Modern Philosophers Against Revenge
No argument drawn from biological necessity would impress philosophers who, since the Enlightenment, have often written as if man were either naturally good or was only weakly endowed with a bundle of propensities known by philosophers as human nature or, by Christians, as "the old Adam." If men were really, as Locke and Rousseau pretended to believe, primarily rational (even benevolent) beings, human individuals could be expected to seek their own self-interests in a rational manner.
]From what we know of our own society--and of other societies that have left witnesses or records--many men and women are driven by irrational desires to seek what is often their own destruction. That is the theme of Juvenal's tenth satire, adapted by Samuel Johnson as "The Vanity of Human Wishes:"
Let observation with extensive view,
Survey mankind, from China to Peru;
Remark each anxious toil, each eager strife,
And watch the busy scenes of crowded life;
Then say how hope and fear, desire and hate,
O’erspread with snares the clouded maze of fate,
Where wav’ring man, betray’d by vent’rous pride,
To tread the dreary paths without a guide,
As treach’rous phantoms in the mist delude,
Shuns fancied ills, or chases airy good.
How rarely reason guides the stubborn choice,
Rules the bold hand, or prompts the suppliant voice,
How nations sink, by darling schemes oppress’d,
When vengeance listens to the fool’s request.
In the pursuit of their own interests, even rational men might be led to engage in anti-social and destructive acts. When crimes are committed, the object of law and penology, in a rationally organized society, is to discourage such unproductive behavior by punishing the malefactors. The primary goal of enlightened penology is, therefore, educational.
Such, in substance, was the argument that Cesare Beccaria put forward in his celebrated essay "On Crime and Punishments." Beccaria never challenged the right and duty of governments to punish and deter crime, and his theory did have a wholesome effect in discouraging torture and cruel and unusual punishments. Nonetheless, it is only a theory and one that does not take very much human reality into consideration. Like his enlightened predecessors, Beccaria took little notice of powerful human passions such as gratitude, love of beauty—or revenge.
Beccaria was neither an original nor a particularlysignificant thinker, and his reputation rests on his repackaging of Enlightenment platitudes to serve as propaganda against traditional methods of punishment. One of these platitudes is the theory of social progress according to which human civilization is marked by mankind's efforts to liberate itself from the tyranny of irrational superstition and traditions. That this progressive theory of history is as much a piece of historical myth-making as the stories in Hesiod and Genesis, did not occur to young intellectuals in the throes of Enlightenment enthusiasms, but then one man’s religion is always another man’s superstition. Postmodern men and women condemn the chauvinism of super-patriots, while they completely ignore the chauvinism of progress that encourages each generation to despise its predecessors. To repeat a proverbial expression from the Dark Age, we are all giants standing on the shoulders of dwarfs.
Beccaria inevitably accepted the Enlightenment myth of the state of nature and the social contract according to which men are supposed to have invented law and punishment in order to eliminate the inconveniences arising from the savage state. In early stages of human civilization, punishments were an extension of the private revenge taken by one's kinfolks, but, in the course of human progress, government has taken over more and more of these responsibilities. The process, fraught with ironies, depends on the inability to realize that “government”—as Libertarians like to say—is just another word to describe groups of men who band together to seek their own interest. If human individuals, subject to greed, envy, lust, and ambition, are tempted to violate the rights of their neighbor, why should we expect a group of individuals to do anything different? For his work analyzing the self-interested operation of “public choice,” James Buchanan received the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Jeremy Bentham, among the most acute of Liberal reformers, tried to reconcile the pursuit of individual interest with the common good. He also spent a great deal of time trying to reform England’s system of crime and punishment. Bentham began with the theoretical assumption that the only justification for punishment was the prevention of future crimes. The first consequence of his theory is that if we knew absolutely that the criminal would not repeat his crime, the forces of law and order would not be justified in punishing him. The second consequence is that rehabilitation of the criminal is made more important than the exaction of vengeance for his crime.
