No one has the right to do wrong, not even if wrong has been done to them. (Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, p.98)
Here’s an idea that has the potential to change the world.
Seriously.
No more retribution.
No more revenge.
No more justification of wrong-doing.
He doesn’t moralise just simply states the case.
Now there’s a challenge if ever I heard one.
_________________________________________________________________
Related articles
- Only Proactive People Can Genuinely Love Others, Reactive People Can’t (realtruelove.wordpress.com)
- TOWARDS: Gathering Preview ‘Patience’ (definitioncollective.com)
- Know The Power Of Response (dayscore.wordpress.com)
- What is freedom? (inyourbones.com)
- Wednesday Challenge: Gratitude & Presence (krjuzwin.wordpress.com)
- on why meaning matters. another look (hopeworkscommunity.wordpress.com)
Photograph – Two women boxing. Format: Repository: Phillips Glass Plate Negative Collection, Powerhouse Museum
www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/collection=P.
Persistent URL: www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=386444
Well Robert Axelrod the psychologist in is his book The Evolution of Cooperation and in all his research on the iterative Prisoner’s Dilemma has found that the wining strategy is Tit for Tat. That participants should collaborate until the other side defects, and then punish that defection and then resume cooperation if the other side cooperates.
Unfortunately trust and avoiding free riding, exploiting other people seems only wired into us if there are negative consequences to anti-social behavior. And our reward centers in the brain really light up when a cheat is punished. So while I am all for a less retributional society at the level of war and peace, I don’t think it is realistic to try to abolish retribution.from our lives.
That said there is also research that when we do something negative to someone else we tend to rate it as not a big deal; but the identical act done to us by someone else we see more negatively. Also we tend to see something we did as a mistake; while what the other did was deliberate. So let’s say I do something negative to someone else and think it is a 2 on a 10 point scale of seriousness. They think it is a 4 and retaliate with what they think is a 4, and I see as 6 and thus is escalation born and you end up with Rwanda…
So I think a more realistic approach would be to advocate (as Robert McNamara did from all his foreign policy experience) proportionality: getting real about how we would view what we did if it were done to us. Children are sometimes told: ‘how would you like it if I did that to you?’ Which of course leads us to the Golden Rule, but a realistic version in which there are civilized, proportional consequences for bad behavior and hopefully learning from it. My wife has this great technique when someone puts her down. She asks ‘was that a put down?’ And if they say ‘yes’ (few do), ‘why would you want to put me down?’ We could also benefit from applying empathy in these situations to see how the situation looks from the other side and maybe dialogue to unpick the escalation cycle.
Well Robert Axelrod the psychologist in is his book The Evolution of Cooperation and in all his research on the iterative Prisoner’s Dilemma has found that the wining strategy is Tit for Tat. That participants should collaborate until the other side defects, and then punish that defection and then resume cooperation if the other side cooperates.
Unfortunately trust and avoiding free riding, exploiting other people seems only wired into us if there are negative consequences to anti-social behavior. And our reward centers in the brain really light up when a cheat is punished. So while I am all for a less retributional society at the level of war and peace, I don’t think it is realistic to try to abolish retribution.from our lives.
That said there is also research that when we do something negative to someone else we tend to rate it as not a big deal; but the identical act done to us by someone else we see more negatively. Also we tend to see something we did as a mistake; while what the other did was deliberate. So let’s say I do something negative to someone else and think it is a 2 on a 10 point scale of seriousness. They think it is a 4 and retaliate with what they think is a 4, and I see as 6 and thus is escalation born and you end up with Rwanda…
So I think a more realistic approach would be to advocate (as Robert McNamara did from all his foreign policy experience) proportionality: getting real about how we would view what we did if it were done to us. Children are sometimes told: ‘how would you like it if I did that to you?’ Which of course leads us to the Golden Rule, but a realistic version in which there are civilized, proportional consequences for bad behavior and hopefully learning from it. My wife has this great technique when someone puts her down. She asks ‘was that a put down?’ And if they say ‘yes’ (few do), ‘why would you want to put me down?’ We could also benefit from applying empathy in these situations to see how the situation looks from the other side and maybe dialogue to unpick the escalation cycle.
