Jackson, Evan, & Inish

J: Well I think that if it were always wrong to wrong somebody that has wronged you, then
justice would not exist. Nobody would learn their lessons. Everybody would be the first person
to be mean to other people all of the time because they would never have any consequences.

E: Wrong and mean are up to interpretation. To one right maybe to kill and to survive for their
well being.

I: Not only are wrong and mean up to interpretation, If it was only wrong to wrong somebody
after that wrong had been done to you, then yes, meanness would be one sided. In that case it
would be unjust.

J: The argument is not that it is wrong to do wrong, it’s that it’s wrong to do wrong when wrong
is done to you. So I think in a world in Socrates’ ideals wrong would be started but it would be
wrong to finish it, so wrong would just actually be everywhere, but it’d be like someone wronged
you, you get mad, you wrong some other random person. It’d be a whole conga line of wrong
from everyone to everyone else - the world would be void of consequences, and for that matter,
and form of justice.

I: If everybody did wrong to somebody else after they were wronged it would be an endless
cycle, but if everyone promised to never do wrong it would be ok.

E: I think it is impossible for there to be no wrongs in the world, because people will find reasons
they find justifiable to commit wrong to help themselves or others.

I: Even though that is true, would you necessarily have to do wrong when you are wronged?

J: It’s not necessarily that you have to do wrongs upon others when someone else wrongs you,
but rather it’s that everybody is bound to do wrongs anyways, so if there were no justice, which
is the way I think it would be, then not being able to wrong those who wrong you might actually
create even more wrong in the world because there would be unjustified wronging everywhere.
And it’d ALL be to innocent people (more or less).

I: In what case would/wouldn’t it be okay to do wrong to someone who had wronged you if it is
situational?

J: There’s 3 variables in any situation: Should you enact revenge/justice? What kind of revenge
would be just? What effect will it have?

I: In that case, is it ever possible to know whether it is truly just to enact revenge?
Jackson & Evan:

J: Is it ever right to enact revenge?

E: No, it is not. Being present in a situation where someone or something has provoked you to a
point of which you want to enact revenge it is best turn the other cheek. To avoid further conflict.

J: I think it actually depends on the particular situation and that it is sometimes ok, further more
it is sometimes necessary to enact revenge. If you never enact revenge on anyone for anything
then does anyone ever get taught how to act? And shouldn’t everything be for the good of the
whole? Sometimes revenge is good for the person it’s happening to. A lesson for their mistakes.

E: In today’s day and age there are a lot of diverse communities and societies where people
must learn and act different ways to survive in their societies, with the resources at hand. If
someone is living in a community where killing is seen as a wrongdoing then they should be
punished by the authority present in the community.

J: Isn’t being punished by the authority a type of revenge? From the authority onto the
wrongdoer? What separates the lines between revenge, karma, and justice anyways? If we
were to assume that law was revenge, then that would still mean that revenge is alright
sometimes.

E: The authority is in place to control and keep the community in tact. People are often taught
by their community the rules by growing up in them. If people still decide to harm the community
the authorities must in a way act “revenge” on the wrongdoer to protect the community. In the
perfect world no one would do wrong to one another so there would not be a need for revenge.
In this world we live in everyone has their own feelings and perceptions causing them to have
bias and desires to enhance their experience of living. With that fact there cannot be a world as
diverse as ours without people having ideas that conflict with one another. Everyone has the
right to enjoy and live their life the way they want inside or outside of the socially constructed
boundaries. In my eyes it is unfair to bring harm to another person's life for your benefit but
some others feel that it is necessary.

J: I don’t think revenge is bringing harm to another person’s life for your benefit. Well, it is, but it
has motivation behind it. They brought harm to yours first, and that’s the whole point of enacting
revenge. I think revenge is an umbrella term, with justice and karma under it. Also, why would
the authority not be a form of revenge? I pose the questions: What separates revenge from
karma and justice? Aren’t they the same thing essentially, but put arguably less harshly?
Revenge is like karma, and karma is like justice. Revenge in my opinion is not something that
should be seen as evil by any means.

E: I think that people are too unpredictable to and complex to enact “revenge” and “justice” in
fully ethical or reasonable ways because everyone perception of life is different and everyone
thinks differently. Some believe in eye for an eye and some believe that karma and justice don’t
exists. If we allow people to enact revenge for wrongdoing it must be in moderation because
situations and problems differ drastically. If you are enacting revenge upon someone that took
some of your food without asking you would probably ask them for it back and ask them why
they took it. Or you could take some of their food. Or you could kill them and eat the food out of
their open stomach. It my eyes it is whatever pleases you. If the punishment is that you are
sentenced to death by the authorities due to the society you were born into you must comply.
The only way you can defy the supreme authority of the area you inhabit in this day and age is
fighting until death. It is all a act of nature. We do what we need to survive but when we only
have to work for 8 hours a day and go home we develope desires to fulfill life and experience
your life to the best extent. So if a man wants to buy a gun and enact revenge on a man for
killing his wife he can. He will most likely be punished, but if his desire is strong enough he will
do it.

J: Of course all revenge should be in moderation. I agree with all you’re saying, but my prime
question was whether revenge is fair or not. It would appear to me that you agree with this
statement. Revenge is just, but the type of revenge matters heavily. If someone takes your food,
don’t turn them into the Strawberry Smiggles commercial from Rick and Morty… But on the
other hand, if someone murders your entire family, doing nothing but calling them a “big fart” will
not suffice…. so, I think a healthy conclusion is that revenge is okay, but the type of revenge is
where the justification relies.

P: Revenge is dependant on the situation whether it’s fair or not

P: It’s wrong to hurt for your own benefit
A: Revenge is not always ok

P: It’s better to turn the other cheek

P: It’s best to avoid conflict
A: Revenge is bad

P: Everyone is equal in their right to enjoy life

P: Everyone deserves to be free from harm
A: Revenge is too harmful for a perfect world

P: Justice and Karma are like revenge

P: There is motivation behind revenge
A: Revenge is fair

P: You shouldn’t kill someone who just takes your food

P: You should always stay reasonable
A: Revenge should be moderate and equal