In this episode of Elucidations, Matt sits down with Emily Dupree to learn about whether it’s rational or irrational to try to seek revenge.
As a culture, we kind can’t decide what we think about revenge. Out of one side of our mouths, we talk a big game about letting bygones be bygones, about how revenge and retaliation lead to cycles of violence, and about how nothing good can really come of getting back at people. But acts of revenge, where clearly warranted, also have a visceral moral appeal that it would be absurd to deny. If we didn’t think there were at least some situations in which a person ought to get their comeuppance, then there wouldn’t be so many heroic adventure movies centered around the protagonist’s quest for revenge. When the hero gets back at the villain, it just feels right, like the movie needs to end here and we can all go home; and no amount of pedantic, post-hoc reasoning can ever make that feeling go away.
Solving that dilemma is hard, but as a way of working up to it, our distinguished guest decides to tackle a slightly different question. Not: can seeking revenge ever be the right thing to do—but: can seeking revenge ever be a rational thing to do. Traditionally, most philosophers have answered that question in the negative. Calling it irrational means that it’s senseless and unintelligible, like anyone who does it is undergoing a (possibly temporary) lapse in their basic mental faculties. The reason most philosophers think that it’s irrational to take revenge is that there’s no way to undo the wrong that was done to you in the past. If Person A did something truly horrible to Person B, that thing doesn’t get undone when Person B does a new horrible thing to Person A. And if that’s the case, why do it? Doing it is all cost and no benefit.
In this episode, Emily Dupree argues that in fact, it can be rational to take revenge. How come? It isn’t all cost and no benefit, because in some cases, successfully taking revenge can lead to a unique benefit: namely, the restoration of the vengeance seeker’s moral personhood. For the unique benefit to come, certain background conditions have to hold: the original harm has to have been genuinely morally wrong, it has to have been as egregious as it can be (so it can’t be minor/inconsequential), it has to have taken place under conditions of the political state failing, and it has to have undermined the vengeance seeker’s moral personhood. In that case, it is possible for an act of vengeance to be intelligible as an attempt on the part of the vengeance seeker to get their moral personhood back. Note that our guest isn’t saying the vengeance seeker is right to seek vengeance in these circumstances. The view is just that seeking vengeance under these circumstances can be comprehensible, rather than just bonkers.
Tune in to hear our guest discuss some historical examples of revenge that we can comprehend!
Matt Teichman
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Episode 49: Hans Kamp discusses discourse representation theory
Episode 48: Jennifer Frey discusses the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas
Episode 47: Alexandru Baltag discusses the logic of knowledge
Episode 46: Frank Veltman discusses normality
Episode 45: Anubav Vasudevan discusses probability and determinism
Episode 44: Joelle Proust discusses metacognition
Episode 43: Peter Adamson discusses the philosophy of Al-Kindi
Episode 42: Agustin Rayo discusses the construction of logical space
Episode 41: David Enoch discusses metaethics
Episode 40: Johan van Benthem discusses logical dynamics
Episode 39: Nicholas Asher discusses the philosophy of language
Episode 38: Christopher Frey discusses Aristotle on living organisms and their parts
Episode 37: Catarina Dutilh Novaes discusses methods in philosophy
Episode 36: Robert van Rooij discusses vagueness
Episode 35: Martha Nussbaum discusses the capabilities approach
Episode 34: Kieran Setiya discusses moral disagreement
Episode 33: Daniel Sutherland discusses the philosophy of mathematics
Episode 32: Jennifer Lockhart discusses ignorant knowledge
Episode 31: Branden Fitelson discusses reasoning fallacies
Episode 30: Marko Malink discusses modal syllogistic
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
The Modern West
The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Podcast
University of Chicago Human Rights Program Distinguished Lecturer Series
The Latin American Briefing Series
CHIASMOS: The University of Chicago International and Area Studies Multimedia Outreach Source [audio]
University of Chicago Booth School of Business Podcast Series