1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    09 Jan '20 22:431 edit
    @secondson said
    Does not injustice make you angry?
    "Injustice" is in the eye of the beholder in many cases. And "anger" can range from irritation and disapproval to an overwhelming desire for vengeance. I think when retribution - as defined above - is misapplied [to my way of thinking, at least], it is more reason for anger than when injustice results from acts of revenge. It's a black and white and grey area and very much in the realm of subjectivity.
  2. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    09 Jan '20 22:551 edit
    @moonbus said
    Some modern dictionaries and current usage may consider the two words to be equivalent. However, I would cite Webster's unabridged dictionary (that's the big fat library edition) as the definitive reference for what proper (American) English would still recognize to be a legitimate and useful distinction between the two:
    Some modern dictionaries and current usage may consider the two words to be equivalent.

    This is what makes this topic interesting. The reality of modern usage on one hand, and trying to extract some objective [or maybe academic] stance on the difference between the words on the other.

    'Webster's unabridged dictionary' would be vital in a courtroom or legislative assembly, perhaps, but one is still arguably trying to stuff subjective notions into a box made for objective ideas when it comes to weighing the difference between retribution and vengeance in the real world.
  3. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    09 Jan '20 23:05
    @SecondSon

    Of course, injustice makes one angry. As Aristotle said, it is right and proper to feel anger, in appropriate circumstances and to the appropriate degree. But acting in anger (i.e., vengefully) often leads to regrettable consequences and/or disproportionate punishments. It is best to cool off and deliberate before seeking just and proportionate retribution.
  4. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    09 Jan '20 23:332 edits
    @fmf said
    Some modern dictionaries and current usage may consider the two words to be equivalent.

    This is what makes this topic interesting. The reality of modern usage on one hand, and trying to extract some objective [or maybe academic] stance on the difference between the words on the other.

    'Webster's unabridged dictionary' would be vital in a courtroom or legislative ass ...[text shortened]... ideas when it comes to weighing the difference between retribution and vengeance in the real world.
    The framers of the U.S. Bill of Rights were wise and educated, and chose their words carefully. We should heed them in their original sense, not in a post-modern 'alternative fact' ad hoc sense which might suit the moment's expedience.


    Real world: when one listens carefully to Trump's various 'justifications' for assassinating a foreign general, for example, one hears such things as that it prevented immediate harm to American interests (this would be based on some military intelligence which, for national security reasons, Trump is loath to reveal -- as this might compromise the sources of the intelligence). But then, almost immediately, he starts to threaten "52 sites" in Iran with swift and terrible consequences if Iran were to retaliate. The number "52" is of course significant and not chosen at random; it represents the Americans once held as hostages when the U.S. embassy was overrun in Tehran in 1979. Moreover, Trump claimed, the general should have been killed before (by Trump's predecessors). And finally, Trump claims the general was the number one terrorist operating in the ME (with the implicit implication that terrorists are fair game and that due process of law does not apply to them).

    Examine these various 'justifications' closely; they are of markedly different characters.

    Is killing a general 40 years after a hostage crisis justifiable? When the general had nothing to do with the hostage crisis as it unfolded? Hardly. He's the wrong guy; but even supposing he had had something to do with it, then as a young man, killing him is not proportionate, since none of the hostages was killed. Threatening "52 sites" with terrible swift destruction, 40 years later, is pure vengeance, passion-loaded dissociated rage, not just retribution. But that's how Trump thinks (or rather, feels)--Trump is a hot-head--, and it re-invigorates a raw nerve among Americans who were alive then (as I was) and recall the anguish of those 444 days when the U.S. was powerless and at the mercy of mob-driven forces they could neither control nor understand.

    I won't bother to further analyze Trump's other claims in this matter; he sprays the buckshot so far and wide, it is little more than a rambling, incoherent tirade. The unfortunate thing about Trump is that his rambling incoherent tirades have become the new norm, in defiance of the clear thinking and clear language of the framers of the Constitution and the BoR. Trump not only lives in a world of 'alternative facts' where truth is infinitely malleable; he also blurs useful distinctions (such as that between retribution and vengeance). This makes it hard to argue against his sort of mindset, and that is a great danger to a free society.
  5. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    09 Jan '20 23:46
    @moonbus said
    The framers of the U.S. Bill of Rights were wise and educated, and chose their words carefully. We should heed them in their original sense, not in a post-modern 'alternative fact' ad hoc sense which might suit the moment's expedience.
    The fact that I am unconvinced of the relevance of looking at this topic through a 250-year-old linguistic prism ~ or indeed through an American one, per se ~ does not mean that I subscribe to 'alternative fact' or 'the moment's expedience' type culture.
  6. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    09 Jan '20 23:53
    @secondson said
    Retribution is the morally sound respons to those who break the law or otherwise inflict pain and suffering on the innocent and law abiding citizens.
    Some officers of the court in Iran take a homosexual ~ whose sexual activities have clearly broken the law of the land ~ to the top of a very tall building, tie him to a chair, and throw him to his death, as ordered by the court [let's just assume for the sake of argument that this is all technically correct, or let it represent similar notions of crime and legally sanctioned punishment around the world or down through history].

    Is this retribution?

