Hello everyone,
My post topic is the active revenge of an individual for a fallen family member. In The Odyssey the story of Agamemnon and his death by Aigisthos is told many times, and in most cases Orestes is honored for the manner in which he exacted revenge for his father. Also, Posiedon buffets and despises Odysseus for the attack on his son the Kyklops. Even Telemmakhos often questions if it his duty to exact revenge on the suitors for the manner in which they waste his family's land.
So, how does revenge fit in with the family structure? Should revenge be encouraged of avoided? If encouraged, under what circumstance and how should the revenge be employed? does the punishment have to fit the crime, or do you naturally escalate with revenge? Does a strong relationship matter in a revenge plot? Should revenge occur only if the law does not uphold its obligation? If it should be avoided, how do we remedy the situation in that case? Should those who seek revenge be punished? Will an absence of revenge encourage or discourage violence by the individual?
In short, is revenge a family obligation, or an individual crime?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I can not agree to say that revenge is a withholding family honor. Maybe back in the day it used to be that if someone killed your dad, then you kill them, and then someone kills you for killing them, and well, you get the point.
However, if we are talking about today, revenge in a family should not take place. It is definitely an individual crime. I am going to use the best example I can think of, which is "dignity killings" that still go on in Saudi Arabia. Women are killed as revenge when they dishonor their own families, and although it is not punishable by law, it most certainly is not right. Revenge is something the human race as a whole needs to overcome, I can not think of one good reason for revenge, or one instance in which it would be acceptable. Can anyone??
I think it can be easy to seek revenge after something terrible happens to a family member, but I do not agree that it should be done. I think that there is a fine line between revenge and justice. Determining the difference of the two is the hard part because how far is too far?
I think that the only things that can take the place of revenge are forgiveness and acceptance. For instance, if Poseidon did kill Odysseus for blinding his son, he would not magically be able to see again. I can't help but remember the infamous quote spoken by Gandhi that, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I feel like it fits perfectly for this particular situation.
As for revenge being familial obligation or an individual crime, revenge never ends well or brings about anything but more revenge. I agree with Katina in that revenge doesn't uphold your family honor, in fact I think it dishonors your family.
I agree with both Katina and Bridget. Revenge is never acceptable. As Bridget said, there is a difference between justice and revenge.
I am a believer in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in God's Word. As Romans 12:19 says, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."
What this means to me is that as humans, we have no right except authorized by God to avenge someone's actions. An example of one given such authority is a judge, or in some instances, jury members. When it comes to repaying a guilty party for inflicting pain upon a family member, it is not your obligation to get revenge.
Justice, however, needs to be enforced. If the crime is murder, the murderer deserves a life sentence in prison or a death sentence. But the important thing to remember is that the LAW is carried out word by word, in a court, and in today's judicial system, sometimes a criminal will get less than he deserves. That is, however, not cause to make the enforcing of justice your duty. In due time, each person will pay the price for his crimes.
In short, revenge is not a familial obligation. Justice, however is an ethical requirement. Unless we are given the position to enforce justice, it is never our individual duty.
I agree with everyone that revenge should not be encouraged. Revenge would bring about a vicious endless cycle of tragedy. Although each individual has familial obligations, revenge in the context of familial obligation can take over a person’s life. For example, Hamlet, at the bidding of his dead father’s ghost, feels that he must seek revenge, and in the end brings about the death of basically everyone in the royal court, which results in Fortinbras, the Prince of Norway, who is in no way related to the Denmark royal family, ultimately taking over the Danish kingdom. Revenge ends in tragedy, and in Hamlet’s case, ruins the family line, all in the name of familial obligations. Like Hamlet, if people feel an obligation for revenge, their lives could be consumed and bring about tragic results. I agree with both Katina and Bridget that revenge would bring dishonor to one’s family.
I also agree that revenge is not a familial obligation but an individual thing, but not necessarily a crime. There are laws against killing, stealing, and other acts of revenge, but I believe there are forms of revenge that are not necessarily illegal but are still malicious and hurtful. For example, someone could seek revenge in today’s world by spreading rumors. No law prohibits what people can say, and so instead of physically harming someone, a person could very well blemish a person’s reputation. From these posts, I can see that we all agree that illegal, violent forms of revenge should not be taken, but what about the forms of revenge that are not necessarily illegal (libel/slander, emotional abuse)? I personally think no form of revenge should be taken. Obsession with revenge hurts the individual more than the intended recipient of the revenge. Forgive and forget is definitely the path to take, but that is definitely easier said than done.
I am on board with everyone here saying that revenge is wrong and not justified. Revenge doesn't really accomplish anything. It doesn't bring back someone who was killed or heal someone who was hurt. I do agree that when something bad happens to someone we love, wanting revenge is a natural thing. However, in the end it won't solve any problems.
Another problem with revenge is that if everyone seeks it, it never stops. If you seek revenge on someone and hurt them; well they probably have someone who loves them and now wants to hurt you. The act of revenge only brings violence and suffering to everyone involved.
I also agree with what everyone has said, and I would like to reinforce the difference between life in the Odyssey and life today. Now we have an established justice system so that people do not have to take revenge themselves. Sometimes the justice system does not seem as effective or efficient as taking revenge ourselves, but that's what's in place to establish order in our current society.
