Submitted by DeletedButArchived in AskRaddle

I've been writing a fictional / artistic argument for solving the problems of police brutality and dealing with shit heads who victimize people. I think one of the strongest stances against how many anarchists deal with abusers without the law falls under this idea that vigilantes getting vengeance just creates more vigilantes who are going to get vengeance. Ie. You kill your rapist so the mother of the rapist kills you. Your significant other kills the rapists mother to get vengeance. The husband of the mother of the rapists then kills the person who was raped's significant other. This just goes on and on.

Most of the philosophy is just kinda do whatever you want without really calculating if getting revenge is even helpful. I'm not really trying to make a point I'm just thinking about the concept and I really enjoy hearing raddle users thoughts on stuff like this since often something profound is said. So my questions

  1. Do you think the concept that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind is correct?

  2. Are you concerned about vengeance making more victims who need to get vengeance

  3. Do you think murder as punishment rather than self defense is ever a good idea?

  4. What kind of philosophy do you have for dealing with abusers and shit heads in your life without using the state. I.e. I try to forgive them and make sure I and those I care about are protected, do the same violence against them as revenge, do the same violence against them so maybe they can empathize with their victim and change their behavior, or something else?

Obviously it matters a lot of the individual circumstance but I few like a lot of the vigilante dealing with issues continuates and reaffirms some toxicly masculine ideas maybe. Not saying thats wrong but I think individuals dealing with abusers inherently deal with some framework so this question is still relevant despite these philosophies needing lots of adjustments at the individual level.

As usual I'm quite thankful to anyone who takes their time to interact with my questions. Peoples responses often end up leading to me changing how I view the world in some way so I'm quite thankful.

11

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

rot wrote

i don't think revenge is as useful as we want it to be. we feel pain and think that if we make the people who caused it to feel that pain then somehow we'll be healed.

Except it doesn't work like that. Revenge doesn't heal anything , you get revenge and then still need help, still need to recover. I'm not a pacifist but you have to think about when you use violence and the outcome of the action.

So yes, violence can often lead to nothing but more pain.

9

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Do you think the concept that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind is correct?

No. Marking my worldview off of a phrase is a terrible idea. I see no problem with stealing form someone who stole from you or fighting off someone who assaulted you, but reacting to killing with "community sanctioned execution" is too close to capital punishment for my liking.

Are you concerned about vengeance making more victims who need to get vengeance?

No, because I believe that it's basically a part of the human condition at this point. Doesn't matter if there's a state or not, though the lack of a state would isolate these to smaller skirmishes and would certainly kill fewer people.

Do you think murder as punishment rather than self defense is ever a good idea?

"Murder" is literally just "unlawful killing"; you can't punish with "murder". Punitive killing is called an execution; which is never a good idea. Killing in self defense, at the heat of the moment, is one thing; it's another entirely to get a group together to decide "we're going to go through a ritual to decide to kill this person". Reminds me of lynch mobs. Fuck that.

What kind of philosophy do you have for dealing with abusers and shit heads in your life without using the state.

My philosophy on this issue is entirely useless for anyone that is dependent on their abuser for whatever reason. Abuse is a complicated affair to deal with; the state and capitalism forcing people (especially women, children, and the elderly) into financial dependence makes it even harder.

5

DeletedButArchived OP wrote

No. Marking my worldview off of a phrase is a terrible idea. I see no problem with stealing form someone who stole from you or fighting off someone who assaulted you, but reacting to killing with "community sanctioned execution" is too close to capital punishment for my liking.

I was more talking about the idea behind the phrase, such as blood feuds in Turkey not if the phrase itself all ways applies. It's just an easy way to talk about the concept cuz I'm lazy.

No, because I believe that it's basically a part of the human condition at this point. Doesn't matter if there's a state or not, though the lack of a state would isolate these to smaller skirmishes and would certainly kill fewer people

Why are you ok with something just bc it's natural?

My philosophy on this issue is entirely useless for anyone that is dependent on their abuser for whatever reason.

I mean sure, but I'm Curious what it is even if it isn't applicable to people who are dependant on their abuser. Large amounts aren't and abuse often can be a one time thing. In this context I'm referring to stuff such as rape, killing and extortion as abuse.

3

OdiousOutlaw wrote

I was more talking about the idea behind the phrase, such as blood feuds in Turkey not if the phrase itself all ways applies. It's just an easy way to talk about the concept cuz I'm lazy.

I understand that; I'm just saying that applying a concept or sentiment universally isn't something I'm into.

