General Biology Easy Lab Ideas

On the moral justification of revenge

The article by Kyle Johnson "Revenge in Tarantino and Mercy" (2007), the author makes a case of revenge of attacking some arguments that can be invoked to condemn it morally (negative defense) and to formulate an argument to justify it (affirmative defense). The following is a reconstruction of his argument. KEYBOARD

GUEST: MIGUEL LORENZO Defense
negative
Johnson

A. Plot of the sum of evil
(P1) The sum of two evils can never be result in a right act.
(P2) Revenge is a disease that adds to a previous wrong committed by the offender.
(Conclusion) Revenge is not correct.

Rebuttal: The argument commits the fallacy of assuming that to be tested. The second premise is that revenge is evil, and this is precisely what is intended to prove. We are facing a circular argument.

B. Required argument

Perfection (P1) For an act of revenge is correct the avenger must have a perfect knowledge and moral character (to know the intentions of the offender and not to perform an act as bad as him).
(P2) Only God (in some of his views) may or may have these two characteristics or properties.
(Conclusion): The Revenge "when performed by men, is not correct.

Rebuttal: not need a perfect knowledge of the intentions of the offender, to justify the revenge it with a sufficiently well-founded knowledge. Nor is it necessary to perfect moral character. Enough to know that evil deeds are not made equal or worse than those committed by the offender. This knowledge is available to humans.

C. Argument of the lack of benefit

(P1) Revenge does not help anyone.
(P2) Those acts that benefit no one is incorrect.
(Conclusion): Revenge is incorrect.

Rebuttal: revenge the avenger and it meets closer to peace of mind, which is beneficial for him - at least on occasion.

D. Argument of universal pacifism

(P1) Any act of violence is wrong.
(P2) Revenge is a violent act.
(Conclusion): Revenge is incorrect.

Rebuttal: the first premise is not plausible because there are certain violent acts to be correct, such as self-defense or just war. Defense


positive

One argument for the moral correctness of revenge

(P1) There is an obligation not to harm others or does not hurt us before.
(P2) That obligation arises or disappears if someone hurts us, it is permissible to harm those who hurt us.
(P3) Revenge is an act that is damaging to those who hurt us.
(P4) Revenge is permitted.
(P5) The actions allowed are correct.
(Conclusion): Revenge is correct.


WORKING SETPOINT [Maximum 4000 characters]

(1) refute the argument Johnson affirmative defense.