Thanks for the comment, Ed. I always think that Robert Axlerod’s work suggests that we have a natural need to achieve balance just as you said – tit-for-tat whether positive or negative.
The problem we often have though, as we seek balance is that is that we pot for revenge instead of justice. Revenge has a short shelf life and though it gives a momentary ‘hit’ it can’t really last and I wonder if that’s why it escalates – as well as your great example about how we see our own actions vis a vis the actions of others.
Justice requires that everybody – including the perpetrator – face up to what they’ve done which is why your wife’s fantastic question is so successful. If you think about it, when she asks if someone is putting her down, she is requiring them to fully face what they are doing – or retract. It is genius!
I think our empathy is often blocked when by our own hurt.
I just love this Viktor Frankl quote though because he doesn’t say turn the other cheek/lie down and take it/seek restoration – he just lays out the principle.
So many atrocities are excused by what has been done to the perpetrators – including Rwanda.
I know it’s complex but if we operated using two principles – a) justice not revenge (to satisfy our need for balance) and (b) you don’t the right to do wrong even if you’ve been wronged (in other words you have to work hard to create justice and not just knee jerk into revenge) – I think the world might work a litte better!
And if it didn’t we can always go back to revenge – we have plenty of practice!
Thanks for the comment, Ed. I always think that Robert Axlerod’s work suggests that we have a natural need to achieve balance just as you said – tit-for-tat whether positive or negative.
The problem we often have though, as we seek balance is that is that we pot for revenge instead of justice. Revenge has a short shelf life and though it gives a momentary ‘hit’ it can’t really last and I wonder if that’s why it escalates – as well as your great example about how we see our own actions vis a vis the actions of others.
Justice requires that everybody – including the perpetrator – face up to what they’ve done which is why your wife’s fantastic question is so successful. If you think about it, when she asks if someone is putting her down, she is requiring them to fully face what they are doing – or retract. It is genius!
I think our empathy is often blocked when by our own hurt.
I just love this Viktor Frankl quote though because he doesn’t say turn the other cheek/lie down and take it/seek restoration – he just lays out the principle.
So many atrocities are excused by what has been done to the perpetrators – including Rwanda.
I know it’s complex but if we operated using two principles – a) justice not revenge (to satisfy our need for balance) and (b) you don’t the right to do wrong even if you’ve been wronged (in other words you have to work hard to create justice and not just knee jerk into revenge) – I think the world might work a litte better!
And if it didn’t we can always go back to revenge – we have plenty of practice!
Indeed, I am finding every day in my life: A soft answer turneth away wrath. No more revenge, no more! Empathy is great, but then we need to ACT OUT on the empathy. I recently read excellent advice that I immediately carried out with my adult children: when you are hurt by a rebuff from someone, first: apologize for any unintended hurt; second: ask for forgiveness (yes, especially when you feel the other party in the wrong!); third: restate how much you care about the well-being of that person (even if that person was a stranger to you: now that one will no longer be a stranger!). Humility combined with empathy puts the goodwill wagon in the road after the bad cannon was removed by foreswearing revenge.
That is a very interesting strategy – I presume that step two (forgiveness) is forgiveness for whatever you apologize for in step one? Am I understanding it properly? What I like about this strategy is that it doesn’t pretend nothing happened – which I think is a huge mistake. Thanks so much for dropping by with your suggestion!
What was intended by the advice I read, I BELIEVE, is that the forgiveness in Step Two being requested is for WHATEVER may have caused the breech in the relationship,even when you yourself cannot think of anything specific! Glad you agree it is always a mistake to pretend nothing happened!
Sounds good. And it would be true (which is the thing for me, I suppose) as I know if it was me there’d always be a chance I did something I didn’t even realise I’d done and for which I’d easily be sorry as it wasn’t my intention. Thanks.
