to a certain extent. Vengeance tends to be self-perpetuating.

Have we moved away from the proportional justice system? To some extent we have. Most countries, and most states in the US, do not carry out capital punishment for murder. There is at least some proportionality. Though, life imprisonment for 3 drug convictions is clearly disproportionate punishment. Many states have established sentencing guidelines which judges must follow, as a means to equalizing punishment. One person shouldn't get 5 years in prison for stealing a car, while somebody else gets 5 months.

In restorative justice (which is generally applied to young offenders) an effort is made to let the punishment bring the person into closer alignment with the community that has been harmed. So, graffiti artists, petty shoplifters, and the like are diverted from the juvenile justice system (or adult criminal justice system) and are confronted by a group of their neighbors, who work out a means of "restoration" with the offender.

This approach is not proportional punishment based--it attempts to rehabilitate the deviant person very early before they have an established criminal pattern.

Although I understand (to a certain extent) why vengeance is immoral I still can't shake off my intuition that it is actually a very fair scheme.

Perhaps justice is more than just a redressal mechanism in the sense that it involves more than the individuals concerned. We have to also factor in the community too.

We have to also factor in the community too. — TheMadFool

And, unfortunately, restorative justice is not the general practice, at least in the US.

You have that intuition because, as I explained in my original reply, we are biologically programmed and/or socially conditioned to desire to respond to violence with more violence.

To again emphasize, a large part of why I avoid vengeance is that I do not believe people to be morally responsible for their actions in the way retributive justice requires them to be.

Vengeance only serves yourself, justice serves society.

Individual acts with the level of mercy in his heart. History is full of examples of people who could forgive the most intense offenses against themselves. When most of us are hurt, we want to hurt/destroy the one who has inflicted the pain. Vengeance is an effort to change the past.

But a community acts with the average compassion/fear in the emotional makeup of all its citizens. This is called justice. Community create laws to this effect. It is supposed to keep potential criminals afraid. The people hurt by the offense feel vengeance to a degree, according the level of mercy in their heart, while the unaffected ones in community want to apply the law, thinking that it keeps crime in control.

As civilizations evolve the level of fear in the heart of average member changes. The amount of punishment applied by justice tends to be in proportion to the level of fear. In Moses' time it was deemed appropriate to stone adulterers to death. 1300 years later Jesus negated the practice. As a result, the then society saw that the level of pain for the offense was outmoded. Man had become more civil, and had smaller fears of his neighbor, and so felt that the punishment was too much for the crime. Now, in our time law does not even consider adultery a crime. But you hear about aggrieved spouses committing murders and suicides.