You don't need a forum to answer that question, a dictionary is enough. Check the meaning of those three words and you´ll get the answer but people here love talking about problems that can't be solved (freedom, God, justice...) and you probably will find one or two ready to discuss about all this.

I understand you, I'm just new on this forum and if honestly I started feel interest to philosophy quite recently. I study English, so I registered on this forum and I think that so I can improve my grammar faster. Whatever there be, thanks a lot.

OK, no problem... I wish this forum is useful for you

In my view, revenge is never justified/justifiable.

Revenge or punishment are often motivations in our approach to criminal justice--even if we don't always admit as much explicitly--but I don't at all agree with that approach.

In my view, we're only justified in separating people from mainstream society when there's a belief that they'd continue to commit some violent crime, significant property crime or contractual fraud if they were allowed to integrate with mainstream society, and we're not justified in separating people via anything like the prison system.

I absolutely agree with you that revenge is never justified but how to do when is inside in a soul torment the pain? I don't tell about kill or to do serious damage and just will reminds enemy about my existence or will he need to pardon? In some the cultures revenge it's normally and nobly but will necessary person go down to such level? Is worthily it him?

how to do when is inside in a soul torment the pain — Artie

The person in that situation needs to "work on themselves" basically. They need to learn how to deal with that pain/torment without doing things that are just as bad morally as what put them in torment/pain in the first place. There are other ways to deal with it than revenge.

(I don't tell about kill and serious law violations) How do you think what will be if to make retribution? What it can entail?

One of the main reasons why in modern systems of justice, only the state can lawfully dispense justice, is because we recognize that there is a difference between justice and revenge. Seeking just punishment, and/or just compensation for harm done, is not revenge. Revenge involves an added element of punishing the wrongdoer even more than what justice requires. By having the state, for example, punish a defendant by using a judge, a neutral third-party, we hope to avoid situations where revenge triumphs over justice. If we had the victims dispense justice, we would be likely to set off something like an ongoing feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys.

Why does revenge have to be “even more” than justice? Isnt the difference between revenge and justice a matter of motivation? In fact, I would say that justice and revenge could both be served at the same time. A satisfaction that a person suffered what they inflicted upon you AND justice being served in a broader sense.

DingoJones: Revenge is not the same as justice. The difference is revenge involves an excessive punishment. That's why we do not want judges who are personally involved in a case sentencing defendants.

Why is revenge excessive? If you punch me in the face, and I seek revenge by saying “you sir, are an asshole”, then its not excessive.
Revenge doesnt mean excessive punishment, I think you are adding that.

Yes, I agree, if good think, that revenge also justice and justice it's revenge. I think that revenge differ from justice by that somebody will revenge for you.

In my experience, when people want 'revenge', they want retribution, and humans being what they are, they want the 'punitive' component added. Morton Deutsch called it his 'crude law of social interaction'. We go one better. You raped my wife? I'll rape yours AND your daughter...and now we're even.
Of course that 'logic' doesn't come close to adding up, so-to-speak, but it's the logic behind revenge. You transgressed against me, and I get to get my own back, plus a penalty because you did it first. So, revenge tends to be more than an evening of the score; it's an exactment of retribution and a warning that you'll do even worse if it happens again.

Justice is revenge exacted by the state, ostensibly one one's behalf. It uses the pretext that it sequesters the offender until either he has served the penalty phase and/or he has been reformed or reoriented, or 'fixed' via psychological intervention, and can now be released where the hope is that the offender will no longer be a threat to people. This is what makes the death penalty unethical. It's the eye-for-an-eye punishment from which the offender can never hope to make good or demonstrate that he is even capable of reform and a productive life.

We go one better. You raped my wife? I'll rape yours AND your daughter...and now we're even. — gloaming

Well to be fair to the bible I think the quote (not that you were quoting) is rather more egailtarian as it were - "an eye for an eye" etc. In evolutionary terms revenge acts as a deterrent - particularly in small communities where reputation is going to be known. What counts in evolutionary terms is the reputation of the offended - "don't mess - it aint't worth it". But in modern society revenge is only an exercise of the emotion that was so useful in past times.Nowadays it can make you feel good for a while I guess, but is ultimately futile in most cases. Also revenge tramples on forgiveness and willingness to engage with the offending party - though that is not always a viable concept.

Are punishment and revenge the same thing? This seems like a mistake.

Why? I think that revenge the same thing only in another form. Eventually you writing the statement on the offender in police. I think that it the peculiar revenge.

If someone has harmed you MORALLY, then you just need to become better than them MORALLY. Thats the best Moral Revenge you can get.

Yes, maybe but you must know how difficult be silent, when somebody insult you but it's other the topic.

I wasn't using "or" to suggest a synonym. It was rather two items in a list. "Bring beer or wine to the party."

It is best to simply forget. If you can also forgive that is more noble.

Revenge is never appropriate unless you are talking about evicting a person from your circle.

And if you think you can succeed in evicting them from your business then that is also appropriate.

But nothing more personal than that.

Punishment is not exclusive to revenge. Punishment may also take the form of penalties exacted upon an individual or group of individuals by the state or government. Revenge, in the other hand, is exclusively made by the victimized against the offender.

I believe such a definition would fit this discussion better.

From that basic assumption, we can further expound on the idea of criminal justice. The concept of criminal justice is based upon the idea that the state remains neutral upon the case given and is simply the enforcer of the law. If the offender breaks the law, the state must enact the punishment. If no law is broken, then the state must remain neutral and stoic.

In comparison to this, the victimized ( like in your example, the guy whose wife got raped ) would surely be biased against the offender. The problem lies in the idea that punishment must be enacted in a neutral perspective and not in some biased outlook.

Now, this may sound legalistic, but the principle remains unmoved. Morally righteous punishments must be enacted by a neutral party, and not from a bias, to ensure the protection of the offender from excessive action.

Why is it necessary to protect the offender?

The offender is human and has rights. These rights are unalienable and thus must be upheld regardless of situation. Simply put, you wouldn't want someone to murder your entire bloodline just because you murdered some guy from this one clan. One must not exaggerate the punishment. But that's not the focus of this discussion, so let me move forward to my main problem.

Onto moral pain, I would like to ask how you would define that. Moral pain is quite a vague term. Please supplement us with an example or maybe a definition so that we may discuss this further.

In conclusion, to be morally correct in this situation is to act from the perspective of a neutral person. Like, imagine the judge to a trial. You wouldn't want to overstep the boundaries of the punishment because the other is also human. But you also want the most for you to satiate your pain and all. Always take the middle ground.

Best Wishes,
NuncAmissa