The Count of Monte Cristo
Jessica Harvey May 11, 2011 Mr Craine Philosophy To look for vengeance is to cause injury, harm, and humiliation, on an individual by another who has actually been damaged by that person. In the film The Count of Monte Cristo, Edmond looks for revenge on Fernand Mondego for numerous factors. All of which were warranted due to the fact that of the awful treatment Edmond got while he was in prison. Not only did that make Edmond angry, however likewise when he found out the Fernand Mondego had wed his better half to be only 1 month after being locked away.
Being that they were good friends when prior to made it that much harder for Edmond to believe whatever that Fernand had actually done to him behind his back. There were lots of lies, betrayal, and incorrect hoods as to why Edmond was even imprisoned. Throughout the entire movie everyone was informed that he was dead. Edmonds approach to become revengeful towards Fernand may be slammed since lots of believe that revenge has no justification no matter how the other individual has harmed you. If society is not going to strike back versus a criminal activity on your behalf it is not okay to take matters into your own hands.
Many people would state that it would all depend upon the circumstance, but I believe that there is no circumstance that is so serious to where there would be validation for those actions. The Golden Rule mentions to do unto others as you would have them do to you. If you are treated wrongfully it does not provide you the right to turn around and do the same or worse back to them. Otherwise the cycle will keep going in a circle and people will get hurt and they will get nowhere in life with that thought process.
Prior to someone looks for revenge they need to think about the utilitarianism theory which mentions that everybody needs to perform that act or follow that ethical guideline which will produce the greatest great for everybody. Paying someone back for a wrong doing that they did to you is not ethical or ethical at all under any scenarios. Mentioning that vengeance and retributive have similarities would be a true declaration. Vengeance is the exact penalty or amends for an incorrect on behalf of, particularly in a resentful or vindictive spirit.
Whereas retributive theory states that penalty ought to be offered just when it is should have and only to the degree that it is deserved, is concerned with the past instead of the future. It is likewise mentioned that punishment ought to be enforced by some individual or group that has “duty constituted” moral or legal authority. Both are a form of punishment, however retributive is a type of punishment that has to be enforced by a legal authority. Revenge is an act of penalty but not by a legal authority.
It is imposed on a person who has incorrect another person whether it was intentional or not. Total vengeance is a highly debated topic that everybody has their own opinions on. It is something that is discredited in lots of situations. Injuring somebody since they have maltreated you is not the answer. The statement an eye for an eye and tooth for and a tooth for a tooth could be an extreme when murder is the circumstance. To each his own viewpoint, however I think that no matter the circumstance there is never ever validation for revenge.