One of my readers, @jostein commented on my latest post which I titled: Why do people expect a universe full of randomness to be fair?. @jostein is of the opinion that it is fallacious to assume that a just course can lead to fairness. He thinks people can ‘fight’ for justice in an unfair manner.
When I looked at his position, I think he is some how mixing ‘revenge’ for justice. I replied him that his point would form the basis for my next post and I intend to do that here.
There is a clear difference between justice and revenge. In most cases, these two powerful terms are muddled up by those who have little or no adequate understanding of the word 'justice'. I will like to state unequivocally that these two terms are different and are not related in any way.
Justice is the fairness in protection of rights and punishment of wrongs.
Revenge means to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit.
It should be noted that a 'true' justice is fair and revenge no matter how 'noble' it seems can never be fair.
A critical look on revenge cases will show us that in most cases, they are carried out from personal and emotional stand points. May be someone in the 'authority' used his power and influence to offend you by taking away your property or something that belong to you illegally and instead of you to seek for justice via the legal system, you choose to employ some hoodlums to carry out this act under the pretense that you want justice for what was done to you. What you are doing is far from being just. You cannot commit the same crime you are 'fighting' someone for by putting laws into your hands. What you are about to carry out is called revenge. A 'just' scenario is the one that follows proper judicial procedures. Even if the judgement against you looks unjust, the best you can do is to re-appeal so that the case is revisited.
You cannot be vindictive because you want to prove a point. Two wrongs don't make a right. You might corrupt yourself morally in the process. You won’t be different from the accused if you try to carry out 'justice' out of revenge. Revenge is revenge no matter how noble it looks.
Revenge always leads to more revenge. Anger leads to hate. If you revenge an incident, then you open yourself to another revenge from another person. This will probably continue in a cycle (a situation called ‘cycle of violence’). But when you let justice take its course, it ends future threats and kills the whole situation.
If you give justice chance to take its course, then it shows you are a rational being who knows that law is superior to any emotional impulse. Justice is often used interchangeably with fairness not because they are the same thing but because people believe that a just course is a fair one.
So in the process of seeking justice, avoid revenge. Do not mix them together by trying to prove a point. You cannot take the laws into your hands.
From the above, it is evident that justice is different from revenge. I also disagree with @jostein that it is fallacious to think justice can be achieved. It is true that in some cases, the system might be corrupted but this does not mean a just course is not achievable.
Thanks for reading my blog. Your boy @smyle the philosopher.
Wow wow wow, @smyle, I am really glad i saw this post of yours, it was really educative. Justice is aimed at getting to give you back in fairness what you seem to have lost due to wrong done to you by someone, though it may not be an exact recompense, but at least it makes you feel that your cry didn't go unnoticed. Revenge on the other hand is trying to hit back and even enact more damage on someone else for the wrong the person did you just like the story in one of my posts, https://steemit.com/air-clinic/@royaltiesboss-eu/the-butchered-groom-revenge-served-cold-1f2ab85a65063, that is revenge and the bad thing about it is that the vicious circle is unending. Remember two wrongs dont make a right always seek justice not revenge. Thanks for this great post boss.
Hello @smyle that was a mind blowing article, of a truth People misunderstand the two terms revenge and justice even i myself, but this article Has really changed my mind set and the way i reason. But in my own view of Things why jungle JUSTICE Has been the deal of the day espically in nigeria is because of ignorance Other reasons is that People Who are supposed to give justice are the ones Who are mute so therefore making Individuals to take laws into their Hands and taking revenge as the only option. The solution is just for People at higher Authorities to help and grant JUSTICE where it is deserved. my 'opinion tho'. Am happy to be in your blog it Has been educate so far, feed me more
Am @sammyswt
I'm glad brother! Thanks for your time!
People do mix those two words up, but they are two different things and those that know the difference optes for revenge because in this part of the world where we live in, justice is sometimes delayed or even denied so people prefer revenge as a quick way of recovering what has been taken away from them instead of waiting for Justice that might never come. Nice write-up @smyle
Well written sir! Truly, justice in this part of the world is an illusion. The system is corrupt and revenge becomes the only answer to cure people's emotional demands.
Thanks for your contribution.
Well i only have a question for you. In your opinion, An eye for an eye could be what? Justice? Revenge?
Well, your question has no relation to the topic on ground. Thanks
The topic on ground is like an argument to determine the difference between justice and revenge
To me, though you spoke well but it sounds so theoretical. My questions was to establish a practical scenerio as an example for your argument.
Though i agree it is not directly related to the topic at hand but from a long distance, it could be seen as a reason for retaliation.
