UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST

Basic Education Department

Senior High School
MANILA

Eye for an Eye Culture: The Genealogy of the Law of Retaliation and its
Implication on the Perspective of Justice

Authors:

Bancoro, Colene

Cavitt, Daniella

Junio, Kriselle

Laygo, Jodie

Medenilla, Justin

Pacalda, Lei

Perez, Kristine

Quilente, Faith

Submitted to:

Prof. Celso De Guzman, Jr.

Prof. Elcid Bautista

March 2021
 CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

This part shall tackle the brief information regarding the researchers‘ topic of interest.

The introduction shall be composed of three sections. The first part will tackle the definition and

brief background on revenge and eye for an eye culture; the second part will tackle the question

of morality in the law of retaliation and its implication on our current perception of justice; and

the third point shall address the research gap, as well as focusing on the reasons why the

researchers are interested in conducting this research.

Eye for an Eye, Lex Talionis

The topic of retaliation is not new to modern society. The topic of eye for an eye culture

has been tackled since the dawn of time and could be found as the interest in countless work of

literature and writings, the Bible being no exception. Eye for an eye, in Latin terminology lex

talionis, or otherwise known as the law of retaliation, is defined by Plaut (1981) as a principle of

whenever a person causes harm to another person, the inflicted person is entitled to be punished

(in the same degree). The topic of lex talionis was commonly referenced in religion and is

estimated to be first seen in the Code of Hammurabi, the Babylonian code of law and is one of

the oldest surviving text that even predates the bible. In it, eye for an eye was seen as a way to

restrict compensation for the value of loss (Plaut, 1981). In the context of Christianity, an excerpt

from the bible explains how eye for an eye was justified. In Exodus 21:22-27, it is said that:

1
 22
―If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious
injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman‘s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is
serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 26 ―An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it
must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female
slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

According to Jaffe‘s (2011) take on the psychology of revenge, the people‘s desire for

revenge is nothing new and has always been timeless. It might have helped that the theme of

retaliation and revenge has been a topic of numerous works of literature and film; examples

being the novel The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Tomas, the play Hamlet by William

Shakespeare, and more modern works such as the novel Carrie written by Stephen King, and the

film John Wick that became infamous for its titular character‘s drive to ―avenge‖ his murdered

dog. Depictions of revenge in films and literature have commonly involved display of violence,

dramatic irony, and protagonist satisfaction, aspects where people find it easy to relate and

served as a platform for catharsis.

Its Morality and Implications

It is observed that humanity‘s drive for retaliation has stemmed from even primal periods,

has been integrated into culture and has even been used as a viable outlet for justice, and is still

prevalent in modern society today. It has been normalized to the point that revenge is seen as

legitimate punishment, as it defends the stolen honour of the victim. It seems that the law of

retaliation has not been trapped in the time of the past and the mentality is as active as ever.

Aronson (2008) quotes Seymour Feshback in his book The Social Animal, saying that

most people find it hard to inflict harm on other people unless they find a way to dehumanize

their victim. The rationalization of dehumanizing people that we like to harm makes it ―not only

2
easy for people to aggress against other people, but guarantees that people will continue to

maintain the aggression against the person‖. Putting this into consideration, it could be implied

that simply because of the aggressor‘s action, the victim that plans to act on the impulse of

retaliation could simply dehumanize the aggressor, making it easier to rationalize the thought of

revenge as being morally right. Dehumanizing makes the person feel more entitled to acting out

in retaliation.

Despite of its ancient origins, humanity derives catharsis of retaliation much more now

with the assistance of modern technological development. Retaliation now has a new form. In

their research, Obedat et al. (2017) implied that the rise in new technology and most importantly,

the internet, has provided people more ways to act on retaliation. Having social media platforms

such as Facebook and Twitter on the rise, as well as other platforms that aid in the person‘s

entitlement to free speech, it is much easier to ―avenge‖ against aggressors. People are easily

capable of posting a damning, negative review of a restaurant and in an instant, the restaurant

would be put under a trial by publicity. Another example would be how people are quick to jump

on mob mentality when a well-known personality is ―outed‖ for committing problematic acts;

people feel entitled to bash these personalities and, at worst, wish these personalities death and

impose threats to their lives. One of the more serious implications of revenge on the internet is

the rise in cases of ―revenge pornography‖, the phenomena where ex-lovers post intimate

photographs to get back at their erring former partner.

Influence of the law of retaliation could also be observed in how people perceive justice.

An example of how lex talionis has influenced our perception of justice is how the people and

the law respond to heinous crimes of adultery, rape, and murder. Some people‘s response to a

hypothetical case of criminal of rape and murder is to plea for the death penalty in attempt to

3
make it ―fair‖ for the victim. Yet, a question arises; a question of whether the avenger is entitled

to inflict the same punishment that was once deemed wrong or immoral to act on; a question of

whether retaliation could be justified as morally right; a question of how the ancient culture of

eye for an eye, or lex talionis, has changed the mass‘s perception of justice.

The Importance of the Morality and Impact Question

The law of retaliation is still relevant in today‘s generation. Punishment today may not be

as violently harsh as the ancient time of the said law, but it has been an observation that

retaliation culture has slowly become normalized with the aid of modern technology and culture.

The morality of exercising retaliation has been a great curiosity for the researchers; for as the

question of ―is it right to do something bad to someone for the reason that they did the same to

you first?‖ is asked, angles of morality, rationalization, entitlement and perception of justice is

also a question that involuntary attaches itself to the main issue. Seeing that the law of retaliation

had stemmed from sources of ancient law and religion, an aspect that brings more questions to

one‘s belief and morality, the researchers are curious to find out why the law of retaliation is still

relevant today and how it helped shaped people‘s perception of justice for a number of

generations.

Through the philosophy of morality, the studies of the field‘s prominent philosophers

Robert Nozick, Niccolò Machiavelli and Freidrich Nietzche, and studies on retaliation and its

source, the researchers aim to find an answer to the morality question, as well as addressing the

implications of the infamous eye for an eye culture on our perception of how justice should be

served.

4
 Statement of the Problem

The researchers aim to assess the established background of the topic of interest, eye for

an eye culture, its morality and its implications on people‘s perception of justice. During the

collection of related literatures and studies, the group has collected queries regarding the

aforementioned culture. The researchers will attempt to answer the questions:

1. Could the law of retaliation affect how people perceive justice?

1.1. How did the law of retaliation develop into our modern society?

1.2. How is retaliation and punishment justified and rationalized as morally correct or

incorrect?

Significance of the Study

This research work was undertaken to assess the perception of the respondents on Eye for

an Eye Culture: The Genealogy of the Morality of the Law of Retaliation and Its Implication on

our Perception of Justice. The study will benefit the following groups:

For the Students. The result of this study will help the students gain knowledge

regarding eye for an eye culture and how it affects their perception of what justice is. With the

help of the researcher‘s study, the students will learn how to properly use their privilege

especially in the social media setting where people are quick to criticize and even inflict harm on

others as they feel that they are entitled to that behaviour. The study will help students learn how

to properly deal with different kinds of set ups to avoid reckless behaviour, as well as to help

them rationalize each action that they exercise against their aggressors and themselves.

5
 For the Educators. Teachers are known to help shape the student's perspectives and

values, with the help of this data they can provide their students‘ knowledge regarding the

morality of revenge and punishment, how the culture of revenge has been ingrained so much into

mainstream culture that it has been normalized in the students‘ daily life, and aid students in

judging whether their actions are justified not solely on their entitlement to honour.

For the University. The outcome of this study will help the institution discover more

about the Law of Retaliation and its Implications thus, possibly consider adding it in the

educational program as it discusses justice, human rights and morality.

