To keep the conversation civil I’m going to keep war out of the discussion.

But I have often pondered what are the ethical ramifications of revenge. I mean Hollywood is big on the idea but my gut instinct thinks that this wrong on so manny levels.

Edit: As a request I will add this

I am referring to taking justice in your own hands. Is their ethical ramifications on this.

  • 2
    Here is a post The Philosophy Of Revenge on On Philosophy blog, here is an encyclopedia article on forgiveness and here is a volume of conference proceedings on Ethics of Forgiveness and Revenge. You'll have to make the question far more specific to allow answers of reasonable size. – Conifold Nov 7 '17 at 21:39
  • @Conifold Comments like that make me wonder: is it reasonable Philosophy.SE etiquette to answer a question like this by posting a bunch of references rather than directly answering the question? It strikes me that a comment like that turned into an answer could make for a mighty popular answer. – Cort Ammon Nov 8 '17 at 1:00
  • 1
    @CortAmmon I think more is expected of an answer, which is why I post these as comments. Often I am at a loss as to what questioners are after, so the hope is that after looking over some references they'll be able to articulate it more specifically. And even if not at least it gives some point of departure. – Conifold Nov 8 '17 at 1:04
  • LOL - Your comment about keeping war out of the discussion to keep it civil makes one of the points raised in my answer below. Revenge is a very political topic that many people cannot or will not discuss rationally. I've been doing a lot of research on the topic and plan on incorporating it into a book I'm working on. In that spirit, I like the links Conifold posted. I up voted your question, by the way. – David Blomstrom Nov 8 '17 at 2:25
  • Re: Eye for an eye: christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16381 – Chris Degnen Nov 8 '17 at 11:09

Yours is an intriguing question - and a very political one as well.

The word "revenge" triggers a knee-jerk reaction in many people, somewhat similar to "Nazi" or "conspiracy theory." Many people swear revenge can never be good and that merely harboring hate negatively impacts your mental and even physical health. In fact, some of the warnings of the consequences of revenge are a little loony, similar to much of the tripe written about conspiracy theory.

A big reason for this is likely the evolution of the state. When our ancestors began to congregate in ever larger tribes, cities and nations, they had to modify their behavior. Disputes were increasingly resolved by the state, and vigilantism was increasingly vilified.

Of course, there is an enormous danger in letting a major city or country lapse into feuds and personal vendettas, especially when some of the individuals harboring thoughts of revenge may be a little unhinged.

But what if the state itself is the enemy? If another country bombs your country for no just cause, killing your family, is it unethical to seek revenge? What if your government supports a rich tyrant or corrupt operative who spits in your face again and again?

The ethical ramifications of revenge in such situations may be very different from hiring someone to assault a person who merely insulted you.

However, the answer to your question is all over the map. I've asked similar questions and have learned that the broad consensus is that revenge is evil, period. However, not everyone (including myself) is in agreement.

I just read Forgiveness: A Philosophical Discussion by Charles Griswold. It was very interesting and has some good points, yet it also smacks of propaganda. I think the author completely missed the boat when discussing forgiveness in the political arena.

Anyway, here are some things to think about when pondering the ethical ramifications of revenge:

  1. Have you sat down and carefully analyzed the situation and/or sought help through official channels before resorting to revenge?

  2. Does the magnitude of the crime committed against you merit revenge?

  3. Are you responding to a single hurt, or has an individual or organization repeatedly hurt you? There are situations where you may have just two options: Either submit to continuing exploitation or hurt, or take the law into your own hands. I've experienced this countless times.

  4. Are you the only victim, or are there others? I've written some pretty nasty, vengeful (but truthful) things about public schools officials who have hurt me. This could be regarded as selfish or spiteful. However, these same people have hurt many other teachers, not to mention children. If I hurt a school official who hurt me, and that individual was also a pedophile, I would be even more proud of my action.

Ultimately, the ethical ramifications of revenge are a reflection of your personal moral code. However, if you even entertain thoughts of revenge, you might want to be careful about sharing them publicly, because most people will condemn you.

  • I don’t endorse revenge it but the question was seeking further clarification. I want to do more reading and discussion on the topic to further define my opinion but I think their is a big difrence between justice and revenge. But other than that thanks for the elimiting answer. – Ben Madison Nov 8 '17 at 20:02
  • Ah, another intriguing point I forgot to mention - the often fine line between justice and revenge. – David Blomstrom Nov 10 '17 at 2:45

It is said, in the tradition, revenge is for a hurt, justice is for a wrong. I read, somewhere, not long ago, in a thinker, the statement that: even a dog distinguishes between being kicked and being stumbled over. The pain of being stumbled over might be worse. Yet, by nature, if the dog is any measure, this is not something that deserves reprisal.

Eventually, starting from such dialectical and simple points, one can come to a theory of the injustice of revenge, and the justice of punishing a legal wrong based on intentionality. Yet, one can never leave it at that. And the discussion is ultimately thrown into the abyss, seeing how the instinctual opinions of dogs, may be nothing but conditioning, i.e., evolution, and of men, perhaps the trauma of a Freudian Father Figure. If all such considerations are baseless, or merely a matter of various forms of control, whether societal or through physical determination, etc...

Did you mean, however, that revenge means taking the law into one's own hands, rather than that of the authority of a public agency? Conifold, as you see, speaks correctly, in saying that here we have a vast area, and some qualification is needed to usefully attempt to elucidate and so to investigate the matter of a specific consideration.


The first thing comes to mind is the injunction:

An eye for an eye

This principle was to restrict vendettas, revenge, retaliation and punishments in that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime and not excessive. It was first enunciated in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. A similar principle is the Talmud. Judicially, it comes under the jurisdiction of lex talionis, where a lawcode prescribes specific punishments for specific crimes.

In Christianity, Jesus in the Sermon of the Mount said:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

That is forgiveness is important. A similar thought is urged in the Qu'ran:

In the Torah we prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong. (Qurʾān, 5:45)

This thought is also implicit - or so it seems to me - in the Bhagavad Gita where Arjuna is urged by Krishna to do his duty when he falters because he would be going to war against his kith and kin; eventually, he is so convinced. But in the final scene we see a vista of ruins.


The ethical issues imbalance and inequality as well as risk of injustice.

The same crime can lead to different punishments depending on who conducts the revenge. One person will beat you up and the other person will nail you to the wall with a nailgun.

There is also no guarantee that the punishment fits the crime, because it is decided upon and executed by one quite biased person, without considerations for such wider issues.

There is also the problem of punishing an innocent. A justice system has more resources and specially trained individuals available to ascertain guilt. A "do it yourself" revenge taker can very well mix up people, wrongly remember something or just get the wrong person - something that is rarely a part of the Hollywood storytelling.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.