Philosophical analysis explores the permissibility of revenge, indicating implications for moral reasoning.
In liberal societies, revenge is usually regarded as inherently wrong. I challenge this view by examining two grounds for its impermissibility: motivation and consequences. Because acts of revenge are defined by motivation, the most plausible objection is that this motivation is morally flawed. I reject various arguments supporting this claim and similarly dismiss the objection that revenge is impermissible due to its consequences. I conclude that whether revenge is permissible is a contingent matter and that recognizing a vengeful motive within us is a reason for caution, not for refraining from action.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel Statman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: