Justice is both an ethical and philosophical concept that promotes the same idea of fairness and impartiality. Accordingly, justice should be achieved through strict adherence to the law, which seeks to prevent offense while prescribing remedial measures. Philosophical discussion regarding the connection between justice is critical in establishing a universally acceptable societal principle. Justice strives to right perceived wrongs by restoring justice and balance, while revenge seeks to cause injury or suffering. Even though both justice and revenge seek to restore peace through fairness, I firmly believe revenge would always lead to escalation, which may jeopardize the objective of justice.
First, revenge needs to meet the requirement of universality in its administration. For instance, it is difficult to punish a driver who caused a road accident that killed people through revenge. In case revenge can determine justice in one case, the same concept cannot be used in a different case of the same scenario. Mostly, the intensity of revenge will depend on the people involved. In a case where the offender can defend themselves from retaliation, justice would not be achieved. If we compare revenge to retributive justice, which is morally acceptable, provided it follows a universality principle (Spencer, 2021), it proves unable to achieve the principle of universality; hence, it lacks a moral basis and has the potential to go beyond just compensation.
Consequently, in the principle of retributive justice, people who have committed wrongdoings should face punishment that is appropriate for the crime they did. Retribution and revenge are similar at first glance since they both include a harmful response to transgression. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, however, argue revenge and retributive justice differ due to the emotions involved, whereas retribution is motivated by reason and proportionality (Spencer, 2021). The concept seeks to inflict pain on the offender even if it is disproportionate to the offense. Despite the similarities, revenge is not morally motivated since it does not address the cause and the magnitude of the crime.
Revenge may not achieve the goal of seeking justice, which is peace and happiness. Instead, revenge may be satisfying at the moment of its accomplishment, but the satisfaction can be short-lived. In some cases, revenge may lead to cycles of violence and suffering, thus undermining the concept of practical justice. Typically, utilitarian justice proposes that ethics should be viewed through the outcome lens (Ayvaci et al., 2019). Even though the argument of the utilitarian perspective is complex and open-ended, I do not see a gap that can accommodate revenge as a form of justice since it is clear that happiness resulting from revenge may only be momentary. Accordingly, the concept of revenge as a means to justice resulted in World War II. The Germans believed the penalty they were made to pay from WWI was unjustifiable; hence, they resorted to war (Tzenios, 2023). Just like in the World War, the results of revenge may be catastrophic and humbling.
In revenge, the conflicting sides may never come to reconcile. Revenge promotes using punitive measures to obtain an equilibrium that discourages dialogues and understanding. Punitive measures may be too harsh on the person they may never heal from for a lifetime. Equally, the avenger may not heal despite satisfaction, which may prevail. Without reconciliation, the conflicting sides may not be able to achieve restorative justice. In restorative justice, the focus should be on the harm caused by the wrongdoing by bringing the conflicting parties together through reconciliation. (Tuori, 2022). True justice can only be achieved when the relationship between the individual communities is restored. Since revenge is not concerned with the root cause of the wrongdoing, its solution is only temporary.
The results of revenge may be catastrophic. Since the pursuit of justice through revenge does not prescribe the measure and the nature of retaliation, the people involved may overreact, giving room for a devastating outcome. Notably, research reveals that most revenge cases may end in death if not fatal injury. Such results are based on the element of anger involved during revenge.
Unlike justice, which is an act of vindication, revenge is an act of vindictiveness. In some cases, pursuing revenge may be a waste and self-destructive. The avenger may burn in rage for long only to fail in accomplishing the goal of justice. To make matters worse, the process of revenge may be corrupt and morally dismissive of the avenger in the face of the perpetrator. I believe in the phrase “two wrongs never make a right” based on the potential fate of the avenger (Tuori, 2022). For instance, if a person seeks revenge for injury, the effort may lead to the death of the other party. The avenger will be perceived as more immoral without considering the initial motivation.
On the other hand, justice is precisely administered based on doctrines, conventions, and assumptions. The framework of justice is often honorable and fair. The laws that guide the administration of justice help to make references and give room to establish the truth. In some cases, justice provides space for appeal, which is essential to ensure all parties are satisfied.
I agree with the argument that revenge is not fair and justice is. Even though many people believe in the phrase “just revenge,” the idea’s premise is based on logic since it makes justice subject to probability (Ayvaci et al., 2019). For instance, retaliation can be just or unjust, depending on its underlying circumstances, intentions, and execution. Justice is a critical matter which may not be determined in ambiguity. Nevertheless, the well-known expression “miscarriage of justice” cautions us against making hasty distinctions between ideas that ultimately need to be seen as relative and subjective.
Despite the arguments against revenge, I cannot close my eyes to exceptional cases where revenge would be the best way to achieve justice. For instance, if we classify self-defense as revenge, I believe there would be no problem. In some criminal cases, the offenders are sentenced to death or life imprisonment to annihilate their behavior from society. For instance, society regards terrorism and rape are regarded as extreme offenses, and the offenders should not be given a chance to reconcile. Besides, the government has special forces that act as counter-terrorism, equipped with arms and trained obviously to defend the people by eliminating the terrorists. If revenge is entirely unjustifiable, then such squads would imply double standards.
In summary, whether revenge can bring about justice is a complicated and nuanced philosophical topic. Retribution as a kind of justice must abide by the ideas of proportionality, universality, and reason, even though it may be consistent with some philosophical tenets. Besides, the effect of the revenge may be ethically restorative to the avenger. My view is entirely based on the above moral principles. Similarly, I firmly believe retaliation may not result in justice since it is motivated by unrestrained emotions and a desire for vengeance transcending just punishment.
References
Ayvaci, E. R., Pollio, D. E., Sonis, J., Bhatti, S. M., & North, C. S. (2019). A mixed methods study of satisfaction with justice and desire for revenge in survivors of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center. International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 28(3), e1772.
Robson, P. W. (2021). Developments in revenge, justice and rape in the cinema. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 34, 69-88.
Spencer, V. A. (2021). Retributive Justice: The Restoration of Balance. In The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Peace (pp. 417-427). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Tuori, K. (2022). Revenge, violence and the civilizing narrative. Vindicatory Justice: Beyond Law and Revenge, 55-68.
Tzenios, N. (2023). Case Study: Just War Doctrine. Open Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 1-17.
write