What prevents an Athiest from seeking revenge ?

Monty.

We know that true Christians (which are few and far between), do not seek an eye for an eye.

What keep Atheists from seeking revenge ?

Criminal and civil law may be one reason, and the risk of retaliation may be another, but there are ways and means of obtaining revenge without technically breaking the law, or risking retaliation.

krankykitty

Why would an athiest ever do the right thing, or anything moral when they don't have the fear of hell etc :rolleyes:

Are you saying that a religious person (Christian, seeing as you mentioned them) would really want to seek revenge, but that the teachings/fears imparted by their religion is the only reason why they wouldn't? That simple morality or humanity doesn't come into it?

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

We know that true Christians (which are few and far between), do not seek an eye for an eye.

What keep Atheists from seeking revenge ?

Criminal and civil law may be one reason, and the risk of retaliation may be another, but there are ways and means of obtaining revenge without technically breaking the law, or risking retaliation.

That is actually a very interesting question (not sure how genuine the question is, but I'm going to proceed as if it was).

One reason as you state is the police, law and other social pressures.

Another would be experience, empathy and self discover. As one gets old one realizes the reason people do nasty things and the reasons why we seek revenge against them. One discovers that revenge often isn't the answer.

Monty.

This is a genuine question.

I would have thought revenge is a natural human urge, no matter if you are an Atheist or a Theist. It does not mean an Atheist or a Theist has to act on that urge, and I do not postulate that one position is superior to another.

I understand the reason true Christians do not seek revenge. I do not fully understand the reason some Atheists do not seek revenge. This is not meant to be a pissing contest between Atheists and Theists, whatever you believe, as long as it is doing no harm to anyone else, is cool with me. I merely ask questions to understand.

Take this unfortunately unpalatable, but emotional example. (Apologies for this crude example, I could not think of a better one. If you have a better one, please feel free to introduce it.)

- The a rape of a loved one.

Let's say the guilt of the party is known for certain, but due to a mere technicality the state cannot take a case.

What prevents some Atheists from taking a calculated form of revenge that does not break the law or risk retaliation ? Other that the law, or retaliation, which can be circumvented with careful planning, what deterrent is there ?

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

This is a genuine question.

I would have thought revenge is a natural human urge, no matter if you are an atheist or a theist. It does not mean an atheist or a theist has to act on that urge.

I understand the reason true Christians do not seek revenge. I do not fully understand the reason some Atheists do not seek revenge. This is not meant to be a pissing contest between Atheists and Theists, whatever you believe, as long as it is doing no harm to anyone else, is cool with me. I merely ask questions to understand.

Take this unfortunately unpalatable, but emotional example. (Apologies for this crude example, I could not think of a better one.)

- The a rape of a loved one.

Let's say the guilt of the party is known for certain, but due to a mere technicality the state cannot take a case.

What prevents some atheists from taking a calculated form of revenge that does not break the law or risk retaliation ?

Most like the question of what would that act of revenge achieve.

What is the reason that Christians don't take revenge?
Fear of being punished by God?

meoklmrk91

I've pondered this one myself being an atheist but in all honesty I think that the answer is fairly simple. We are all, whether theist or atheist, human.

I personally believe that both the impulse for revenge and morality are both inately human. And therefore whatever we believe, we will always feel the need to take revenge but struggle to do so in most cases because of our morals.

desertcircus

I can't speak for all atheists, but I'm not interested in vengeance because it's not the same thing as justice. It's wrong for someone to assault me, and it remains wrong for me to assault them in vengeance - the ethical concerns are exactly the same. "Don't violate the rights of others" is pretty simple, and doesn't have a caveat saying "unless they've violated yours".

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

Most like the question of what would that act of revenge achieve.

Some might see it as rightful justice where the state justice system failed on a technicality. Others might see it as a form of deterrent and prevention. Many people consider revenge as means to achieving something, whatever that might be, perhaps closure. Who can say what an individuals beliefs are. That's why I pose the question.

gargleblaster

Can only speak for myself but mainly because there's really no point to it. Nothing is solved.