As far as family obligation goes, I think there is a sense of pride in getting justice for a family member who has been wronged, but in today's society it is just not acceptable to take an "eye for an eye" as Bridget said. I think that the laws we have set up are for the better because people would constantly be out to avenge either their family members or themselves and many innocent people would die for causes that people couldn't even remember. It would be like the Capulets and the Montagues, or the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, pointless murders for generations and generations.
What goes around comes around and sometimes people just have to suck it up when they've been wrong and hope that one day that person will get theirs because no one human has the right to decide the difference between justice and revenge.
I understand the general disapproval of revenge, and agree that in many instances revenge acts more as a vice than a way to liberate oneself from the horror of the past. However, in the instances where public policy is dictating the hurt and violence, revenge is an emotion that is best used to overthrow that organization. What I'm saying is that revenge should not be carried out against individual or small group entities, as this usually breeds pain and violence through a feud. However, in the case of a corrupt organization or national government, revenge, the active desire to destroy something that has destroyed or crippled another, is the only motivation that has the requisite power to destroy the corrupt organization.
Revenge is in no way a family obligation or tool used to achieve justice and honor. Revenge is an individual crime; but, in the case of corrupt over-branching entities, revenge is the fastest tool to revolution. The absence of anything to live for helps immensely to overcome tyranny, the acceptance that you will die to destroy the medium of destruction, and it is created by the destruction of close ties, such as family members.
So a couple of examples include Hamlet, destroying the corrupt King was in revenge, as was Macbeth's death by Macduff, and the wrath of V upon the totalitarian government in V for Vendetta.
Revenge can be a progressive state, but not for those seeking it. It should not be used to honor a family member, and it can only be effective against powerful, large, and corrupted entities. It is very much a personally endeavor and has no place in the concept of family honor.
I think that it is very natural to feel an obligation to those closest to you. When someone in your family is wronged, it is natural to take it personally and feel that you must somehow prove your loyalty to your family. That being said, I don't think that revenge is a familial obligation. It seems that when we take revenge on someone in the name of familial obligation, it is no longer about family. Furthermore, revenge is not a real solution to anything. It is tempting to think that the act of revenge somehow balances the world out, but consider the story of Agamemnon. When Orestes killed Aigisthos and his mother to avenge his father's death it didn't make everything right or balance the universe. All he succeeded in doing was making himself an orphan. Revenge is not justice, as many of you have pointed out. All revenge does is deepen the existing grief in a family.
Although revenge is deemed taboo in our society, is it not funny that we have a "Justice System" which is really just organized revenge? It is hard to say "yay or nay" in such a broad sense. In a familial sense, revenge does have its place. Time-out for a child is really just the parent getting revenge in order to teach the child to act differently (The parent was wronged by the child's misdoing, thus the child was punished). I find it bad to clump up only violent or hurtful forms of revenge together and label it inhumane when there are so many other forms of revenge that are often times used for educating a misdeed. And in the same sense, society uses revenge on convicts by sending them to prison, is that not just a time-out on a larger scale?
I wouldn't call this "revenge" per say but I think that everyone here is more talking about the sort of protective feeling we have towards family and loved ones that are close to us. I think that no matter if it is morally correct or incorrect this protective feeling does happen and it is more important for the family member to have the self control to not act upon those feelings.
As Ashley said, justice needs to be brought to the family that has been harmed or injured by the situation. But at the same time I couldn't help but laugh at Peter's comment. Our "justice" system really is a sort of organized revenge. I think that it's more a way of consequences for actions. Usually when a person attempts to take revenge in their own way out of sheer anger, it ends up harming themselves in the long run, such as Ruth mentioned in her Hamlet reference. Romans 12:19 actually came to my mind as well. As a believer I definitely believe that once someone has done wrong to you the best thing to do is leave it alone and leave it between that person and God. There’s only so much we can do on this Earth. The rest is left to God, or whatever higher power one believes in.
Although revenge might sound like some bad, awful thing, it exists as part of the normal human psyche. It comes from ones feeling of belonging and protecting of values and honor.
When someone hurts us, our natural tendency is to want them to hurt like we were hurt. We talk about getting even and settling the score. The idea is that because they hurt us, we now owe them some hurt in return. And that's one debt we are only too glad to settle. But usually, it's not enough to just "get even" we land up going to even further measures to hurt them even more. And at the moment, revenge may taste sweet, but it's wrong.
I like what John Milton wrote in Paradise Lost:
"Revenge, at first though sweet,
Bitter ere long back on itself recoils."
This is precisely what happens when we try to take revenge into our own hands. We are tempted to meet evil with equal or greater force and this usually backfires or results in disaster.
As a believer, I trust that it's God's job to take care of revenge. God says, "it is mine to avenge; I will repay."
And I know this makes us say, "but if no one stands up to the enemy, if we don't give him what he deserves, then he's just doing to keep on doing what he's doing, hurting someone else next time."
And yes, it is confusing. But instead of getting so involved in making sure everyone gets what they deserve, leave it up to God. God will take care of justice, it may not be when we want or how we want but He will make sure justice is done.
I'm not sure if I would call revenge a family obligation or not, but speaking from personal experience, I know that if someone messes with any of my family members I automatically come to their defense and get angry at whoever has hurt them. I think that in some cases it is perfectly fine to have each other's backs in a family. If someone hurts you or someone close to you, you are going to want to hurt them in return. This is probably not the most diplomatic approach, but I think it is an honest one.
Post a Comment