    If it is not "morally sound", and therefore NOT retribution, how does one make that case?
  7. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    09 Jan '20 23:56
    @moonbus said
    Real world: when one listens carefully to Trump's various 'justifications' for assassinating a foreign general, for example, one hears such things as that it prevented immediate harm to American interests (this would be based on some military intelligence which, for national security reasons, Trump is loath to reveal -- as this might compromise the sources of the intelligence). But then, almost immediately, he starts to threaten "52 sites" in Iran with swift and terrible consequences if Iran were to retaliate. The number "52" is of course significant and not chosen at random; it represents the Americans once held as hostages when the U.S. embassy was overrun in Tehran in 1979. Moreover, Trump claimed, the general should have been killed before (by Trump's predecessors). And finally, Trump claims the general was the number one terrorist operating in the ME (with the implicit implication that terrorists are fair game and that due process of law does not apply to them).

    Examine these various 'justifications' closely; they are of markedly different characters.

    Is killing a general 40 years after a hostage crisis justifiable? When the general had nothing to do with the hostage crisis as it unfolded? Hardly. He's the wrong guy; but even supposing he had had something to do with it, then as a young man, killing him is not proportionate, since none of the hostages was killed. Threatening "52 sites" with terrible swift destruction, 40 years later, is pure vengeance, passion-loaded dissociated rage, not just retribution. But that's how Trump thinks (or rather, feels)--Trump is a hot-head--, and it re-invigorates a raw nerve among Americans who were alive then (as I was) and recall the anguish of those 444 days when the U.S. was powerless and at the mercy of mob-driven forces they could neither control nor understand.

    I won't bother to further analyze Trump's other claims in this matter; he sprays the buckshot so far and wide, it is little more than a rambling, incoherent tirade. The unfortunate thing about Trump is that his rambling incoherent tirades have become the new norm, in defiance of the clear thinking and clear language of the framers of the Constitution and the BoR. Trump not only lives in a world of 'alternative facts' where truth is infinitely malleable; he also blurs useful distinctions (such as that between retribution and vengeance). This makes it hard to argue against his sort of mindset, and that is a great danger to a free society.


    Yes, I agree. Trump is not a good model for us with regard to getting our heads around retribution and vengeance.
  8. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    10 Jan '20 00:21
    @moonbus said
    It is best to cool off and deliberate before seeking just and proportionate retribution.
    If retribution is not "just and proportionate", is it no longer retribution?
  9. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    10 Jan '20 00:39
    @moonbus said
    I agree, retribution should be just and deliberate, but also proportionate and dispassionate.

    There is an article in the U.S. Bill of Rights specifying that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishment. This was specifically formulated to rule out the prior practise of kings and tyrants, who sometimes meted out punishments specific to one criminal and specifically designe ...[text shortened]... , where convicts are hanged the slow way (by strangling, not by breaking the neck) in public arenas.
    The form of words "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" was first used in the English Bill of Rights (1689). Prior to that English Judges could specify additional punishments, see below for an example. What the word "unusual" means here is either non-customary or not specified in legislation. Both burning at the stake and hanging, drawing and quartering were practiced after the introduction of the English Bill of Rights. They were cruel punishments, no doubt, but not unusual ones. What they do in Iran does not count as cruel and unusual in these terms because they are an established part of their legislative framework.

    Richardson Chief Justice de Common Banc al assises de Salisbury in Summer 1631 fuit assault per prisoner la condemne pur felony, que puis son condemnation ject un brickbat a le dit justice, que narrowly mist, et pur ceo immediately fuit indictment drawn per Noy envers le prisoner et son dexter manus ampute et fix al gibbet, sur que luy mesme immediatement hange in presence de Court.

    Richardson, Chief Justice of the Common Bench at the Assizes at Salisbury in Summer 1631 was assaulted by a prisoner there condemned for felony, who, following his condemnation, threw a brickbat at the said justice that narrowly missed, and for this, an indictment was immediately drawn by Noy against the prisoner and his right hand was cut off and fastened to the gibbet, on which he himself was immediately hanged in the presence of the Court.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_French
  10. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8142
    10 Jan '20 09:41
    @fmf said
    Some officers of the court in Iran take a homosexual ~ whose sexual activities have clearly broken the law of the land ~ to the top of a very tall building, tie him to a chair, and throw him to his death, as ordered by the court [let's just assume for the sake of argument that this is all technically correct, or let it represent similar notions of crime and legally sanctioned pun ...[text shortened]... ution?

    If it is not "morally sound", and therefore NOT retribution, how does one make that case?
    In German there is a fine word, Rechtsstaat, with its fine opposite Unrechtsstaat, neither of which, alas, has a really good equivalent in English. "Rechtsstaat" means a state which follows the rule of law, and is itself bound by its own rules, and the rules are fair and just. "Unrechtsstaat" means a state which follows the rule of law, but the laws are unfair and unjust -- e.g., the Nazi regime. In other words, the state itself is perpetrating injustice, although legally (in its own terms).

    So, what counts as retribution in Iran? Whatever the mullahs say. Is that a Rechtsstaat or an Unrechtsstaat? That depends on whether you agree with the mullahs. If you're looking for a moral absolute, you won't get one (not from me, anyway, though some of the Christian posters will be happy to provide you with several, I'm sure).
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree