[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-607959-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-607959-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","private-revenge-and-its-relation-to-punishment","Private Revenge and its Relation to Punishment","","Private Revenge and its Relation to Punishment examines why moral philosophy largely overlooks private revenge compared with extensive retributive theories of punishment. The article reviews classical and contemporary positions and highlights ongoing uncertainty about whether revenge can resemble lawful punishment in motive, purpose, or justification. It argues that some revenge may appear just to its victim yet still be judged morally wrong, creating a challenge for purely retributive accounts to explain the objection without relying on consequentialist reasons.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/private-revenge-and-its-relation-to-punishment/607959/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/private-revenge-and-its-relation-to-punishment/607959.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Franzy","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-10-17",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the central topic of this article?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The article investigates private revenge and its ethical relation to lawful punishment, focusing on how revenge can (or cannot) resemble punishment in motive, purpose, or justification.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Why does the author say discussions of revenge are rare in moral philosophy?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The author argues that revenge is intertwined with the discussion of legal punishment in most writers and that philosophers also fail to agree on what counts as “revenge,” undermining coherent debate.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What challenge does private revenge pose for retributive punishment theories?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It is difficult for purely retributive theories to explain why morally wrong objections apply to revenge even when some acts of revenge may be just in a minimal sense, without invoking consequentialist reasons.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},607959,1792457423,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},2336478945519,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Private Revenge and its Relation to Punishment  \nBRIAN ROSE BURY  \nUniversity of Central Lancashire  \nIn contrast to the vast literature on retributive theories of punishment, discussions of private revenge are rare in moral philosophy. This article reviews some examples, from both classical and recent writers, finding uncertainty and equivocation over the ethical significance of acts of revenge, and in particular over their possible resemblances, in motive, purpose or justification, to acts of lawful punishment. A key problem for the coherence of our ethical conception of revenge is the consideration that certain acts of revenge may be just (at least in the minimal sense that the victim of revenge has no grounds for complaint against the revenger) and yet be generally agreed to be morally wrong. The challenge of explaining adequately why private revenge is morally wrong poses particular difficulty for purely retributive theories of punishment, since without invoking consequentialist reasons it does not seem possible adequately to motivate an objection to just and proportionate acts of revenge.  \nI  \n‘Revenge’ is a familiar term in ordinary discourse, and is often deployed polemically in public debate. But we will be disappointed, or at least confused, if we look to the philosophical literature to clarify our thoughts about it. Many philosophers who refer to revenge give the impression of having one eye on some more elevated topic; and the philosophical literature lacks the continuity, the sense of an ongoing debate around consistent or emergent issues, to be found in many other areas of moral philosophy.  \nThere are, I believe, two main reasons for this. One is the evident impossibility of erecting a firewall between the discussion of private revenge1 and the discussion of legal punishment, the lawful affliction of convicted wrongdoers by the criminal justice system. Indeed, in most writers, any discussion of the vengeful motives or actions of private individuals is as a strategic prelude or annex to a theory of punishment. There is enough resemblance between the two practices to suggest certain questions to any reflective person. Is punishment in a wellordered society to be understood as a legally authorized and controlled form of revenge? Is it a justifying purpose of legal punishment that it removes the need for, or diminishes the temptation to, private revenge? What, if anything, connects the vindictive feelings of the person injured  \n1 By ‘private’ I mean simply ‘without legal authority’. I do not mean to limit the expression to acts performed without public knowledge or outside the public arena.  \n© 2009 Cambridge University Press Utilitas Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2009  \ndoi:10 . 1017/S0953820808003336 Printed in the United Kingdom  \n2 Brian Rosebury  \nby a crime, the sympathetic indignation of the observing public, and the judgements, beliefs and objectives that motivate our criminal justice system in punishing the offender? These are recurring and still unresolved questions: not only is there no consensus on the answers but in one or two cases, as we shall see later, individual philosophers have equivocated or admitted their own uncertainty. Instead of a firewall between the topics of revenge and punishment, we have an irregular hedge in poor repair.  \nThere is a second and even more basic reason for the incoherence in the existing literature on revenge. This is that the philosophers who have considered the subject have not been able to agree on the conditions which make the term ‘revenge’ applicable to an action. The common ground necessary for productive debate is lacking. There is, tobe sure, a perceptible common tendency towards limiting the definition of revenge, in such a way as to dissociate it from it other, more generally esteemed practices (such as punishment, or manifestations of righteous anger) which may seem to resemble it. But the limitations vary a good deal. Some philosophers restrict the application of the term","cbCaidj5fVTaXFD3","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidj5fVTaXFD3","pdf",108756,22,"English","# Introduction\n## Why private revenge discussions are rare\n## The connection between revenge and legal punishment\n# Problems in the literature on revenge\n## Lack of agreement on the concept of revenge\n## Competing restrictive definitions\n# Examples from recent writers","[{\"question\":\"What is the central topic of this article?\",\"answer\":\"The article investigates private revenge and its ethical relation to lawful punishment, focusing on how revenge can (or cannot) resemble punishment in motive, purpose, or justification.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author say discussions of revenge are rare in moral philosophy?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues that revenge is intertwined with the discussion of legal punishment in most writers and that philosophers also fail to agree on what counts as “revenge,” undermining coherent debate.\"},{\"question\":\"What challenge does private revenge pose for retributive punishment theories?\",\"answer\":\"It is difficult for purely retributive theories to explain why morally wrong objections apply to revenge even when some acts of revenge may be just in a minimal sense, without invoking consequentialist reasons.\"}]","Private Revenge and its Relation to Punishment | PDF",1792208248,55]