Question about motivation regarding revenge.

[QuickTwist]

It almost seems like its in human nature that in justice, as it is perceived by the subject giving out judgement, that it is almost always more severe when comparing the severity to the injustice done. Why do we do this? It doesn't seem rational. What cause us to act this way from an evolutionary standpoint? The animal kingdom also behaves this way, so what gives? Its almost like there is a law that what is taken in reciprocation more is taken from the taker. Why?

 

[Teax]

Evolutionary speaking, it would be plausible that Mutually Assured Destruction helps to keep a population in a stable state through fear. Weren't lots of cultures based on the "eye for an eye" mentality rather than law? Not officially of course but still.

 

[QuickTwist]

Evolutionary speaking, it would be plausible that Mutually Assured Destruction helps to keep a population in a stable state through fear. Weren't lots of cultures based on the "eye for an eye" mentality rather than law? Not officially of course but still.

So what changed it? It seems reasonable that revenge use to be, and still in some place in the world, that when you did something in retaliation that it was worse that what happened to you.

I should note that I might be drawing from my own personal experience in how punishment is more extreme than the offence.

 

[Teax]

Nothing changed. I don't think "judgement" is the same as fairness or equality.


Notice the sword :

 

[ruminator]

It almost seems like its in human nature that in justice, as it is perceived by the subject giving out judgement, that it is almost always more severe when comparing the severity to the injustice done. Why do we do this? It doesn't seem rational. What cause us to act this way from an evolutionary standpoint? The animal kingdom also behaves this way, so what gives? Its almost like there is a law that what is taken in reciprocation more is taken from the taker. Why?

I don't think the retaliation is more extreme than the original bad act usually. It is normally more about "getting even". Can you give an example where it is more extreme?

And even assuming it is more extreme, it could be reasonable:

Person 1 committed a bad act with a bad intention
If person 2 retaliates with an equivalent bad act, it will cancel out person 1's bad act in and of itself, but it won't cancel out the bad intention (because person 2's intention is legitimate). So, person 2 would retaliate with a more extreme bad act to take into account person 1's malice as well.

 

[QuickTwist]

OK, so example: a person steals food from someone. The punishment is to cut off their hand.

 

[ruminator]

OK, so example: a person steals food from someone. The punishment is to cut off their hand.

My best guess is the intent thing I described above - punishing the malice in addition to the act itself

 

[QuickTwist]

My best guess is the intent thing I described above - punishing the malice in addition to the act itself

cutting off someone's hand in the case of stealing food is a 3 fold punishment. It inflicts physical pain, it pays back the act of stealing and it keeps them from using that hand for the rest of their life.