Revenge as a Human Instinct

Revenge and vengeance are basic tools of human instinct. Whether society chooses to accept or blind itself to this fact, it is an indisputable truth. Francis Bacon examines this truth in "Of Revenge", a view of society and literary characters that reflects the strive for vengeance. However, "Of Revenge" deeply underestimates the corruption of the human spirit and soul. It completely disregards the presence of the basic human instinct which thrives on the manipulation and destruction of others, for the sake of satisfaction. Though Bacon's inferences to the book of Job or Solomon are perfectly viable to a character that chooses to take revenge after they have been wronged, to believe that "no man does evil just for the sake of evil" annihilates any complete sense of credibility that Bacon's thoughts imply. The author's aspirations of the seeking of revenge solely as a means of retribution for oneself, and not to satisfy the evil within the human soul, is a beautiful and idealistic.

Revenge (also vengeance, retribution, or vendetta amongst others) consists primarily of retaliation against a person or group in response to a perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of revenge resemble or echo the concept of justice, revenge usually has a more injurious than harmonious goal. The goal of revenge usually consists of forcing the perceived wrongdoer to suffer the same pain that was originally inflicted.

Revenge is a hotly-contested ethical issue in philosophy. Some feel that, at the very least, the threat of revenge is necessary to maintain a just society. In some societies, it is believed that the injury inflicted in revenge should be greater than the original one, as a punitive measure. The Old Testament philosophy of "an eye for an eye" (cf. Exodus 21:24) tried to moderate the allowed damage, in order to avoid a vendetta or series of violent acts that could spiral out of control--instead of 'tenfold' vengeance, there would be a simple 'equality of suffering'. Detractors argue that revenge is a simple logical fallacy, of the same design as "two wrongs make a right." Some Christians interpret Paul's "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19, King James Version) to mean that only God has the moral right to exact revenge. Indeed, every major religious system contains some method for the mediation of disputes and for the limitation of vengeance by imputing a sense of cosmic justice to replace the often faulty justice systems of the world of men.

Of the psychological, moral, and cultural foundation for revenge, philosopher Martha Nussbaum has written: "The primitive sense of the just--remarkably constant from several ancient cultures to modern institutions...--starts from the notion that a human life...is a vulnerable thing, a thing that can be invaded, wounded, violated by another's act in many ways. For this penetration, the only remedy that seems appropriate is a counter invasion, equally deliberate, equally grave. And to right the balance truly, the retribution must be exactly, strictly proportional to the original encroachment. It differs from the original act only in the sequence of time and in the fact that it is response rather than original act--a fact frequently obscured if there is a long sequence of acts and counteracts" [1].

[edit] History of Revenge

In ancient societies, in particular those with weak central justice systems, the method for deterring murder was to allow the victim's family to avenge the killing. However, if the families of the killer and victim disagreed in their moral assessment of the killing, they would most likely disagree as well in their assessment of any revenge actions which were taken, and a blood feud might ensue.

Vendettas or 'blood feuds' are sequences of acts and counter-acts motivated by revenge and carried out over long period of time by familial or tribal groups in a quest for justice; they were an important part of many pre-industrial societies, especially in the Mediterranean region, and still persist in some areas.

...