For the Researchers. By adding our subject matter into the body of knowledge, the

output of this data will serve as guide that will help the future researchers who desire to tackle

the same issue and possibly consider adding our study to their local sources.

For the Society. With the help of this research, it guides the society, to comprehend the

definition of Retaliation. Thus, it will also help us to understand the idea of revenge if it is truly

Fair, Moral, and Justified since people are focused on being recklessly into seeking vengeance in

terms of other people doing the wrong thing as people are entitled in defending their perception

of their honour, as well as executing of what they perceive as fair justice.

For the Law Enforcers. The output of our study can serve as an additional guide to

those who execute laws to better understand the system of justice and how to effectively use the

power of retaliation between the accused and the victim. Furthermore, with regard to morality,

the law enforcers can also properly weigh in justice and know whether their actions are acts of

morality and justice, or actions of self-entitlement.

6
 Theoretical Framework

The researchers‘ study will be based on the theory of Robert Nozick which is the

entitlement theory of justice. This theory is tackled in his book entitled Anarchy, State and

Utopia. This is the most relevant to the aims of the study as it focuses on the description of

revenge and retributive justice. Nozick‘s theory also discusses the limitations and boundaries

involved when performing revenge or retribution in certain situations.

This theory of Robert Nozick (1974) argues the importance of self-ownership and the

individual‘s right in acquiring property. Nozick‘s theory tackles how individuals have the rights

to act upon those who violate their property. His theory focuses on the entitlement of individuals

for compensation from those who violates their rights.

Robert Nozick (1974) explained the term ―revenge‖ in his theory, ―The entitlement

theory of justice". Nozick‘s theory gives explanations and elaborations that help individuals

perceive the culture of eye for an eye in the modern society.

The research will be based using Nozick‘s theory as it addresses the definition of revenge

in the individual‘s situations. The theory will be used to expound the knowledge of individuals

with their take of revenge and its connection to achieving fair justice

7
 Conceptual Map

The research will cover the topic of eye for an eye culture, morality of revenge and how

the culture has affected perceptions of justice. The researchers will focus on the following

terminologies and concepts in conducting their research.

Theory of
Revenge and Robert Nozick
Entitlement
Friedrich Nietzsche
Culture
Law of Retaliation
Aggression
Niccolo Machiavelli

Punishment
Eye for an eye Morality

Fairness
Death Penalty
Justice Primal Periods
Religion

Human Rights

Biblical
Ways Ancient Laws

Scope and Delimitation

The scope of this research study is about the genealogy of eye for an eye culture, the

morality of said culture and how it implicates our present perception of justice. The researchers

aim to study the origin of the law of retaliation, its interpretation in various texts and media, how

people rationalized acts of revenge, and how exposure to the law of retaliation has shaped

people‘s perspective of achieving justice.

8
 The nature of the research study is Philosophical. In the context of the research topic, the

researchers utilized passages and verses from the Holy Bible, a sacred text from the religion of

Christianity, in order to study the origin of the law of retaliation; it must be noted that the Holy

Bible is treated as a historical and philosophical document instead of a teleological text, and that

the usage of passages from the sacred text does not imply that the overall research paper is of a

teleological nature.

The study will revolve around Robert Nozick, a well-known American philosopher, and

his studies regarding justice, revenge and retaliation, as well as other studies of philosophers that

discuss revenge and its morality. The utilization of Robert Nozick‘s studies will solely be in the

context of revenge, retribution and justice. In the context of the research, the group will explore

the different classifications of justice and will give focus on the retributive aspect of the topic.

The research aims to present the integration of the law of retaliation from ancient laws to

mainstream culture and how it could possibly affect how people judge fair justice. Other contexts

that are not stated within the delimitation of this study will not be included.

9
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter shall present the different related studies and literatures which have

significant bearing in understanding the topic of study. It focuses on specific aspects of our study,

which will look into the topics of retaliation, retribution, morality, and justice. These related

studies and literatures are believed to be useful in advancing the research, as well as addressing

the research gap.

Foreign

According to Barton (1999) In Getting Even, he challenges the notion that revenge is

always wrong. He argues that revenge is personal retribution and that, like any other form of

punishment, it can be both just and unjust. Framing the issue in the broadest context to address

the needs of victim, offender, and society, he offers a blueprint for improving the justice system

and attaining a true resolution to crime. Barton makes a compelling case for implementing

institutionalized revenge as a way of allowing victims to attain adequate material restitution,

apology, and justice. There are two arguments Barton had bundled into one. The first argument is

that punishment requires a civil authority which determines, by law, what counts as wrongdoing,

what the penalties for the various wrongdoings are g to be and which imposes the appropriate

penalties. The second argument is that revenge is just an individual, private expression of

emotion which has no morally worthwhile basis.

In Eye for an Eye, Miller (2005) tackles the theory of justice, or more properly an

antitheory of justice. It is about eyes, teeth, hands, and lives. It is an extended gloss on the law of

10
talion: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, measure for measure. In its biblical formulation, the

talion puts the body-lives, eyes, hands, teeth front and center as the measure of value. It takes the

law of the talion - eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth - seriously. In its biblical formulation that law

states the value of my eye in terms of your eye, the value of your teeth in terms of my teeth. Eyes

and teeth become units of valuation. But the talion doesn't stop there. It seems to demand that

eyes, teeth, and lives are also to provide the means of payment. The talion code is a rare

entertainment. In an ambitious milieu of intellectual focus incorporating word origins, tantalizing

glimpses of religious paradoxes and far-reaching historical perspectives. He is at his most

engaging in pointing out how the ―poetry and poetics of revenge‖ have become the aesthetics of

the most popular and remembered myths.

A company or brand‘s reputation could easily be impacted trough a customer‘s

entitlement to revenge. In the study of Mdakane et al. (2012) concerning customer relationship

and their revenge behaviors, they define retaliation as a wide variety of negative actions a

customer may act upon if the customer so happens to have a negative experience within the

concerned company. The customer determines whether or not they should act on revenge

depending on how much power they perceive they have and whether or not they are empowered

by the thought of such behavior influencing the company in question. The study claims that

customers exercise this power more often, engaging in either direct revenge or indirect revenge,

if the relationship between the customer, the company, and its service is strained. The customers

engage in these behaviors to ―avenge the failure‖ conducted by the company

Mdakane describes Indirect Revenge Behavior in customers as a type of vengeful action

that holds no direct contact between them and the company. With Indirect revenge behavior,

customers tend to focus harm on the company instead of its employees with acts such as negative

11
mouthing, patronage reduction and public complaining. These acts are exercised by the customer

in hopes that they ruin the status of the firm by alerting the public of the company‘s mistreatment.

Direct Revenge behavior, on the other hand, is defined by the study as actions that are exercised

―face to face between a customer and a firm after a service behavior‖. This behavior can take

form in the acts of non-verbal communication, complaining, and aggression against employees.

In an incident in 2007, Seung Hui Cho committed suicide after he gunned down and

massacred thirty-two people at the Virginia Tech University. People lamented the fact that Seung

Hui Cho‘s untimely death and act of suicide has ―robbed the survivors of the emotional

satisfaction of exacting their own revenge‖. The sentiment was heavily implied when a woman

expressed that the satisfaction of being permitted to execute the criminal who killed her child

will be anything but temporary (Barnstead-Klos, 2007, as cited in Carlsmith et al., 2008).