Indeed, I am finding every day in my life: A soft answer turneth away wrath. No more revenge, no more! Empathy is great, but then we need to ACT OUT on the empathy. I recently read excellent advice that I immediately carried out with my adult children: when you are hurt by a rebuff from someone, first: apologize for any unintended hurt; second: ask for forgiveness (yes, especially when you feel the other party in the wrong!); third: restate how much you care about the well-being of that person (even if that person was a stranger to you: now that one will no longer be a stranger!). Humility combined with empathy puts the goodwill wagon in the road after the bad cannon was removed by foreswearing revenge.
That is a very interesting strategy – I presume that step two (forgiveness) is forgiveness for whatever you apologize for in step one? Am I understanding it properly? What I like about this strategy is that it doesn’t pretend nothing happened – which I think is a huge mistake. Thanks so much for dropping by with your suggestion!
What was intended by the advice I read, I BELIEVE, is that the forgiveness in Step Two being requested is for WHATEVER may have caused the breech in the relationship,even when you yourself cannot think of anything specific! Glad you agree it is always a mistake to pretend nothing happened!
Sounds good. And it would be true (which is the thing for me, I suppose) as I know if it was me there’d always be a chance I did something I didn’t even realise I’d done and for which I’d easily be sorry as it wasn’t my intention. Thanks.
But, of course, the question still is . . . what is right and what is wrong?
Was it wrong to execute Saddam Hussein, or to kill Osama bin Laden, when doing so likely saved the lives of many?
I don’t know the answer to that and there are a million other such questions to which I don’t know the answer (!) but I do think we confuse justice with vengeance and that that causes an increase in our problems which is a pity when we are hoping for the opposite. Thanks, Nancy for the comment.
Saddam Hussein to the best of my knowledge was executed after due process of law by his own country for crimes against that country, including the use of poison gas on the Kurds and murdering and torturing thousands of his people. It was not done to save lives and didn’t.
Bin Laden was somewhat different and there is a real moral debate there and it was a US decision and action. Personally I think that just as if country declares war on another country the latter has the right of self defence, when an individual declares war on a country, it has the right of self defence, so on balance I think his killing was probably morally justified, though in this case more for the lives it would save in future, though retribution was no doubt part of the motive. Should he have been extracted and tried, then sentenced to death? I guess the due process is so convoluted that I am not sure what it would have proved. Though we might have found out more about the actual causes of what happened and the role of Pakistan.
Tough one and I agree we should carefully separate justice and vengeance, though historically the justice system came into being to end blood feuds and vengeance patterns, so it will almost inevitably have an element of this in it. If people who lose loved ones to terrorism or murder, don’t think there will be justice, they will be tempted to take the law into their own hands and then we are into anarchy.
But, of course, the question still is . . . what is right and what is wrong?
Was it wrong to execute Saddam Hussein, or to kill Osama bin Laden, when doing so likely saved the lives of many?
I don’t know the answer to that and there are a million other such questions to which I don’t know the answer (!) but I do think we confuse justice with vengeance and that that causes an increase in our problems which is a pity when we are hoping for the opposite. Thanks, Nancy for the comment.
Saddam Hussein to the best of my knowledge was executed after due process of law by his own country for crimes against that country, including the use of poison gas on the Kurds and murdering and torturing thousands of his people. It was not done to save lives and didn’t.
Bin Laden was somewhat different and there is a real moral debate there and it was a US decision and action. Personally I think that just as if country declares war on another country the latter has the right of self defence, when an individual declares war on a country, it has the right of self defence, so on balance I think his killing was probably morally justified, though in this case more for the lives it would save in future, though retribution was no doubt part of the motive. Should he have been extracted and tried, then sentenced to death? I guess the due process is so convoluted that I am not sure what it would have proved. Though we might have found out more about the actual causes of what happened and the role of Pakistan.
Tough one and I agree we should carefully separate justice and vengeance, though historically the justice system came into being to end blood feuds and vengeance patterns, so it will almost inevitably have an element of this in it. If people who lose loved ones to terrorism or murder, don’t think there will be justice, they will be tempted to take the law into their own hands and then we are into anarchy.