In fact I'd see revenge as a type of punishment, and punishment itself seems to be more of a religious concept.

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Some might see it as rightful justice where the state justice system failed on a technicality. Others might see it as a form of deterrent and prevention. Many people consider revenge as means to achieving something, whatever that might be, perhaps closure. Who can say what an individuals beliefs are. That's why I pose the question.

Well yes but all those people may go ahead and take revenge if they believe it the right thing to do.

Someone else though might not because they feel the revenge will not achieve anything constructive.

One does not have to take revenge simply because the opertunity presents itself.

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but all those people may go ahead and take revenge if they believe it the right thing to do.

When would it be the right thing to do ?

Wicknight wrote: »

Someone else though might not because they feel the revenge will not achieve anything constructive.

They may also feel on occasion that it could be constructive.

krankykitty

Monty. wrote: »

When would it be the right thing to do ?



They may also feel on occasion that it could be constructive.

If such an opportunity presented itself to a Christian, and they felt it was constructive, what's stopping them?

Monty.

krankykitty wrote: »

If such an opportunity presented itself to a Christian, and they felt it was constructive, what's stopping them?

The Christian viewpoint is not the topic. True Christians would claim "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” - Romans 12:19. You can only pretend to be a Christian and at the same time take revenge.

But this thread is not about the Christian viewpoint, as I said I am not trying claim which belief is superior, being defensive or deflecting the debate it is not necessary, I am merely interested in the Atheist point of view.

Other than the sate law, or the risk of retaliation, which can both be circumvented, and considering that all morality is subjective/objective depending on your viewpoint, what prevents the moral Atheist from seeking revenge in all circumstances ?

krankykitty

I just don't get why the "Atheist" view would be any different. We're all humans after all, would it not depend on the individual? For example you could have one Athiest who would have no qualms about exacting revenge, and another who would feel it was the wrong thing to try to take "an eye for an eye". You can apply the same analogy to Christians. Or Muslims, Pastafarians or whatever.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that Atheism doesn't really have a doctrine as such - but even if it did, just like Christianity, it's up to the individual anyway, and depending on circumstance. I might be moral and not seek revenge in 99% of circumstances, but perhaps if I'm pushed to the limit of my tolerance I mightn't be so moral!

desertcircus

Monty. wrote: »

The Christian viewpoint is not the topic. True Christians would claim "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” - Romans 12:19. You can only pretend to be a Christian and at the same time take revenge.

But this thread is not about the Christian viewpoint, as I said I am not trying claim which belief is superior, being defensive or deflecting the debate it is not necessary, I am merely interested in the Atheist point of view.

Other than the sate law, or the risk of retaliation, which can both be circumvented, and considering that all morality is subjective/objective depending on your viewpoint, what prevents the moral Atheist from seeking revenge in all circumstances ?

As I said above: the recognition that a violation or someone's rights is not corrected by a violation of someone else's rights. It's wrong for me to violate your rights except to prevent you committing a worse violation of other people's rights, and any motivation other than the minimisation of rights violation is wrong.

Magic Beans

Monty. wrote: »

What prevents some Atheists from taking a calculated form of revenge that does not break the law or risk retaliation ? Other that the law, or retaliation, which can be circumvented with careful planning, what deterrent is there ?

What makes you think they don't? If I took out a scumbag for whatever reason or accidentally set fire to a car that knocked down my child why would I ever tell anybody?

Monty.

desertcircus wrote: »

As I said above: the recognition that a violation or someone's rights is not corrected by a violation of someone else's rights. It's wrong for me to violate your rights except to prevent you committing a worse violation of other people's rights, and any motivation other than the minimisation of rights violation is wrong.

On what basis ? I might equally agree with that noble platitude in principle, but decide to justify in a specific circumstance the rights of my family, the rights of survival of the fittest, and the rights of winner takes all, is superior in certain circumstances.

Monty.

Magic Beans wrote: »

What makes you think they don't? If I took out a scumbag for whatever reason or accidentally set fire to a car that knocked down my child why would I ever tell anybody?