Carlsmith et al. (2008) studied the consequences of revenge and how people predict their

reaction towards acting upon their desire for vengeance. The study hypothesized that acts of

revenge prolonged the victim‘s rumination of the person that they punished and that the act itself

prolonged the victim‘s hedonic approach to the transgression instead of providing psychological

―closure‖. The study expected that acting on revenge helped victims repair negative mood and

provide closure, yet the results yielded an opposite answer. The researchers observed that

punishment-inspired literature focused on justification for applying punishment (Kant, 1952,

Ezorsky, 1972, as cited in Carlsmith et al., 2008) or the repercussions of receiving punishment,

but do not tackle how revenge affects the instigator of the punishment.

Based on the study of Coher (2014), In Matthew 5:38-48 it presents the principle of Lex

Talionis (a law of equal and direct retribution) It was one of the most ancient law codes that each

12
man was permitted, in effect to become his own judge, jury and executioner. God‘s law was

turned to individual license, and civil justice was perverted to personal vengeance.

―You have heard that it was said, ‗An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.‘ But I say to you, Do not resist
the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you
and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Matthew 5:38–42

The intention of the law was to place limits on how justice was carried out. It was to

manage excess in its simplest form. In no way was the purpose of this law is to encourage men to

take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. It was intended to prevent and hold in the spirit of

revenge and the demand for retribution.

Bandura (1991) stated that behavioral norms control aggressive behavior through adverse

self-reactions such as self-censorship and self-reproach. Mediation analysis showed that self-

censorship partially mediated the impact on aggressive behavior of excessive retaliation beliefs,

but did not mediate the effect on aggressive behavior of equal retaliation beliefs at all. This

implies that even though a person assumes that extreme retribution is legitimate, self-censorship

is expected and there is therefore some degree of control of violent reaction. It could be the case

that when revenge is assumed to be justified, self-censure is disregarded. Further research found

that the effect of self-censure on violent behaviour was completely mediated by beliefs. In the

theory of Bandura, this supports the claim that negative self-reactions are encountered only if

one feels that violence is false. Study, on the other hand, also found that self-censorship was no

longer significantly correlated with violent behavioral values. This implies that if they act

violently and counter to their values, people only expect self-censure. This does not help self-

anticipatory censorship's position, but rather a corrective role. The principle of anticipatory self-

censorship by Bandura can be expressed in individuals known for their nonviolent and non-

13
violent philosophy, such as prophets (e.g., Jesus Christ, Muhammad), Ghandi, and Dalai Lama,

who refrained from retribution and quickly reproached themselves for revenge thoughts.

According to the study of Fish (2008), Lex Talionis from The Old Testament it has been

perceived as a barbaric law of retribution in its kind. It is better understood as moral principle of

punishment and has been recognized even in the earliest times. The Lex Talionis appears three

times in the Old Testament. In Exodus, as ‗eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for

foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise‘; in Leviticus, as ‗fracture for fracture,

eye for eye, tooth for tooth‘; and finally, in Deuteronomy, as ‗life for life, eye for eye, tooth for

tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot‘. All three statements presents body mutilations and ―mirror

punishments‖. The researcher made three observations from the Old Testament. First is that, the

crime mention is not compensable or subject for ransom, the only way for peace is an ―eye for an

eye‖ fixed by the appropriate measure of compensation. Second, lex talionis is a principle of

relation in its kind but it is necessary to subject its limitations because as Hart and others have

observed not all instances requires mirror punishments: theft cannot be punished by theft or

defamation by defamation. Third is that, lex talionis is from the departure from earlier selections.

The first written record of Lex Talionis was traced back in approximately 1760 B.C. The

lex talionis permeates the sections of Hammurabi‘s Code dealing with what we would now call

‗crimes‘ and was its governing principle. The characteristic of this retaliation is symmetry and its

symmetry was sometimes achieved by mirror punishment. Unlike the Code of Hammurabi, the

lex talionis of the Old Testament did not command the punishment of one innocent person for

the culpable conduct of another. Furthermore, as noted by Dr J.H. Hertz, the late Chief Rabbi of

England, the principle of proportionality that is a defining characteristic of the lex talionis was

14
never understood in Hebrew jurisprudence as a governing precept to be applied to that end. Its

purpose in Dr. Hert‘z words, as a ‗general maxim‘ in the rational pursuit of justice.

David Daube, sometime Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford and later professor of

Biblical law at Berkeley, contributed to the understanding of lex talionis as it appears in the

Pentateuch, in the Mishpatim, or the Judgments, in Exodus 21:23. ―If a man does this or that, he

is to be punished in this or that way‖—while the law of retaliation addresses the wrongdoer

directly: ‗THOU shalt give life in place of life‘. In Daube‘s view, the first mention of the law of

retaliation in the Pentateuch may have been addressed directly to the wrongdoer and not in the

third person. It appears to signal the author‘s opposition to the ‗strict mathematical

proportionality. ‘ Moreover, Most have concluded that the original meaning of an ‗eye for an eye‘

in the Pentateuch is related to monetary compensation for the injured eye, rather than the

infliction of an identical injury on the wrongdoer.

According to the findings of Liberman (2006) in a social psychological research, the

strong perspective of individuals with regards to retributive justice affects how they perceive

death penalty. Liberman (2006) also added that according to recent researches it has been evident

that moral judgments are instinctive and emotional. These moral emotions that are formed tends

to shape more explicit values. Liberman (2006) also stated that individuals who continuously

have the feeling of strong retributive desire to punish wrongdoings and wrongdoers are most

likely to form beliefs in the justice of ―an eye for an eye‖.

Liberman (2006) argued in his work that individuals personal bias of ―retributiveness‖

and humanitarianism will lead to predictable results on how they view the use of military forces.

When an individual leans towards ―retributiveness‖, it will have the result of a greater support to

15
military punishment of states that is/are perceived to be criminals or evil. On the other hand,

humanitarianism leans towards an increased opposition to the use of violence, excluding the

situation wherein it is necessary to prevent humanitarian disasters.

According to the study of Choi & David (2009), a huge number of theories along with

popular depictions of the term ―revenge‖, results the assumption of a contractual relationship

between the victims and the offenders. Choi & David (2009) stated that crime and revenge are

somehow perceived to be an illustration of a transaction between a buyer and seller. According

to this logic, crime creates a debt that a victim is entitled to collect. (Exline & Baumeister, 2000,

p. 145)

Choi & David (2009) implicated that being able to understand the variety of levels of the

inequality between the victims and the offenders would help enable theorize the effects that

different policy interventions of transitional justice may take on effect on the victims‘ retributive

desires.

The first feature of punishment, according to Walker (1991), is the ―infliction of something which is assumed

to be unwelcome on the recipient: the inconvenience of a disqualification, the hardship of incarceration, the suffering of

a flogging, exclusion from the country or community, or in extreme cases death‖ (p.1)

Choi & David (2009) included that the presence of punishment enables and allows the

satisfaction of the desire for revenge. Having the ―satisfaction of the victims‘ needs‖ has also

been utilized as an argument to be able to justify the criminal trials and the punishments that are

done in the context of the transitional justice. David and Choi (2009) concluded that the presence

of a reparatory, retributive and reconciliatory measures of transitional justice may enable the

reduction of the retributive desires that the victims‘ have in some of its various forms.

