Register to read the introduction…
There are multiple reasons why revenge has an inclined possibility of not fulfilling one's expectations. One reason is because of rumination. (Carlsmith 2008) For example: if a person does not avenge, then it will most likely trivialize the received offense by thinking that the reason that he/she did not avenge was because it was not worth it. But, if a person does avenge, it will often accredit the reason for their desire of vengeance to the fact that the receiving party (the one that committed the initial offensive act) deserved what was given as a result. Consequently, although the person might use this reasoning to justify that the revenge was worth it, it will often leave him/her dwelling over what he did and make matters even worse Another reason is that revenge may prolong and increment the distastefulness of the original offense, leaving the person unsatisfied with its intended act for retribution, and as a result, encouraging more harmful behavior. (Carlsmith 2008) This is due to the improbability of someone having exact moral equilibrium with another person. Thanks to this, the person on the supposed unjust side of the spectrum will have the need of making things
…show more content…
He is interested in the cases in which it is successful; the fact that revenge most often ends in an unsatisfactory conclusion does not mean that it cannot succeed in quenching one's desires. Gollwitzer (2011) has examined the reasons why revenge could be satisfying and delved into two different theories. The first one is “comparative suffering” in which he states that by simply acknowledging the offender's suffering, the victim is to be satisfied, whether if it was personally inflicted or not. This theory follows a similar mentality of “Misery loves company” in the sense that just seeing that the other person is suffering as you did will make one feel better. The second theory is the “understanding hypothesis” which is the idea that for one to truly achieve a satisfying act of revenge, the avenger has to acknowledge that the offender made the connection between the act of vengeance and the initial offense. (Gollwitzer 2011) This means that revenge itself is not enough for one to be truly
He is interested in the cases in which it is successful; the fact that revenge most often ends in an unsatisfactory conclusion does not mean that it cannot succeed in quenching one's desires. Gollwitzer (2011) has examined the reasons why revenge could be satisfying and delved into two different theories. The first one is “comparative suffering” in which he states that by simply acknowledging the offender's suffering, the victim is to be satisfied, whether if it was personally inflicted or not. This theory follows a similar mentality of “Misery loves company” in the sense that just seeing that the other person is suffering as you did will make one feel better. The second theory is the “understanding hypothesis” which is the idea that for one to truly achieve a satisfying act of revenge, the avenger has to acknowledge that the offender made the connection between the act of vengeance and the initial offense. (Gollwitzer 2011) This means that revenge itself is not enough for one to be truly