I don't know why you would tell anyone, that's not my question.

I'm asking what (if you could avoid the threat of law and retaliation) would prevent you from seeking what could be seen as justifiable revenge ?

Magic Beans

I'm making the point that is probably going on wholesale and you just have no way of quantifying it. Maybe atheists dispense their own retribution all the time and just keep quiet about it.

Monty.

Magic Beans wrote: »

I'm making the point that is probably going on wholesale and you just have no way of quantifying it. Maybe atheists dispense their own retribution all the time and just keep quiet about it.

I see what you mean now. I'm interested in what prevents a moral Atheist from taking this course of action, if there are no obvious negative repercussions for them ?

desertcircus

Monty. wrote: »

On what basis ? I might equally agree with that noble platitude in principle, but decide to justify in a specific circumstance the rights of my family, the rights of survival of the fittest, and the rights of winner takes all, is superior in certain circumstances.

Exactly the same as a Christian might in specific circumstances decide to justify something other than that principle - as, indeed, Christians have done throughout history.

I can't contemplate revenge because it's something that's repugnant to my understanding of what is right - an understanding based on the idea that the only way I can morally expect my rights to be respected is by consistently respecting the rights of others.

Monty.

desertcircus wrote: »

Exactly the same as a Christian might in specific circumstances decide to justify something other than that principle - as, indeed, Christians have done throughout history.

I don't think any true Christian can justify using revenge in any circumstances, and still call themselves a true Christian, but as I said, that's for the Christian forum, I'm interested in the Atheist viewpoint and we're heading off topic.

desertcircus wrote: »

I can't contemplate revenge because it's something that's repugnant to my understanding of what is right - an understanding based on the idea that the only way I can morally expect my rights to be respected is by consistently respecting the rights of others.

This is what I'm interested in regarding the OP. On what basis do you believe that ?

tallaghtmick

Funnily enough I was thinking this the other day and I figured its common decency that we dont bludgeon(sp) some fooker who annoys us.

Another question though.......As athiest/agnostics can we argue that we dont follow the commandments as excuses to say cheating on the missus or coveting a neighbour:pac:

desertcircus

This feels pointless and circular, but I'm going to give it another go.

I'm coming from John Rawls' theory of justice - the idea that the perfect nation state is one designed to maximise individual freedom without encroaching on the freedom of others. That's a fairly simple, straightforward idea - if you accept that your desire not to have your rights encroached upon is a valid desire, then it follows that the desires of others not to have their rights encroached upon is equally valid. As a result of that, the intellectual position requires us on a moral basis to avoid violating the rights of others - as well as demanding on a practical, self-interested level that we support the creation of a framework that guarantees those rights, in order to protect from people who would elect to violate them. For those reasons, vengeance - along with other unjustified rights violations - is anathema to a consistent philosophical position. It becomes logically impossible to support vengeance, because to do so necessarily requires us to accept with equanimity the prospect that someone else may violate our rights.

yawha

Evolved innate behaviours and learned behaviours manifesting themselves via cultural evolution.

Simple.

Bookworm85

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
- Mahatma Ghandi

Personally, I wouldnt have revenge, because I'm a wimp!! Thankfully, I've never had any reason to seek revenge on anybody, but if somebody should hurt me in some way I'm not the sort to get even or whatever. It would only bring me down to their level. OP, two wrongs don't make a right.

Monty.

desertcircus wrote: »

This feels pointless and circular, but I'm going to give it another go.

I'm coming from John Rawls' theory of justice - the idea that the perfect nation state is one designed to maximise individual freedom without encroaching on the freedom of others. That's a fairly simple, straightforward idea - if you accept that your desire not to have your rights encroached upon is a valid desire, then it follows that the desires of others not to have their rights encroached upon is equally valid. As a result of that, the intellectual position requires us on a moral basis to avoid violating the rights of others - as well as demanding on a practical, self-interested level that we support the creation of a framework that guarantees those rights, in order to protect from people who would elect to violate them. For those reasons, vengeance - along with other unjustified rights violations - is anathema to a consistent philosophical position.