16
 According to Miller (1998), revenge is definitely not a publicly allowable rationale in

individual activity. Church, state, and reason all line facing it. Authoritatively revenge is hence

wicked to the scholar, unlawful to the ruler, and silly to the economist (it opposes the standard of

sunken expenses). Request and harmony rely on its extinction; salvation and normal political and

monetary arrangements on its refusal. The authority anti-vengeance talk has a long his-

conservative in any event, going before the Sober, taken up and explained by middle age

churchmen and later by the draftsmen of state building. The state developers built two

fundamental anti-revenge accounts. One was given its last structure by lawful antiquarians of the

nineteenth century. They recounted a developmental story that saw blood revenge supplanted by

remuneration instalment and afterward pay by the standard of law. For them revenge kicked the

bucket normally, experiencing out-dated nature and inadaptability. The other fundamental record

is from contractarian political hypothesis. Like the lawful recorded one, it guesses a wrathful

world in occasions long past, yet it withdraws from the lawful chronicled model by seeing

revenge not as vanishing by some unavoidable power of human advancement, yet rather as

something that should be persistently overwhelmed by demonstrations of will, cognizant political

responsibility, and insightful social arrangement. In the event that for the lawful antiquarian the

request compromising nature of honor and retribution destined them by common determination

to annihilation, at that point for Hobbes honor and vengeance bound mankind except if one

attempted to devise foundations to smother them, for Hobbes realized that honor and

magnificence were as much an enticement as they were a dread. Revenge actually assumes the

part of the prominence grise, the characterizing other, in exemplary writings of liberal good and

political way of thinking.

17
 According to McCullough (2008, as cited in Boyatzi, 2011), the urge for revenge is when

one suffers an apparent shamefulness. It can be followed back through history and is additionally

found among creatures. In any case, this marvel isn't surely known. In particular, there is little

exploration examining why one would want or look for revenge after an offense, instead of

seeking after different alternatives, for example, absolution. According to Marongui and

Newman (1987; Stuckless and Goranson, 1992) Behaving in a wrathful, or forceful, way after a

perceived wrong is an intimate impulse and one that impacts conduct. It is a reaction that is

propelled by a treachery and can fill a wide range of needs, including: approval of good

principles, ensuring one's confidence in a simply world and restoring moral request in the public

eye. It can go about as a remedial of the overall influence and equity just as one's mental self

view and confidence. It has likewise been contended that revenge is a methodology used to try

not to be misused in future trades to deflect the maltreatment of force by specialists and to stop

future offenses.

Honor is characterized as an entitlement to respect (Appiah, as cited in Ganesh, 2017).

Honor is, in the words of Ganesh, a ―distinction of rank in a social hierarchy and is bestowed by

judgments about the extent of one‘s adherence or proximity to the ideals of a community,

whether in terms of how one is or how one acts.‖ William Miller also considers honor as a rank

to ―Take the full measure of a man or woman‖. Ganesh implies that acts that violate one‘s honor

lowers one‘s status in society, and that those whose honor is ―stolen‖ attempts to restore it by

equal acts of retribution. This sentiment is reinforced by Nietzsche‘s views on honor and

empathy, as he describes people with ―wounded honor‖ will feel the urge to act on revenge in

order to regain the stolen honor, to avenge his lowered status. As quoted by Ganesh,

―Accordingly, as he enters strongly or feebly into the soul of the doer and the spectator, his

18
revenge will be more bitter or more tame. If he is entirely lacking in this sort of imagination, he

will not think at all of revenge, as the feeling of ‗honor‘ is not present in him, and accordingly

cannot be wounded‖.

Local

Fernquest (2018) explored the cyclical nature of violence in the Philippine War on Drugs,

with the aim of charting potential paths out of this violence. Fernquest proposed a cycle of

violence paradigm to explain how violence progresses in three stages: mass public socialization

into violence via violent political rhetoric, a process of state denial that sustains the violence, and

finally, public socialization out of violence through an effective response by media, communities,

and civil society (i.e., human rights activists, academics, churches) at the national level. State

strategies of denial, coupled with a lack of transparency in security force operations (i.e., police,

military, militia), help perpetuate the violence. Amid a cycle of violence, the deaths of innocent

individuals can lead to increased media coverage, public discourse, and awareness, which in turn,

leads to public identification with the victim and fear for the safety of one‘s own community and

family. The EJK is the punishment for the people using and selling drugs that the police have

been investigating. It is proposed that EJK violence takes place in violence that affect an entire

society.

Based on the study of Kiefer, T (1968), the concept of Reciprocation is a tool for social

conduct that has been gaining attention recently. Serious Analysis of reciprocity has been found

in the selections of Marcel Mauss and other students of Durkheim but the concept of reciprocity

and its sentiment of exchange can be found in the writings of Adam Smith and other Scottish

moral philosophers. La Roche Faucald, The Analects of Confucious, The Old Testament and

19
other folks of wisdom. Most writers both ancient and modern have largely concentrated on the

aspects of the sentiment of reciprocity. Those types of reciprocal of gift giving bind human

beings together through the positive effects of exchanging goods with one another. The

researcher also suggests that reciprocity may also tie persons together through bonds of negative

affect and blood-revenge is an example of this type of reciprocity. It appears to make a great deal

of common sense to think of revenge as an instance of reciprocity. However, reciprocity is more

than simply a general and diffuse human sentiment, but always institutionalized in any given

society in specific and patterned ways. In this paper the researcher tries to show that this pattern

exists in Tausug Sulu-Archipelago.

A blood-debt or basically described as a debt of Antagonism which must be demanded

but cannot be repaid. Tausug does not normally use a blood-metaphor to describe debts of this

kind but usually referred to as debt (utang) owed by them. Rarely, they might refer to a ―soul-

debt‖ or it is a soul that is owed (ngawa in iyutang). It is a belief that all of the debt that is not

paid here on earth will be paid in the afterlife. The soul of the killer may go to the person he

killed or religious merit may be transferred from the killer to his victim. The word for revenge is

mamauli or paruli and refers only to acts of revenge by killing. But killing is only justifiable by

another killing and the term mamauli is used for this sense.

20
 CHAPTER III
EYEING THE EYE FOR AN EYE

This chapter shall provide an in-depth explanation and understanding of the Philosophy

of American Philosopher, Robert Nozick. The background of revenge is also briefly explained in

this chapter. A deep analysis of documents and literature related to the study was the process for

the researcher‘s methodology.

Thesis and Design

The research study type the group will utilize will be of the Qualitative nature. For this

research, the researchers will pursue the Descriptive-Review and document analysis type of

design; since it has been assigned that the researchers are tasked to conduct a philosophical

research and it is most fitting for the chosen topic. The descriptive type of research is defined as

a method that describes a phenomenon and characteristic. In this research type, the researchers

will focus on assessing historical, philosophical and related literature in order to find answers

that the topic imposes. The overall nature of the research paper is of a Philosophical standpoint.

Brief Background of Revenge

According to De Gruyter (2018), the Code of Hammurabi represents the most detailed

enumeration of talionic justice and it might be a legal innovation here. Hammurabi‘s Code

distinguishes between different social classes and treats physical attacks against an awı¯lum (free

citizen) as crimes while attacks against persons of lesser status (mu ke¯num) are regarded as

torts. While these distinctions often strike modern readers as ―barbaric‖ they have to be seen as

an attempt to maintain order (Barton: 108; Rothkamm: 87–88). The origin of the principle has to

21
be located in the scribal context of a legal education that aims at protecting the interests of the

awı¯lu-class (Otto: 244).

In the Holy Bible, specifically in the Old Testament, the lex talionis is attested in Exodus

21:23–25; Deuteronomy 19:19–21, and Leviticus 24:18–10. Due to Jesus‘ comment in the

Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:38–39) it is often seen as the hallmark of biblical law and justice

(Otto: 224). This overlooks the fact that all three passages aim at a restriction or abrogation of

the concept. ―It is fair to say that the formula, in all its instantiations, does at least imply a limit

to punishment for wrongdoing, rather than implacable vengeance‖ (Barton: 105). Also – apart

from Deut 25:11–12 – the laws of the Holy Bible never prescribe bodily mutilation. Additionally,

the three passages appear to regulate different cases (Oeming: 49–50).