Why are you ok with something just bc it's natural?

It has less to do with being "ok" and more to do with it being inevitable. People are different and react differently to things. Some are willing to forgive and forget, some are just willing to forgive, some will seek retribution, and others just enjoy having an outlet to inflict pain and death on people. Best thing to do is make sure the last two have as little influence and power as possible. I can't control the individual tendencies in other people, and I wouldn't bother pretending that I could or that I would.

I mean sure, but I'm Curious what it is even if it isn't applicable to people who are dependant on their abuser. Large amounts aren't and abuse often can be a one time thing. In this context I'm referring to stuff such as rape, killing and extortion as abuse.

Fine. I believe that one should flee or attack their malefactor if they are able to, I'm firmly against imprisoning one's malefactor; lethal force shouldn't be the first resort, but it also shouldn't be off the table. There are obvious issues with this, I know; but generally speaking, I wouldn't rely on a rigid set of guidelines for anything for many reasons.

4

zoom_zip wrote

i really struggle with this

i’ve been trying to figure this out for a while

here’s where i’m at

Do you think the concept that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind is correct?

yeah? i think the revenge-chain scenario that you describe is definitely a possibility. one act of revenge creating the next one. but also, it’s not that simple. you can only get revenge on someone who you know. if person x kills person y, and person z doesn’t know that person x killed person y, they can’t enact revenge and the chain breaks. some people might agree with the revenge and just call it quits and the chain breaks. etc. etc.

Are you concerned about vengeance making more victims who need to get vengeance

this is kinda the same as question 1? but in some way could this be an incentive to resolve issues peacefully through agreements/mediation/compromise? why would i not try and resolve a grievance peacefully if i knew that the alternative was to start a revenge chain? I’d consider it really heavily before making the decision.

Do you think murder as punishment rather than self defense is ever a good idea?

ever?

that’s hard. my instinct is to say no, but

if i’m thinking emotionally, maybe some people should die?

What kind of philosophy do you have for dealing with abusers and shit heads in your life without using the state. I.e. I try to forgive them and make sure I and those I care about are protected, do the same violence against them as revenge, do the same violence against them so maybe they can empathize with their victim and change their behavior, or something else?

forgive if i can (mediation/compromise/reflection). disconnect from them if i can’t. i’ve very rarely had a few scenarios where i haven’t been able to do either of those (one a prolonged harassment against my family). if i’m honest, i would have enacted violence if i thought it would have made the harassment stop.

4

DeletedButArchived OP wrote

For how insecure you sound this Is a take I like better than most.

this is kinda the same as question 1? but in some way could this be an incentive to resolve issues peacefully through agreements/mediation/compromise? why would i not try and resolve a grievance peacefully if i knew that the alternative was to start a revenge chain? I’d consider it really heavily before making the decision

I think a major issue is that if you or your friend is victimized you're not gonna be making logical decisions. They are going to be incredibly emotional discussions that are mostly fueled by culture and current beliefs. So this would only function if this was thought about before the victimization happened. Supposedly Turkish blood feuds are a good place to study this chain of victimization in real life. Tho I having researched it much. Just mentioning it in case ur interested.

What kind of philosophy do you have for dealing with abusers and shit heads in your life without using the state. I.e. I try to forgive them and make sure I and those I care about are protected, do the same violence against them as revenge, do the same violence against them so maybe they can empathize with their victim and change their behavior, or something else

My thought process goes like this. So let's say someone is acussed of pedophilia or rape in a smallish community a non punishment or killing solution doesn't require having the victim prove anything. Having them agree to listening to how actions effect victims and having someone help them mentally sort through why they have such bigoted beliefs would be helpful even if they didn't do it. Best case scenario you rehabilitate a rapist worse case scenario a non rapist becomes a feminist and realizes how toxic masculinity effects their beliefs unknowingly.

Now to be safe having them watched is prob a good idea. They have to have a roommate with a trusted person and everyone agrees to keep an eye on that person and not really leave them alone with one person especially if they are going or easy to manipulate.

This kinda sucks if you didn't do it but isn't to big of a deal. This theoretically prevents them from victimizing someone again bc they are all ways watched by someone.

This won't work if they leave and no one knows they are a possible rapist. So I'm kinda lost on what to do to prevent more victims. Like brand them on the hand or something which is kinda fucked. I honestly don't think anyone really has a solution to preventing rape other than rehabilitation or kill them. Which is really fucked to think about.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

I just defend myself, give others knowledge where appropriate, and encourage healthy decision making in my circles.