Yes that's all very well if everyone studied and agreed the same philosophy you do, but there are many other philosophies, including survival of the fittest. Philosophies are not fixed.

desertcircus wrote: »

It becomes logically impossible to support vengeance, because to do so necessarily requires us to accept with equanimity the prospect that someone else may violate our rights.

If that is the reason not to support vengeance, then that in itself is a fallacious reasoning, as the prospect someone else may violate our rights is a reality.

Magic Beans

Monty. wrote: »

I see what you mean now. I'm interested in what prevents a moral Atheist from taking this course of action, if there are no obvious negative repercussions for them ?

What is a moral atheist anyway?

* I propose that though we may be atheists now we have grown up in a largely christian society and it would be very naive to pretend that we haven't absorbed any of those values during our formative years. We are atheists tainted with christian values like it or not.

Taking that to the logical extreme it could be argued the only 100% true atheists are sociopaths. They don't share societies concept of right and wrong and are totally self serving. And why not? There's nobody to judge us?



* Argument put forward is not necessarily my ethos.

desertcircus

Monty. wrote: »

Yes that's all very well if everyone studied and agreed the same philosophy you do, but there are many other philosophies, including survival of the fittest. Philosophies are not fixed.



If that is the reason not to support vengeance, then that in itself is a fallacious reasoning, as the prospect someone else may violate our rights is a reality.

So what if there are other philosophies? You want to know what would cause an atheist not to seek vengeance; here's a reason for an atheist not to seek vengeance. What on earth does the existence of other philosophies do to negate the existence of this one?

As for the second point: you've misunderstood. My point was that a person who's happy to engage in vengeance can't logically be upset when someone else violates their rights, not that rights violations don't exist. Why on earth would I argue that rights violations don't exist?

Monty.

desertcircus wrote: »

So what if there are other philosophies? You want to know what would cause an atheist not to seek vengeance; here's a reason for an atheist not to seek vengeance. What on earth does the existence of other philosophies do to negate the existence of this one?

I see, this is your own position then, that was not clear from your posts.

desertcircus wrote: »

As for the second point: you've misunderstood. My point was that a person who's happy to engage in vengeance can't logically be upset when someone else violates their rights, not that rights violations don't exist. Why on earth would I argue that rights violations don't exist?

Again, that was not clear from your posts. Thanks for the clarification.

Turtwig

Firstly I haven't read all the replies here, so apologies in advance if someone mentioned this already.

Simplified model :
Let's just assume that belief in God in an innate urge? Atheists have rejected that urge, so what's not to say they can reject the urge for vengeance? Ok, now look at it from a more rational and scientific view. If the atheist is a rationalist then s/he will probably be well aware of the short coming of human beings forethought : we are INCREDIBLY short sighted. Many are naive enough to think that owning a Iphone or winning the lotto will make us happy and that, crucially, losing our legs, or sight, would make us sad. On average, there is no difference. If you win the lotto, within about a year you will be in the same emotional state as you were before. The same is true of exacting revenge on a person. It makes no difference, it won't change how you feel, it won't even make you feel better. It's just one of those irrational primitive instincts that people have and the sooner we overcome it, the better place this world will be. So what prevents an Atheist from seeking revenge? They know it accomplishes nothing.

Monty.

Malty_T wrote: »

. So what prevents an Atheist from seeking revenge? They know it accomplishes nothing.

Interesting, on what basis do they know this ?

For many people it accomplishes a sense of closure, acts as deterrent to others, and achieves natural justice.

Chardee MacDennis

Wow this is like asking why don't atheists just kill people? Mental reasoning IMO!

Sarky

Revenge is selfish and childish, in my experience. It's the equivalent of throwing a strop because your parents wouldn't let you eat ice cream for dinner. It accomplishes nothing besides showing the world that you can't see beyond your own outrage.

And once you do take your revenge, what do you accomplish? Does space-time twist up so that the insult was never made? Is the loved one somehow suddenly un-raped? Of course not. All that happens is that someone else gets upset at the wrong YOU commit. The cycle tends to continue. But of course not many people think that far ahead when they decide that they know better than anyone else.

All it takes is a little foresight to realise how unbelievably stupid revenge is. It's a short-sighted, immature self-repeating pattern that only harms a society. I don't care if it's basic human nature, as so many like to claim. We should all be aiming a bit higher than that.

Turtwig

Monty. wrote: »

Interesting, on what basis do they know this ?

For many people it accomplishes a sense of closure, acts as deterrent to others, and achieves natural justice.

That's just an illusion. It doesn't change anything for those people. It's more an issue of them attributing arousal to the wrong trigger. (We're terrible at identifying what arouses us too.) Basically, in a nutshell, the rationalist understands better how our brains works, how it makes mistakes and its knows the primitive instinct for revenge is one that causes more harm than benefit in the long run. They know this in the same way they recognise optical illusions as brain failures.

Monty.

Malty_T wrote: »

That's just an illusion. It doesn't change anything for those people. It's more an issue of them attributing arousal to the wrong trigger. (We're terrible at identifying what arouses us too.) Basically, in a nutshell, the rationalist understands better how our brains works, how it makes mistakes and its knows the primitive instinct for revenge is one that causes more harm than benefit in the long run. They know this in the same way they recognise optical illusions as brain failures.

But what are you basing this on ? And why should it be apparent/applicable to everyone and every circumstance ?

Turtwig

Monty. wrote: »

But what are you basing this on ? And why should it be apparent/applicable to everyone and every circumstance ?

Neuroscience. If the person understands the basics of how the brain works then they know how often we get sh*t wrong and how often we attribute feeling of arousal or joy to the wrong object, person, or hobby. Those that say revenge made them feel better are most likely falsely attributing to the arousal they got just before they inflicted harm on the person. Which in all honesty, they could just as easily have got by killing a dog or somebody else.

Sofiztikated

So... (And this has all been done before.)

By that thought, Christians/Gawd fearin' folk would be all out killing, raping, and getting unmitigated vengance only that God is watching them? And athiests go around killings and raping all the time. The last time I checked, the majority of badness in the world is usually caused "in the name of God/Allah/Zorro/whatever deity you're having yourself."

I have morals, taught to me by my (admittedly church going) parents. I don't need the fear of not getting into heaven to know what is right and wrong.

Revenge (while possibly satisfying to start with) is usually a futile exercise, leading to tit for tat. And that is good for noone.

My 2 cents.

desertcircus

Monty. wrote: »

But what are you basing this on ? And why should it be apparent/applicable to everyone and every circumstance ?

There's an ongoing demand you're making that whatever explanation anybody comes up with should be universal in nature. There's no need for that - some atheists make that decision on the basis of their understanding of neuroscience, some on the basis of their understanding of the nature of rights, some purely because they think the benefits of complying all the time outweigh the risks of violating that rule even once - every one of these approaches can be equally valid and equally consistent, and equally strong as a belief in Christianity in enforcing this taboo against vengeance.

jill_valentine

Monty. wrote: »

What prevents some Atheists from taking a calculated form of revenge that does not break the law or risk retaliation ? Other that the law, or retaliation, which can be circumvented with careful planning, what deterrent is there ?

Suffering is suffering. I can stand to see it, I don't take any satisfaction out of seeing it even in people who've hurt me.

If somebody were to seriously hurt myself or a loved one, I'd try my best to make sure they weren't in a position to do the same to somebody else. And after that, I don't care what happens to them.

The impulse to take revenge is just a slightly mitigated form of cruelty, IMHO. I can't say I'm not guilty of the impulse, but I can't justify entertaining it. Doesn't achieve anything other than generating a bit more douchiness in the world, and there's plenty of that already.

CiaranMT

OP, would you wager that Buddhists are more liable than Christians to commit immoral acts?

irishh_bob

Wicknight wrote: »

That is actually a very interesting question (not sure how genuine the question is, but I'm going to proceed as if it was).

One reason as you state is the police, law and other social pressures.