And according to your argument, retaliation is revenge. So tell me
Lols! May be on another topic! No answer for the above. Thanks brother.
I think this is a great question. It shakes smyle's entire idea and is a very real example. It very much relates to the ideas of justice and revenge. I wish I could summate a good answer for this question. I myself would argue that it is justice.
Lols! It's not! I just decided not to reply him because it is not (in my view) an 'honest' question.
When people raise questions that are religious, they are a bit skeptical but have answered piled up and ready to backed them with the 'Holy Book'. Such argument is not one i want to be part of.
If he can argue without referencing verses and chapters, then we can argue.
Good write up, Smyl
Let me start out by saying that your conclution on what I wrote is 100%, yes 100% an assumption. Or of you rather use the term 100% missunderstood. And when you base a article on its own on that assumption from my comment, I go hard on you here. For you do in effect claim I have an opinion that you asume, but is outright wrong.
I whould advice for future referanced that you ask for clarification before "putting words on my mouth"
I do not believe in etical revenge, nor do I think its a falacy to think that there is fairness to be gained in a fight for justice, that was not how i worded it.
Let me repeat what i wrote: "I think its a falacy to expect fairness in a fight for justice. Because it was due to the lak of fairness, that created the unjust situation" or something to that effect.
Meaning; that its a falacy to expect there to be fairness in the scenario that created the unjust scenario. But yes ofcource, you are fighting for justace, to regain fairness.
Its like expecting there to be water inside a fire you are trying to put out, no there isnt. Well, unless its an oil fire, where oil floating ontop water is burning.
In any case, to conclude, your entier article here referancing my comment, is false.
Below is what i referenced above:
Perhaps you did not know that the possible implication of your sentence above is what this wrteup attempted to clarify.
Without changing words, can you explain the above?
Thanks.
I hope you do realise what you in effect do with your article in referancing my comment as reasoning in your article. And from my comment here it is clear what i did mean. And by you seemingly not accnowledging a missunderstanding, that puts you an a dissrespectfull position from my point of view.
But if you insist on that it is not an missunderstanding....... (when its now 100% clear that it is)
In a fight for justice, when you are taking action to gain justice, when you are in a strugle. To asume that IN THAT SCENARIO, that is WHEN YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, there is fairness then, i think is a falacy. As when i think about it, it is a fight to gain justice IN A SCENARIO THAT IS NOT FAIR. Meaning AGAIN, That the scenario in question, when you are fighting, is not a fair scenario.
Now if you still choose, (yes i do mean if you choose) to missunderstand it, then thats your issue not mine. But the result wil then be that you in effect falcly accuse me to to be what im not. And thus lie to your audience.
Now im sorry if this seem extreme, as i do realise that in every scenario there is room for missunderstanding, as language is innacurate. But not accepting that one missunderstood, is not good.
Now the above is funny! You still haven't communicated your point clearly. From what you wrote, there is 'fairness' , 'fighting' and 'justice'! Any reader will agree that you think it is fallacious to assume justice can be gotten by 'fighting' to get it which you term 'fallacy'!
In an academic settings, 'implication' is allowed. Your sentence still implies what i wrote above. If you think it is a misunderstanding, then it becomes your task to set the record straight and clearly explain your point. You will do this via a 'rejoinder' or writing a 'review' of my review.
So your task is to explain your point which you think 'i got wrong'. If you do that, then i will decide to attempt a critique of it or just let it go. But for now, i still don't get what i got wrong.
So there is no need for being harsh with words. Make your point. That is what matters.
Thanks.
if you choose to be this , hwo to put it, closed of to understanding... Then philosophy clearly isnt your thing. I now see. you are wrong in your asumtion of what my intention was of what I wronte, AND, you re wrong in asuming any reader whould agree with you. Because I DONT, for one.
I did CLEARLY communicate what i want from my perspective and understanding of the words used, with the words contained in the language used. you still CHOOSE to not understand. So i can only asume you do not understand the words used. As in not actually understanding the language used.
But ok, if you like missunderstanding and lying to your readers then thats ur choise.
The article here is REGARDLESS communicating a lie, being a false clame of what I intended in the comment. As your words in this article is not even close to what i wrote.
The only way, if you actually intend to understand, to resolve this, is to do so via a chat or something where you can spesifically ask what your confusion is.
It is funny! So you went ahead to flag my post with your 16 steem? You clearly abuse flag. You can't flag people any how.
In case you don't know, your English is VERY BAD. Stop writing in English.
Please stay off my blog. Thanks.
I flagged it beacause you missrepresent my intention, and fail to admit it.
Thing is, when justice is in short supply, short term people settle for revenge as better than nothing. But long term this may not be the best solution.