Analysis Of Revenge In Murphy's 'Two Cheers For Vindictiveness'

Punishment out of vengeance in order to get even or back at someone is defined as revenge. This desire for revenge is called vindictiveness, defined as an unpleasant emotion such as anger one feels when they have been wronged. Revenge is often seen in a negative light and is often condemned because it compromises one's values. The controversy of revenge is due to its complexity and whether or not it can be justified. These ideas are looked at in Jeffrie Murphy’s “Two Cheers for Vindictiveness”. Murphy uncovers the rationality and moral legitimacy of revenge. Murphy’s strongest arguments are against the irrationality of revenge. He does this by exposing the weaknesses of those who oppose revenge and shows how vindictive passions can be justified …show more content…
He believes there are no exceptions since it is completely immoral and irrational even in moderation. Aristotle believes that one needs to train one’s self to take pleasure in the right things in moderation. One can enjoy everything without damaging the ability to enjoy other things. He believes that moral qualities can be destroyed by deficiency or excess. Too much or too little of something is bad. In order to avoid this, one has to find the golden mean, which differs for everyone. One must find balance in all aspects of life that will give someone the right impulses, judgment, and character. In regards to revenge, revenge is seen as a passion of malice, in which one harms others for one’s own sake. Revenge is not in his mean diagram because vindictiveness is bad in moderation, excess, and deficiency. Vindictiveness is beyond irrational. Aristotle believes that it is essential for humans to rationalize since we are able to think, understand, and choose. One must give everything their complete ability and fully engage their rational soul. With that said, for one to perform revenge they are not fulfilling their unique function as a human