Another would be experience, empathy and self discover. As one gets old one realizes the reason people do nasty things and the reasons why we seek revenge against them. One discovers that revenge often isn't the answer.

revenge isnt ever nesscesery for most people , i myself have been waiting thirteen years for revenge , i became an athiest as a result of my victimisation at the hands of the one i seek revenge upon btw

ShooterSF

Monty. wrote: »

Yes that's all very well if everyone studied and agreed the same philosophy you do, but there are many other philosophies, including survival of the fittest. Philosophies are not fixed.



If that is the reason not to support vengeance, then that in itself is a fallacious reasoning, as the prospect someone else may violate our rights is a reality.

In the context of morality what is the survival of the fittest philosophy and can you name any supporters of it? (I assume it's similar to how species evolve giving it has borrowed the name from an evolutionary argument)

CiaranMT

ShooterSF wrote: »

In the context of morality what is the survival of the fittest philosophy and can you name any supporters of it? (I assume it's similar to how species evolve giving it has borrowed the name from an evolutionary argument)

It was hijacked at the turn of the last century by the Eugenics movement, wasn't it?

irishh_bob

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly I haven't read all the replies here, so apologies in advance if someone mentioned this already.

Simplified model :
Let's just assume that belief in God in an innate urge? Atheists have rejected that urge, so what's not to say they can reject the urge for vengeance? Ok, now look at it from a more rational and scientific view. If the atheist is a rationalist then s/he will probably be well aware of the short coming of human beings forethought : we are INCREDIBLY short sighted. Many are naive enough to think that owning a Iphone or winning the lotto will make us happy and that, crucially, losing our legs, or sight, would make us sad. On average, there is no difference. If you win the lotto, within about a year you will be in the same emotional state as you were before. The same is true of exacting revenge on a person. It makes no difference, it won't change how you feel, it won't even make you feel better. It's just one of those irrational primitive instincts that people have and the sooner we overcome it, the better place this world will be. So what prevents an Atheist from seeking revenge? They know it accomplishes nothing.

what if you got revenge and then immedietley died , you wouldnt be around a year later to regret or see the ( pointlessnes ) of what you,ve done

irishh_bob

Malty_T wrote: »

That's just an illusion. It doesn't change anything for those people. It's more an issue of them attributing arousal to the wrong trigger. (We're terrible at identifying what arouses us too.) Basically, in a nutshell, the rationalist understands better how our brains works, how it makes mistakes and its knows the primitive instinct for revenge is one that causes more harm than benefit in the long run. They know this in the same way they recognise optical illusions as brain failures.

how incredibly smug

philologos

krankykitty wrote: »

Why would an athiest ever do the right thing, or anything moral when they don't have the fear of hell etc :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

What is the reason that Christians don't take revenge?
Fear of being punished by God?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I have morals, taught to me by my (admittedly church going) parents. I don't need the fear of not getting into heaven to know what is right and wrong.

Funnily enough, I'm a Christian and I don't have any fear of hell. Christians believe they are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The price of their sin is paid. They desire to live Christian lives to love and serve God, and to love their neighbours as themselves because they claim to have seen the love of God working in their lives first hand.

1 John 4:8-12 wrote:

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

I also agree that the OP's assumption is misguided in that it is perfectly possible that many atheists won't seek revenge.

Claiming that Christians live Christian lives because of the fear of hell is absurd in the light of what Christianity actually tells us about sin and forgiveness.

Is it not possible to be reasonable for a moment about this?

Evade

Is the definition of revenge limited to inflicting harm on someone who did the same to you or would stealing something from someone who stole from you be considered revenge too?

CiaranMT

irishh_bob wrote: »

how incredibly smug

How so?

irishh_bob

CiaranMT wrote: »

How so?

all that high minded crap about revenge being pointless , easy for those in thier ivory towers , if thier was no revenge in the world , bullys or even despots would continue with immunity to carry out thier wicked deeds , many important political movements were driven by revenge in some shape or form let alone individual grudges , you reap what you sew , if you ruin someones life , dont come crying when you get some blowback