In the Covenant Code the formula stands at the center of the laws regulating bodily injury

and is probably not a direct adoption of cuneiform legislation. Rather it seems to be part of the

redaction of the laws concerning bodily injury. For injuries that result in death, capital

punishment according to the talion ―a life for a life‖ is stipulated. Injuries that do not cause death

are compensated financially. In contrast to cuneiform law, Exodus 21:20, 23, 31 also include

persons of lesser status (women, children, slaves). As a result the formula nepe tah at nepe

serves as a general deterrence aiming at the protection of all human life. The punishments

following in Exodus 21:24–25 are the rendered inoperative by the laws regulating financial

compensation. A popular application of the lex talionis might mean that, if one is slapped on the

cheek, one ought to slap back, or that if one is enjoined by a Roman soldier to carry a load for a

mile, one ought to resist and fight back.

22
 In Christianity the principle of lex talionis is related to punishment in a number of

complex ways. The principle of lex talionis has a social function from its origins in the Old

Testament, namely to limit the revenge which otherwise might be extracted in a blood feud (cf.

Gen 4:24). Retribution, both rights and duties, are transferred from the private to the public

sphere when the human judge assumes communal responsibility for vindicating the victim‘s

claim (e.g., Num 35; Deuteronomy 19). Yet, the retributive punishment prescribed in these Old

Testament passages is not without limits. In cases of corporal punishment, the guilty person was

to receive ―the number of lashes his crime deserves,‖ yet not more than forty lashes

(Deuteronomy 25:1–3).

It is also important to stress that in addition to a retributive aspect, the principle of lex

talionis in the OT also includes the aspect that its aim is proportionate by way of compensation

or restitution (e.g., Exod 21:23–27). Yet the primary aim of the lex talionis, in both the OT and

in the ancient world, was to curb violence by prohibiting vigilante justice and disproportionate

vengeance. Thus this principle cannot be reduced to a primitive exposition of judicial vengeance

(cf. Betz: 276).

Defining Revenge and Retaliation

This section shall discuss the definition of revenge, retribution and retaliation, as well as

studies and well-known scholars relating to the keywords

Retaliation

According to Brake (2005), retaliation is generally re-guarded as an afterthought, a

comparatively small part of a broader mechanism for implementing substantive legal safeguards.

Retaliation is a significant social phenomenon that, for many reasons, needs analysis. It is

23
predominant, first. Although it is impossible to understand how much retaliation poses obstacles

to prejudice within organizations, the evidence shows that it is far from unusual. Retaliation

charges make up a large portion of the claims brought in cases of discrimination. Inside

organizations, social structures make retaliation a possible response to discrimination charges.

Latest research in social science indicates that women and people of color are regarded

negatively and despised by members of the majority community when they move forward to

question prejudice. They are viewed as transgressing the social order by contesting dis-

crimination and unequal social privilege, establishing prime conditions for retaliation. That in

any entity and in response to any form of discrimination challenge, retaliation may take place,

the likelihood of retaliation cuts through discrimination law generally and is not limited to any

particular legal context. Second, revenge is strong medicine, which serves to suppress allegations

of injustice and maintain social order. The key reason why people remain quiet instead of

voicing their concerns about racism and prejudice is fear of retaliation. Retaliation also steps in

to punish the challenger and restore the social standards in question when challengers are

courageous enough to conquer their fears of speaking out. To a large degree, the efficacy and

very validity of the law on discrimination turns on the willingness of individuals without fear of

retribution to raise questions about discrimination. In asserting and addressing discrimination

grievances, the recent move towards legally enforced privatization gives added value to the

treatment of retaliation by statute. The need for robust legal protection from retaliation is all the

more urgent as legal precedent increasingly directs discrimination complaints into internal

institutional proceedings. Thirdly, and finally, the degree of retaliation protection contained in

discrimination law tells us a great deal about the scope of discrimination law and the principles it

protects.

24
Revenge and Retribution

According to McClealland (2013), consolidating the retributive nature of revenge with its

own character (in the all-encompassing sense given above), we show up at the definition offered

by Barton: "Revenge is close to home retributive discipline". Revenge, at that point, is a type of

retributive activity, regardless of whether it is done by the individual outraged against or for

other people, the last a training that shows up in human ontogeny as ahead of schedule as the

second year of life (Fonagy, Moran, and Target, 1993). The fundamental dynamic of retaliation,

further-more, is inversion: to reestablish the irregularity made by the first offense by forcing

discipline proportionate with it (Morris, 1968, 1981, 1999). What additionally gets switched in

fruitful revenge is the inefficacy of the agent demon strated by the first offense. The retributive

character of revenge, obviously, as of now proposes that retribution may be a type of equity, and

that raises the prickly issue of the ethical status of retribution.

There is subsequently no vital connection among revenge and Schadenfreude or envy.

The event of these negative social feelings among the sequelae of effective vengeance sits idle, at

that point, to mean the virtue of retribution accordingly. However others have underlined an

association among vindicate and either dislike meant, contempt, or outrage, all of which thusly

are viewed as corrupt. This line of argument is very much spoken to in different contemporary

journalists and more seasoned scholars from the seventeenth through the nineteenth hundreds of

years . It likewise has agents in old Semitic writing, as Peels has appeared. Nonetheless, the bind

to outrage isn't carefully talking fundamental, however, obviously numerous examples of

revenge will determine in any event part of their inspiration from outrage (Nussbaum,

2001).Barton proceeds with his meaning of retribution given above by taking note of these

enthusiastic associations: "Revenge is close to home retributive discipline, ordinarily joined and

25
energized by sensations of ire, outrage, and hatred for wrongs endured" The association with

outrage (counting rage-states) is normal, and even fundamental, however isn't sufficient to make

retribution improper, for outrage (counting rage) would itself be able to be ethically advocated.

Without a doubt, there are a lot of conditions where the inability to blow up is itself an ethical

falling flat, and events of solitary unfairness are among them. The restricting contemporary

philosophical view renders retribution so be something which is at times ethically legitimate. To

be sure, even a lot more seasoned essayists have contended that retribution can be a type of

equity. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, thinks about whether retaliation (de vindication) is ever

ethically allowable, and contends that "it tends to be legal (hail) insofar as all appropriate

conditions are protected watched — if the aim of the vindicator is pointed mainly at a decent to

be accomplished by rebuffing a miscreant; consequently, for instance, at the remedy of the

transgressor, or if nothing else at limiting him and alleviating others; at shielding the privilege

and doing respect to God". Where revenge is a type of self-protection, he proceeds to contend, it

very well might be viewed as a "particular goodness (specialis virtus) and a type of equity; the

justice fighter may that become the instrument of God". Various contemporary journalists have

comparatively contended that revenge can be a type of equity, and consequently is some of the

time ethically legitimate. It is for the most part concurred that retribution is a general human

practice, one profoundly established in our enthusiastic and moral lives. Retribution is regularly

administered by social shows or standards.

Nozick’s take on Revenge

According to Davis (1997), Robert Nozick, who was inspired by John Locke, asserted

that his theory which is the entitlement theory is a kind of theory that is independent from all of

the ―patterned theories‖. A theory is considered patterned when it is particularized that the

26
distribution differs along with some natural dimensions. Davis (1997) also indicated that Nozick

states that the entitlement theory is an absolute theory of distributive justice. Davis (1997) stated

that the entitlement theory shall be a theory that is purely procedural when it comes to

distributive justice.

Robert Nozick‘s entitlement theory has three parts namely (1) a principle of justice in (original)

acquisition, (2) a principle of justice in transfer, and (3) a principle of rectification of unjust

holdings. The first principle focuses on the condition that is set in the process of the creation of

the property. The second principle emphasizes on the passage of property from own owner to

another. Lastly, the third principle focuses on the solutions if ever the two principles are said to

be violated. A person‘s holdings are said to be just if it is acquired only through the use of these

three principles.

