Function in society

In some societies, it is believed that the punishment in revenge should be more than the original injury, as a punitive measure. The Old Testament philosophy of "an eye for an eye" (cf. Exodus 21:24) tried to moderate the allowed damage, in order to avoid a vendetta or series of violent acts that could spiral out of controlinstead of 'tenfold' vengeance, there would be a simple 'equality of suffering'. Detractors argue that revenge is a simple logical fallacy, of the same design as "two wrongs make a right." Some Christians interpret Paul's "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19, King James Version) to mean that only God has the moral right to exact revenge. On the other hand, in Romans 13, Paul dignifies the Roman emperor and his military governors as licit avengers on behalf of God: "he (the prince/magistrate/policeman) beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil". Every major religious system contains some method for the mediation of disputes and for the limitation of vengeance by imputing a sense of cosmic justice to replace the often faulty justice systems of the human world.

Of the psychological, moral, and cultural foundation for revenge, philosopher Martha Nussbaum has written: "The primitive sense of the justremarkably constant from several ancient cultures to modern institutions…starts from the notion that a human life…is a vulnerable thing, a thing that can be invaded, wounded, violated by another's act in many ways. For this penetration, the only remedy that seems appropriate is a counter invasion, equally deliberate, equally grave. And to right the balance truly, the retribution must be exactly, strictly proportional to the original encroachment. It differs from the original act only in the sequence of time and in the fact that it is response rather than original acta fact frequently obscured if there is a long sequence of acts and counteracts" .

History of revenge

In ancient societies, in particular those with weak central justice systems, the method for deterring murder was to allow the victim's family to avenge the killing. However, if the families of the killer and victim disagreed in their moral assessment of the killing, they would most likely disagree as well in their assessment of any revenge actions which were taken, and a blood feud might ensue.

Vendettas or "blood feuds" are cycles of provocation and retaliation, fuelled by a burning desire for revenge and carried out over long period of time by familial or tribal groups; they were an important part of many pre-industrial societies, especially in the Mediterranean region, and still persist in some areas. During the Middle Ages, most would not regard an insult or injury as settled until it was avenged, or, at the least, paid for — hence, the extensive Anglo-Saxon system of "wergild" (literally, "man-price") payments, which placed a certain monetary value upon certain acts of violence in an attempt to limit the spiral of revenge by codifying the responsibility of a malefactor. The story of Wimund the Bishop illustrates the typical implacability of the time: its hero, though blinded and imprisoned, would avenge himself against his enemies "if he had even but the eye of a sparrow".