I don't have a desire to punish others, and I am suspicious of the anger I feel when I am wronged. Vengeance doesn't lead me to a greater sense of happiness, it is a toxic way of relating to myself that I don't seek to dwell in, as much as possible. I am frankly mistrustful of people who do not share my values on the subject, regardless of how valid their feelings are.

4

DeletedButArchived OP wrote

How do you feel about the idea that if you let people hurt you without punishing them that others will view you as an easy victim. example: nazi is graffiting hate speech and you stop them midway. You don't punish them so the other nazis learn that there isn't much of a consequence to graffiting hate around CR other than getting yelled at or scared off. The example itself isn't really important, but was more to help understand the concept I was asking. I'm not really curious if there is a more effective method to defend against nazis doing hate speech but the idea that letting injustice go without punishment causes you to be victimized more.

To be clear I don't believe this personally but I'm not really sure what to say to people who say they want to punish people who hurt them to discourage them from further abuse.

I guess the best criticism of this idea is to think how I would react to punishment. Lets say the US government made it illegal for people to be openly queer or promote queerness. I wouldn't really stop doing queerness. I would change how I'm open about queer and promote queerness to make it harder for those to wish to punishment. So, maybe most things are like this. Punishment doesn't really encourage me to not do crime. It just makes me put more work in so I don't get caught.

Tho, on the other hand punishment might work. Recreational drug use has harsh penalties in the US. Large portions of the population would never consider doing drugs as they don't want to go to prison or have the negative social punishments of being a junkie or a criminal. So maybe there is more effectiveness to punishment than I give it credit. While I feel like punishment is probably a more effective tactic than I give credit I still don't really like it.

Maybe the best response is to help people have great security so abusers don't need to be punished as they don't have to victimize people as they are too secure. I don't know, I'm still thinking about it a lot. I'd like your input tho.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

How do you feel about the idea that if you let people hurt you without punishing them that others will view you as an easy victim.

In self-defense, especially more collective or abstracted forms of self-defense, there is plenty of opportunity for someone to die. Self-defense, rather than punishment, is almost always effective on its own terms, because serious self-defense that matches the level of violence the perpetrator is using, will generally deter the perpetrator from exposing themselves to defensive measures.

You don't need to be sadistic and punish someone, to deter them. You just need to be able to defend what you seek to defend, effectively.

Punishment doesn't really encourage me to not do crime. It just makes me put more work in so I don't get caught.

This is pretty accurate.

Recreational drug use has harsh penalties in the US. Large portions of the population would never consider doing drugs as they don't want to go to prison or have the negative social punishments of being a junkie or a criminal. So maybe there is more effectiveness to punishment than I give it credit.

No, there isn't, because these people would not do drugs for fear of health consequences, not legal ones. They also don't do drugs, because of the social consequences, which come primarily informally and not through the legal system itself.

Maybe the best response is to help people have great security so abusers don't need to be punished as they don't have to victimize people as they are too secure.

There is a will-to-dominate, which causes abusive behavior, so this won't encompass everything. Adding security helps, primarily by giving potential victims enough power to stop or speak up about the abuse, but abuse will still happen in places where people are not socially insecure. In general, there are no silver bullets.

3

DeletedButArchived OP wrote (edited )

I'm glad you responded a lot. The concept of just defend yourself and not seek justice is an idea that seems really simple but I had never considered before.

Your first reply has catalyzed a lot of thoughts about justice and defense. I'm still thinking about it but that idea was one of the more impactful things I've heard in a while.

Not that other raddle content isn't impactful it's just that sometimes a comment or post can cause me to view an issue in a completely different light which can be a mini profound experience.

2

Pash wrote

If someone receives punishment for wrongdoing, then the punished, the punisher, and the broader community should all have the clear understanding that this ends the feud.

3

DeletedButArchived OP wrote (edited )

But what happens if one of these parties disagree? If Someone who was raped sees their rapist get off scott free to rape other people theyre not going to have the feud ended because the commuhnity said so.

Communities almost never can come to a consensus. If you kill my mom I'm not going to stop being pissed because the community decides that the feud is ended.

I'm not criticising I'm just trying to understand.

5

Pash wrote

Sorry, I meant victim + guilty person + broader society as the thee parties that must agree.

4

MHC wrote

There are various forms of justice: natural, retributive etc. I have explained to a juvenile alcoholic, the effect of his having beaten me up!

2