If Bentham’s speculation were correct, we should be nearing the desired point at which computers could apply the relevant laws to specific cases and impose appropriate penalties. Before reaching that state of rationalized bliss, however, we have been talked into accepting a criminal justice system in which the needs of felons take precedence over the protection of the citizens or the most obvious requirements of justice. On the strength of pure speculation, then, we have abandoned a well-nigh universal understanding that justice is rooted in revenge, and, in abandoning tradition, religion, and common sense, we no longer punish rapists and murderers in proportion to the severity of their crimes. Instead our system routinely mitigates punishments according to considerations of social deprivation or mental illness.
Modern notions of justice are not merely impractical: They are, in fact, contradicted by what we know of human nature. The harsher punishments of earlier times are condemned as “vengeance” in the belief that sticks and stones will break no bones but words will always hurt me. Despite the millions of pages printed to condemn capital punishment as revenge and revenge in any form as unworthy of human dignity, the desire for revenge has never gone away. It remains constant, and those who feel cheated of justice will begin to listen to the ancient siren song of vengeance.
Could it be that the “ancient siren song of vengeance” is rooted in the ten commandments and modern man has abandoned them?
For modern philosophers to say that revenge in any form is unworthy of human dignity is to abandon the worth and dignity of those who do no harm and places everyone on an equal plain.
The Ten Commandments are a distillation of the Old Law. I don’t know when they were written down. The standard academic view puts the Pentateuch as a response to the Babylonian Captivity, in other words in the sixth century B.C. or even a bit later. I simply do not know. If the scholars are correct, the work is at least two centuries later than the Iliad, though both the Iliad and Exodus are expressing a tradition that goes back to about the same time, late in the Second Millennium. Certainly, the complex of human behaviors that go by the English words revenge, vengeance, and the Italian vendetta are part of our makeup, whether one believes that that makeup was determined by our Creator, by genetic evolution, or, as I happen to believe, both. That was the point of my brief account of vengeance-seeking chimpanzees in an earlier installment of this series.
PS Perhaps I should add that I have never understood the Christian fixation on the Ten Commandments. Apart from the prohibition against setting other gods above the God of the Jews, there is hardly anything exotic in ancient cultures condemning and punishing murder, theft, adultery, and enjoining respect for parents. Keeping Saturday holy is different, of course, but only in details, since Sumerians and Babylonians, Greeks and Romans were all expected to take part in community worship of their chief gods. The one real puzzler is the prohibition against “coveting”. If the Hebrew is correctly translated by the Septuagint and the Vulgate–which I am informed by Hebrew scholars that they are–then it is a strangely subjective, an anticipation of Christ’s arguments in the Sermon on the Mount. But. try as I might in old age to learn Hebrew, I don’t know enough to have a useful opinion.
Thank you for your quick reply.
“Despite the millions of pages printed to condemn capital punishment as revenge and revenge in any form as unworthy of human dignity, the desire for revenge has never gone away. It remains constant, and those who feel cheated of justice will begin to listen to the ancient siren song of vengeance.”
Just so. Whether revenge is ever justified is a different question from whether it is ever virtuous.
Ray, you have taken a first step in admirably stating the question. Before we are through I shall be asking the opposite question: Can the denial of justice in the name of philanthropy be an act of virtue? But let us postpone that question until we have covered more ground. In my younger days, before there was a Pappa Polacco in the chair of St Peter, I was fervently committed to the notion that the human person was all we had, and to deny even a ruthless serial killer to death could not therefore be just. Even though a young man, I was not a complete fool, and I respect the position taken by honest pacifists, even though I have come to realize that it is not a position compatible with Christian teaching from the beginning. Of course, most of the opposition to the death penaly these days does not come from sincere pacifists but from justice hating hypocrites like Norman Mailer and Bill Buckley, who used their influence to spring evil men, who committed murder once they were released, from the prosecutors who are letting loose psychopathic pedophiles in California and returning violent men to the streets of New York. I am going to be calling as my allies–as on the old game shows, where Vincent Price and Eddie Robinson would be summoned to help contestants answer questions on art–a wide range of people from Aristotle and St Paul to Dante and Dr. Johnson. Thank you for helping to point the discussion, calmly and rationally, in the right direction.