Walker (1995) indicated in his study that Nozick perceives revenge as something

personal and it is dependent on the things that are done to oneself, the individual‘s relations and

the individual‘s social group. Walker (1995) also added that when revenge is being done it must

be pleasurable or a satisfaction for the individual who does it. Revenge can be practiced when an

individual encounters harm or injury. Revenge being done isn‘t necessary for a wrong. Walker

also stated Nozick states that revenge by its nature sets no limits, however, the individual who

does the revenge or the revenger may have the power to limit what he inflicts for external

reasons. The external reasons refer to the hopelessness of doing the desired kind of degree or

harm.

Nozick (1981) stated that in terms of explaining ethical actions spreading widely in

various degrees through generations, the Evolutionary Theory could help explain the

27
phenomenon by presenting an ―invisible hand‖. He expounds on the thought as discussed in his

book: ―Ethically behaving individuals will leave more great-grandchildren or (given kin

selection) great-grandnephews and nieces similarly disposed‖ (p. 344) In Nozick‘s Philosophical

Explanations (1981, cited in PHIL 169 Harvard Meetings, 2019), he argues the contrast of

revenge from retribution. Nozick believed that in some cases, retributive punishment is deserved,

contrary to his libertarian belief of punishment being a focal problem to free will. He enumerated

and contrasted revenge and retribution in the following factors (pp. 366-368):

1. Retribution is done for a wrong, while revenge can be done for a mere injury, harm, or slight.

2. Retribution sets an internal limit to the amount of punishment inflicted, according to the seriousness of
the wrong, while revenge need set no internal limit to what is inflicted.

3. Revenge requires a personal tie to the victim, while retribution does not.

4. Revenge involves an emotional tone, viz. pleasure in the suffering of another, and fosters cycles of
violence, while retribution ends cycles of violence and revenge, and either involves no emotional tone or
involves another one, viz. pleasure at justice being done. [this distinction is comparable to Ezekiel 33:11
―have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live‖ (Markel,
2009)].

5. Retribution seeks equality in the application of punishment: it commits one to enacting similar
punishments in other similar circumstances, whereas revenge has no such generality.

Markel (2009) explains that from Nozick‘s distinction of revenge and retribution, the

following observance between the two terms could also be noted. Markel makes the distinction

that (a) retribution is always targeted at the offender, whereas in revenge, the avenger may target

people other than the offender, such as the offender‘s relatives or relations; (b) retribution

utilizes the power of the state to coerce the offender rather than making the offender experience

common suffering; (c) in contrast of revenge‘s tendency to deny the offender their rights and

dignity, retribution considers the autonomy and morality of the actions acted against the

offender; this contrast in morality and indifference plays an important role in how people

rationalize acts of revenge and retribution; and (d), retribution requires that the punishment does

28
not prevent ―the internalization of the sense of justice that would allow the offender to show his

respect for the norms of moral responsibility, equal liberty under law, and democratic self-

defense‖, where in revenge, the requirement is absent. Nozick contends that ―a victim occupies

the unhappy special position of the victim and is owed compensation, [but] he is not owed

punishment‖ (Markel, 2009).

The Different Platforms of Eye for an Eye Culture

Bohm, T. & Kaplan, S. (2018) states that the authors remind us that the revenge motif

appears in literature, such as ancient Greek drama and Shakespeare‘s plays, which is no surprise,

as we noticed it almost daily in our all-too-human individual and collective behavior. A short

overview of revenge as a motif in literature, film, culture, religion, and at work is therefore given

as an introduction to the study of revenge.

Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill"

According to Dawson (2014) that the film Kill Bill is an early modern revenge tragedy in

which the murdered victim is also the triumphant revenger who seemingly rewrites the past and

resurrects the dead. Modern revenge tragedy and gangster films focus on a socially isolated

figure with whom the audience feels uneasy sympathy and both with masculine codes of honor.

He also stated that the central protagonist dies as the consequence of his pursuit of revenge, as is

evident in early modern plays such as Thomas Kyd‘s The Spanish Tragedy and Thomas

Middleton‘s The Revenger‘s Tragedy, and nineteen-sixties gangster films such as The Killers

and Point Blank.

29
In Novels and Hollywood

In the novel Vanity Fair by William Thackeray, Miss Rebecca commented to Miss

Sedley ―Revenge is wicked, but it‘s natural‖. This observation summarizes the conflict in which

western culture has always accepted the idea of revenge. On one hand, revenge is considered

―wicked‖, in the sense that over the centuries it is accepted as irrational, uncontrolled,

disproportionate, obsolete and morally unacceptable.

Revenge is a practice that threatens the social order and for this reason the historic forces

driving the concentration of power have always been antagonistic towards it (Courtois, 1984;

Foucault, 1973/2000), right down to the modern day. In the words of Max Weber: ―In the past,

the most varied institutions have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today,

however, we have to say that a state is a human community that claims the monopoly of the

legitimate use of physical force within a given territory (Weber, 1919/1946, p. 78). On the other

hand, revenge is natural on the individual level in a sense that ―it is a normal response that

belongs to humans‖ ‗normal‘ behavior (Gollwitzer, 2009, p. 151) while in the social level, it is a

practice that is being confirmed in epochs and societies (Terradas Saborit, 2008). It was proved

by the fact that revenge is the most ancient cultural themes and is frequently represented in the

world art and even in literature.

―From Greek to Indian mythology, from visual to written art forms, from groups to individuals, from folk
lore to sophisticated formal studies, from law to culture, revenge continues to be a thorny area of enquiry. Needless to
say, it has the potential of generating an immense amount of psychological, literary, social, existential, and cultural
responses‖ (Chauhan & Halpert-Zamir, 2019, p. 1).

` The concept of revenge is being widely used ―that we tell over and over in myriad forms

and that connects vitally with our deepest values, wishes, and fears‖ (Abbott, 2002, p. 42). In

contemporary society, it is cinema that have created the greatest number of revenge stories and

30
showed it to the widest audience, often adapting to numerous stories already told by literature,

the theatre and oral tradition. Peter Robson notes in the index of the Video Hound Guide to Films

that there are over one thousand films under the heading of ―revenge‖. The objective of this

essay is to investigate the portrayal of revenge in Italian cinema. The main focus will be personal

revenge. For instance, when a common individual decides to seek vengeance themselves for a

crime suffered without any assistance of the law. It is specifically about private or vigilant justice.

The theme has been widely narrated Hollywood and others besides, to the point of constituting a

specific genre by itself, i.e. the vigilante film: ―vigilante films are about what ordinary citizens

do when the justice system does not meet their expectations and fails them‖ (Robson, 2016a, p.

175) American films of this genre, for example the Death Wish paradigm, have also been

successful among the public in Italy, and their stories, characters and moral justifications are now

rooted in the collective imagination. Futhermore, they clearly represent the main reference in

production and stylistic terms for Italian films on this theme.

Feminism and Rape Revenge in Films

Viteo‘s (2012) study tackles the occurrence of ‗rape revenge‘ tropes in films and helps to

constitute debates about women and feminism portrayal. The ―Last House on the Left‖ and ―I

Spit On Your Grave‖ are both films that are made in 1972 and in 1978 and was remade in 2009

and 2010. The difference between both the original and remakes of these films involves who

enacts the revenge. On the movie of ―Last House on the Left‖, it is the family who enacts the

revenge in behalf of their family member. For the film of ―I Spit on Your Grave‖ The victim

31
turns into an avenger. It examines that its narrative structure and the general aesthetic elements.

