Revenge Really Does Taste Sweet

Wizzy Wig writes "The Toronto Star is reporting on scientific experiments showing a link between revenge and the 'pleasure center' of the human brain, thus putting a nature spin on something heretofore thought of as a nurture based, or learned, emotion."

Comments

Let's admint it... revenge feels good

[Anonymous Coward]

Revenge is always one of those things that, besides are better ethics not too, always makes one feel good.

It's never a matter of being right or wrong, it's that feeling of justice I suppose, the feeling that we have, in our eyes, made things right in the world .

Of course, it's also immensely selfish and one sided.

Cheers,
James Carr

Re:Let's admint it... revenge feels good

[E_elven]

Revenge fulfills two basic instincts: survival (by ensuring the perceived threat no longer exists) and validation (by making one feel stronger than the revengee).

Frankly, I don't see why this 'study' was necessary.

Re:Let's admint it... revenge feels good

[Grym]

I believe that people who feel an overwhelming urge to murder without any specific reason why should in all good faith submit themselves to this process before they start murdering people.

How can you honestly expect people who feel an irrational urge to kill to have the cognitive capacity to: 1. Correctly identify their psychological problem (quite a feat for even normal people) 2. Submit to confinement and unpleasurable treatment for the abstract goal of the better good of society.

...The world's population is exploding and that means that there's a lot of surplus people around...They aren't going to be missed and there's a lot of people who aren't serial killers around to take their place...

Here's the fallacy of your argument: the moral status of a human being does not change with respect to the world's population. In fact, the two are wholly unrelated. Murder is equally wrong if its committed upon 10th or 10 trillionth person. Besides, who decides who is "surplus" and who isn't? You? Can you point to any specific biological reason why you, as opposed to myself, couldn't be the surplus?

There are religious objections to this point of view, of course. But the religious laws were formulated thousands of years ago when there weren't many people around,it wasn't easy to bring infants into adults, people died mysteriously (from disease and accident), and no one lived very long anyway (average life span about 3000 years ago was about 35-40 years).

Ahh... but there are ETHICAL (and logical) objections to that point of view too, and no matter what your religious views, these are just as relevant today as they were 3000 years ago.

Basically the entire Iraqi war is an attempt on the part of the Christian fundamentalists who are now running the USA to force the Muslems to change and adapt to the new conditions in the world that technology has created in the past century

Christian fundamentalists run the US? Well that's news to me, both a Christian and a US resident. You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the "bible-belt" as evidence of his religious views. Bush may be conservative, but that shouldn't be taken as him being extremely religious. In fact, he, and the Bush family in general is quite moderate in their religious points of view. Regardless, for your thesis to be correct (i.e. Christian fundamentalists "run" the United States), you'd have to come up with some good explanations to the following: 1. prevalence of the gay marriage issue in American politics 2. The continuing practice of legalized abortion 3. The secular nature of our schooling system and public places 4. The acceptance of other religions and practices contrary to fundamentalist Christianity in both public life and legal standing. I could go on, but I think you have enough on your plate already.

For you what all the stuff above means is that since this is a stupid endless wastefull and hopeless war, it would be in your best interest not to fight in it. Don't allow yourself to be conscripted into fighting this war. Don't sign up to fight it and don't allow yourself to get drafted when conscription of the 19-year-olds begins again next year. History has shown that it is more honorable to do whatever degrading things that are necessary to avoid being forced into a stupid war than it is to suffer in a 'patriotic' manner as a result of 'serving' in a stupid war...

If you don't agree with the war, vote against it and convince others to do the same. However, you have no right to resist conscription unless you have extreme moral objections to killing in general--which, according to your earlier statements, you do not. By willingly residing within the United States, you agree to the possibility of conscription (read more of Glaucon's Social contract theory if you don't believe me). Your cowardice and/or opinions do not change your societal obligations, and failing to uphold those obligations is perhaps one of the most dis-honorable things a person can do.

-Grym

Re:What this might mean

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

Going against basic instincts can eventually cause insanity or at least mental instability.

I think a better solution is to find a safe outlet for these urges. Sports are a fairly common choice, but there is a wide range of activities that allow you to vent your frustrations without driving dangerously or beating spouses/offspring.

Re:Um and your point being?

[druhol]

The point is that revenge has a biological basis; it's not a learned behavior, as was previously thought. This has serious implications about human behavior and society.

Re:What this might mean

[dhilvert]

'[I]f we want to be civilized humans, we have to go against these basic, animalistic instincts.'

'Is anyone else here thinking "Prisoner's dilemma"?'

In the iterated prisoner's dilemma, the potential for revenge is an incentive to cooperate. In light of this, your assumption -- that revenge is inherently inimical to civilization -- does not obviously hold.

South africa

[SmallFurryCreature]

After the apartheid regime crumbled there was need to settle things. It would have been very easy for the ANC to exact revenge on the whites. Yet Nelson Mandella choose not to. Instead a very lengthy make up process was started in wich people talked to each other. Prison guard to prisoner. Rioter to victim.

South africa had seen a very bitter and long conflict not just between white and black but between whites and whites. Brown and black. Black and black. Zulus where used by the white goverment as a way to keep the ANC down. People from india where put in a middle position. Jews were on the outside white but just as prosecuted.

So why was there no revenge? Their sure was enough on all sides to be bitter about.

Because all sides realized that revenge was not an option. Even the neo-nazis realized that either there was peace or they were going to get slaughtered.

Peace was possible because no side wanted to risk war.

An example to the world that we can rise above ourselves. And sadly one that is almost impossible to duplicate. Usually at least one side thinks that he will win the war. The person cutting you off doesn't consider that he will die horribly in an accident or that you will gun him down. The rapist does not consider he will go to jail. The troll does not consider that someone will look him up and punch his face in.

South africa didn't take revenge because they were afraid of what revenge would do to them.

So I disagree with out. I think revenge is very usefull. Most usefull when both sides fear the potential of revenge.

The extreme side of the lack of fear of revenge are terrorist attacks. Al Quada could attack because they didn't fear anything america could do back. Or do you really think Osama Bin Laden gives a damn about the people on his side killed?

On the other hand america can act like a real prick because it does not live in fear that someday the world will get revenge. Look at vietnam. America slaughtered yet lives free from ever having to face the consequences.

Revenge is sweet but the fear of revenge keeps humans "civilized" where civilized translates as "from bashing each others head in".

Revenge vs Justice, Pleasure vs Happiness

[linuxhansl]

Revenge is like many other desires: If we follow them blindly they lead to short term pleasure but longterm lead to unhappiness as we never learned how to sustain the pleasures (which some claim is in fact not possible).

It's too bad that in many western societies Justice is almost equivalent to Revenge.

This may be a little offtopic...

Justice should never appeal to the "lower" human feeling, but rather be designed to prevent crime from happending in the first place. Revenge has no place in Justice as it does nothing to "undo" the crime after it happened.

Crimes are prevented by:

1. Eliminating the reason (for example poverty and social inequalities).
2. Education (for example learn to deal with jealousy, envy, and other desires and feelings in a non-violent way)
3. Deterrance (if you commit a crime, face the consequences).
4. Reparation (not preventing anything, but necessary to repair the damage caused - this is not revenge!)

This is a big difference, although in practise the differences are subtle; i.e. are you locking somebody up because of revenge or deterrance?

When somebody is punished for a crime, there should be no pleasure and no feeling of revenge or even accomblishment! Rather there should be the urge to understand why the crime happened and the understanding that this is necessary to deter the next.