Revenge and righteousness. That is a theme that resonates from m monologue and through the book macbeth in general. This is the force that set out Macduff to dethrone macbeth, after he had slain his family. Is revenge ever justified? That is the question of this essay. Can revenge and righteousness ever go hand in hand, or are they permanently split in half with a wall separating them?
In the monologue, the main character is not a good man. However, he has been betrayed, and seeks out a life of none more than righteousness. Part of this however is seeking out revenge on the man who had caused this life upon him. One may see his return to revenge as a righteous expedition to rain down justice on a man needing of it. However, another may see it as a rash action taken under the sway of emotion; disregarding reason and rationale in favor of emotional satisfaction.
Two things are possible. The first is being that revenge is never justified; the second being that revenge is only justified under a certain severity of a crime, and only certain degrees. The first is a solid solution; it is never justified. It is a statement that bypasses the inevitable moral argument over whether or not the individual case is justified. It merely throws it in a category as incorrect, and leaves no room for excuses.
So what does the second solution mean? Well, this creates a new issue per case, but allows room for tolerance. No longer is all revenge seen as bad, but there is a limit which is defined in the case of each individual. Let's have a couple examples to answer this question.
If a friend of yours were to steal a pen from you, would it be justified to later take one of theirs?
If someone were to murder your father, would it be justified to murder them?
Under the first proposal, both would be seen as inevitably wrong morally. However, under the second, each of the case is up for debate on an individual scale. Different things are taken into account;
“How close were the two friends?”
“How important was the pen?”
“Was it a joke?”
“Were the pens given back at the end?”
“Was the killer doing it on purpose or by incident?”
“Did the killer do it in a premeditated manner, or on the spot?”
Each of these individual aspects can change how the verdict of the argument is. For example, many would argue that the first case of pen theft is justified if the two are well known and just joking. However, some would argue it wasn’t ok if it was just a random person and they took it seriously.
So in order to determine the link between revenge and righteousness, we need to determine a couple things. At the end of the day, there is no objective argument as righteousness in of itself is subjective. So, one mask consider how they review justification of revenge. Is it ever justified? If so, what made the individual circumstance justified?
I would personally make the decision that Macduff was justified in his slaying of Macbeth. Not only did macbeth kill his innocent family in cold blood, Macbeth arranged to have Macduff killed as well. He was completely in the right by his killing of macbeth,
Was the character I created justified? That is a question on its own. The man had his life ruined by one who he trusted. But was he dead? No. He wasn’t. So therefore, the individual can beg the argument that murdering the employer would not be justified. However, my character never quite said he’d murder him, but rather said he’d ruin his life. Therefore, I’d say this can abide by ‘an eye for an eye’. Just as he had lain waste into his life, it is fair that he ruins the life of the person who had done it to him.
So I personally am a believer of the subjective case-to-case answer to revenge and its justification on a set of morals. However, I recognize that many other people do not believe in this and simply believe that revenge is not justified by its very nature. Both of these subjective arguments must be taken into account as in any debate about morals and philosophy. There also needs to be left room open for a potential third argument, as these two views are possibly not the only views that have been adapted with the question in mind.
Such is the case in any argument of philosophy or morality.
As we, as humans, will never likely accept one definition of this, the argument will always be up to debate. However, on an official basis, murder is never justified. Vigilantism is strictly outlawed by the united states government, and acknowledging such, it does not matter the conditions that drove someone to murder another. What matters is whether or not the murder happened; and who did it would be charged for the crime even if one would try to make an argument that it was justified. I personally believe this is a better solution than the subjective viewpoint. While I personally hold the subjectivist view, I acknowledge that it is subjective by nature. This creates a whole new conundrum in courts and legal affairs over whether or not it was justified. Subjectiveness should never be taken into account in court, as the only thing that should is the strict code of the law. The objective outlook that “Revenge isn't justified, if it goes against the law.” allows the court to keep a solid definition on it and thus enact solutions on an impartial opinion not influenced on human emotion which is ever so volatile.
On a legal level, the answer is clear; Revenge, should it break the law, will be just as wrong as what caused the revenge to be enacted. But on a moral level, is it? This is up for decision, just as any other debate on morality. At the end of the day, it comes down to the person on a personal level to determine whether or not what they are doing is justified, or on the hands of the law. Therefore, it appears as if there is simply no end in sight to this problem, and it will remain for potentially dozens of more centuries.