The convergence of textual, historical and comparative research proven impacts this study to

explore how cultural fears and anxieties are about women and traditional genders. The study

concludes that the subgenre of rape revenge acts to condition way in which in the social

traditional of feminism, sexual harassment and femininity are presented and indeed replicated.

Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.

The LTFI was founded on September 29, 1969 at the San Beda College of Law. In 1974,

three Mindanaoan members—President Duterte, Joel Babista, and Alberto Sipaco Jr.—proposed

to create a chapter of Lex Talionis in the Jesuit Ateneo de Davao University School of Law. In

1974, three members who were enrolled in the San Beda College of Law decided to transfer to

the Ateneo de Davao University School of Law. With the blessings the Grand Judex, they

established a chapter in the Ateneo. These three members, Rodrigo Duterte, Joel Babista, and

Albert Sipaco Jr., would later be known as "the Triumvirate." Lex Talionis is Latin for "Law of

Retaliation". This concept is derived from the Mosaic law "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth",

which is a variation of the original concept promulgated under the Code of Hammurabi. The

secondary name, Sodalitas Ducum Futurorum is Latin for "Solidarity of Future Leaders".

Although the name itself suggests the Hammurabic concept of retribution justice, the fraternity

does not advocate the common literal conception of "Lex Talionis" wherein exact reciprocal

action is taken against another's action. The fraternity's Founding Chairman, Former Philippine

Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and National Labor Relations Commission Chairman

m Roy Señeres wittingly remarked that the modern principle of "Lex Talionis" should be: If one

32
takes away another's property, one should replace it with another of the same property. The

fraternity thus distances itself from the barbaric misconception of "Lex Talionis", and instead

adopts the more modern essence of retribution justice wherein justice is interpreted as a process

of proportionality, where the offending conduct is measured and remedied against similar

circumstances within a culture or society

33
 CHAPTER IV

REVENGE IN THE GUISE OF JUSTICE, JUSTICE FROM ROOTS OF REVENGE

This chapter will tackle the researcher‘s object of the study, the implication of the law of

retaliation to the current view of justice. The chapter shall be divided in two parts, divided by

subsections, namely discussing the object of the study and answering the research problems

discussed in Chapter I with the findings the researchers have procured throughout the paper.

Justice

This section shall discuss contemporary views on justice. It shall involve the perspectives

of philosophers who are known in the field of justice, Friedrich Nietszche and Niccolo

Machiavelli. This section will also discuss the definition of retributive justice, justice as a form

of revenge, and show instances of how current forms of justice could be interpreted as a take

from revenge.

Nietzsche’s Concept of Justice

The roots of guilt and conscience are traced by Nietzsche to the primal relationship

between buyer and seller, borrower and debtor. He tells us that We are creatures that calculate

and judge everything: everything has a price, deeds as well as goods. This relationship often

occurs between individuals and the society in which they reside. Besides providing housing,

harmony, protection, and much else, the community places individuals in its debt. Not only are

individuals who breach their community's rules not repaying the debt, but they are threatening

their creditors. No wonder such criminals face the toughest of punishments. Nietzsche then refers

34
to the root of justice, indicating that justice is the last to be touched by the reactive impact of

vengeance and indignation. Very few will ever be right about someone who has hurt them.

Nevertheless, the brave man who strikes against those who hurts him is much closer to justice

than the man of resentment who is poisoned by self-deception and bigotry. In turn, justice and

the institution of law take vengeance out of the offended party's hands. Nietzche implied that ―if

I am robbed, it is justice that has been hurt, and not myself, and so justice must demand

vengeance‖. Nietzsche argues that what endures is the act of punishing, and what is fluid is the

reason for which we punish. Punishment has such a long history that precisely why we punish is

no longer clear. Nietzsche gives a lengthy list of numerous "meanings" that have been punished

through the years. Nietzsche reveals that not the act itself, but the sense that we attach to it, is

what is important to us regarding punishment. Because this concept is independent of the act

itself and unessential, we might probably come to perceive punishment as meaning almost

everything. Since traditional wisdom sees the universe rather than powers and wills in terms of

things and acts, we are unable to distinguish the meanings of punishment from the action itself,

and believe that the deed has always had the same significance.

Machiavelli’s Justice

According to Parel (1990), Machiavelli draws between justice and peace, peace being

the fruit of justice. He has chosen some unnamed ―ancient poets‖ who were, he says according to

the pagans. He said that there is a claim implying that the book of Genesis was not the first to do

so. It was from them and not from prophecy and philosophy that we first learned what justice is.

Machiavelli‘s classical source was the myth of the golden age, although he did not mention

which author, Marchand thinks that it is either from Ovid or Virgil. Machiavelli‘s version of the

myth was that ―in the first age‖ of humankind, humans was so good and that there was an ideal

35
condition when justice came down from above and dwelt among humans. This was the first age

and the gold age was when humans had a perfect knowledge of justice. And because they had

such a perfect knowledge, they lived by justice and enjoyed peace. But gradually, as humans

begin to neglect virtue and to behave wickedly, the gods returned to heaven. But, says

Machiavelli, ―with time‖ even a limited form of natural justice disappeared so that peace also

disappeared from humanity.

Retributive Justice

According to the study of Walen (2020), Retributive Justice has three principle forms of

justice. 1. Those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes,

morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment. 2. It is intrinsically and morally good -

good without reference to any other goods that might arise, if some legitimate punisher gives

them the punishment they deserve and 3. It is morally impermissible to intentionally punish the

innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers. The idea of

retributive justice is a form of punishment such as not included any emotion to judgement, it is

reasonable to have pair judgement to the victim of a crime.

Vengeful Justice

This section shall provide some examples of current events wherein the researchers imply

that these events can allude to retribution as another form of revenge, disguised as a renewed

form of justice that seems moral in the eyes of the legislature and the justice system.

36
Death Penalty and the War on Drugs

As the law of retaliation has been used in historic forms of criminal justice, as seen in the

Cod of Hammurabi and the Bible, it is observed that modern day justice systems such as the

Supreme Court has adopted this mentality of ―getting even‖. Ryan (2020) implies that vengeance

has not been seen as a real defense for discipline under American legitimate standards. In any

case, in the previous year, both the United States Supreme Court and the Department of Justice

have flagged that vengeance may well have a real job in supporting capital punishment. Michael

Igantieff states that ―[r]evenge is a profound moral desire to keep faith with the dead, to honor

their memory by taking up their cause where they left off:‖ (Ryan, 2020) With this statement, it

could be said that through the death penalty, those victims who are still alive may avenge the

fallen victim‘s cause, as we could recall, those who feel like they have been disgraced has the

obligation to reinstate their honor by acting on revenge. When the victim, or the family of the

victim, is given the experience to achieve a certain feeling of revenge, they are able to recover

their self-worth, a factor that could be compromised due to the fact that the perpetrator and the

ordeal has left them feeling victimized. This statement could also harmonize with the opinions of

Attorney General Barr and Justice Gorusch, in that society and the justice system ―owes it‖ to the

victim and their families to see that ―justice‖ is carried out, may it be that perpetrators deserve to

be punished for the pain inflicted.

As Victims‘ Rights Movement is being recognized, it is said that even if victims do not

and should not play a role in the sentencing of a crime, there are chances wherein in giving

testimonies, emotionally-charged victims may influence a judge or jury on deliberating on a case

sentencing (Ryan, 2020). Even if punishments for identical capital crimes are deemed to be equal,

37
the tone of the victim‘s statement could greatly affect how a sentence is carried out. In this case,

the victim has the ability to exact revenge against the perpetrator.

A clear case example on how the Justice System could be greatly affected by victim and

mass pressure‘s need to exact revenge or ―get even‖ is the case of People of the Philippines v.

Francisco Juan Larrañaga et al., also known as the Chiong Sisters Murder case or the Trial of the

Decade. A documentary by Michael Collins (2011) entitled Give Up Tomorrow details the case

of how Paco, a member of a well-known political family, along with six others, was accused of

the murder of the two sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong. Francisco Juan ―Paco‖ Larrañaga

and six other convicts were sentenced to death penalty under lethal injection on February 3, 2004.

The case happened at a time when capital punishment has yet to be abolished in the Philippines.

This case has put the Philippine Justice System under spotlight, as accusations of corruption have

been on the rise.

As news of the Chiong Sisters‘ ―savage‖ nature of abduction and murder went out in

public, the victim‘s family, along with the population of Cebu, cried for justice and demanded

that police should find the perpetrators immediately. As pressure built on, a teenage student in

Manila named Francisco ―Paco‖ Larrañaga was called on for detention and was presented as the

perpetrator of the Chiong Case. The case was highly publicized to the point that the masses

treated it as if it were an afternoon teledrama. In the first sentencing of the Chiong Sisters Case,

Judge martin Ocampo sentenced Larrañaga and the six other convicts to two reclusion perpetuas,

also known as two life sentences, under the notion that ―the law says that when there is

kidnapping and homicide, or kidnapping with rape, the penalty shall be death. However in this

case, there was kidnapping but it is not certain that there was rape or homicide due to the lack of

evidence‖ (Justice Ocampo, as featured in Give up Tomorrow, 2011). The sentencing has caused

38
uproar in the court, as the heavy publication of the case has impacted how the mass treated the

case. The victim‘s families claimed that two life sentences were not enough, and demanded that

the death penalty was the right punishment in order to ―achieve justice‖ for Marijoy and

Jacqueline Chiong. The Chiong family heavily implied that there was ―no justice achieved in the

court‖ and that because of how heinous the crime was, all seven perpetrators must be put under

death penalty to avenge the Chiong Sisters. Having the support of former President Joseph

Estrada, as well as nationwide pressure, the Chiong Family decided to bring the case to the

Supreme Court to upgrade the sentence to the death penalty. As sentenced, Larrañaga and the six

other convicts were sentenced to death penalty under lethal injection on February 2004. As

Larrañaga‘s family had no other choice since the Supreme Court has made public about the

sentence, they used their Spanish citizenship in order to reach international court, and so their

counsels, along with Fair Trials International entered an amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

The sentence was pushed and delayed until the eventual abolishment of the Death Penalty in the

Philippines on June 24, 2006. Up until this day, Larrañaga continues to carry out his life sentence

in Spanish Prison. The effects of the mistrial are still felt by both the families of the seven

convicts and fellow Filipinos who believe that the Larrañaga case has showed how corrupt the

Philippine Justice System is.

The Current Stance of Philippine Justice

Perceiving justice in the Philippines nowadays is seen as having revenge, but according

to CHR Commissioner Karen Gomez Dumpit (cited in Cepada, 2019), not all victims want

revenge. Not all are for the death penalty as she faced the members of the House committee on

justice. In the House of Representatives, a total of 12 bills have been filed attempting to reimpose

39
the death penalty. Most of these bills aim to enforce the death penalty for drug-related offences,

but abduction, robbery, and even plundering are still required by other lawmakers.

The bill that would restore the death penalty for certain drug offences was passed by the

House in the previous 17th Congress, but the measure did not fly in the Senate. Now, after

President Rodrigo Duterte called on the 18th Congress to restore the capital penalty for drug

crimes and plunder during his 4th State of the Nation Speech, lawmakers are once again tackling

the death penalty bill. Legislators of the Pro-death penalty bill claim that the return of the death

penalty will not only be a way for offenders to exact payment, but also discourage individuals

from committing heinous crimes.

Dumpit believed, however, that the death penalty was not the solution to curbing crime.

"The Philippines, its legislators, and government agencies tasked to curb crimes are enabled and

capable enough to hold dangerous offenders and perpetrators accountable and be safe from them

without death penalty," Dumpit said. "The yearning to stop the current scourge of drug addiction

and its links to criminality is understandable. Revenge as motivation will perpetuate a culture of

violence."

Death penalty has been a huge topic in the Philippines as a way of punishment to achieve

justice, especially when it comes to cases that is seen as heinous crime. The study of De Ungria

and Jose (2019) tackled one of the issues that is vastly discussed among many Filipinos and even

lawmakers, it is the issue regarding the war on drugs. Their study shows that within the three

years of the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte, the topic of death penalty being re-

imposed for the third time in our country has been raised and challenged seriously in the

Philippine House of Congress and the Senate. With the war on drugs being present in the country,

40
people realized and had an idea that the widely known issue with regards to the death penalty

law might be passed.

De Ungria and Jose (2019) concluded in their study that the presence of violence and the

option of death to fight or ―win‖ the war of drugs is not the only solution. It is shown in their

study that this way of punishment is a clear violation of the international human rights law. Their

study also deduced that the people who oppose the death penalty believes that it is anti-poor, for

the reason that individuals who are in question with their cases may not be able to hire private

lawyers. They also argued that the death penalty doesn‘t really prevent for crimes to happen, as

no conclusive studies are existing. It is also followed with not enough proof given by the

Philippine Supreme Court that it is effective, instead the practice of death penalty showed the

result of a high judicial error rate for its effectiveness.

Justice, Revenge, Retribution, and Nozick

With the procured literature and analysis, the researchers will answer the research

questions which were posed in the first chapter of the research paper, namely: a). could the law

of retaliation affect how people perceive justice? b). how did the law of retaliation develop into

our modern society? And c). How is retaliation and punishment justified and rationalized as

morally correct or incorrect? The researchers will apply Nozick‘s theory in answering the

questions, along with referencing authors related to the topic of the law of retaliation, retribution,

and justice.

41
Law of Retaliation and Perception of Justice

It has been a known fact that through the early stages of justice, revenge is evident in

former systems of criminal judgement, as seen in the Code of Hammurabi that discusses lex

talionis as mirror punishment, and as portrayed in the Holy Bible with lex talionis portrayed as

just compensation of monetary payment (Plaut, 1981; Miller, 2005; Coher, 2014; Fish, 2008; De

Gruyter, 2018). With the related literatures and studies that the researchers have collected it can

be proven that the law of retaliation can affect how individuals perceive justice. It could also be

implied that through the implementation of this ancient system as basic judiciary leverage,

modern-day justice systems has evolved from the former implications of the law of retaliation.

Robert Nozick states and differentiates the ways the people may strive to achieve justice, which

is retribution and revenge. In his study, Nozick (1981) would contrast the two forms as one being

justifiable and the latter being immoral on the grounds that:

1. Retribution is done for a wrong, while revenge can be done for a mere injury, harm, or slight. 2.
Retribution sets an internal limit to the amount of punishment inflicted, according to the seriousness of the
wrong, while revenge need set no internal limit to what is inflicted. 3. Revenge requires a personal tie to the
victim, while retribution does not. 4. Revenge involves an emotional tone, viz. pleasure in the suffering of
another, and fosters cycles of violence, while retribution ends cycles of violence and revenge, and either
involves no emotional tone or involves another one, viz. pleasure at justice being done 5. Retribution seeks
equality in the application of punishment: it commits one to enacting similar punishments in other similar
circumstances, whereas revenge has no such generality.

With regards to the results of the findings of Liberman (2006), it can be concluded that

when an individual has a strong feeling of retributive desire within himself or herself it is

possible that it might lead to a strong support towards a justice system that is in the form of ―an

eye for an eye‖. It is proven with his study focusing on the military force being used to combat

those that they see as evil. The situation that he focused on is the evident conflicts between

countries. Liberman (2006) gave out two perceptions with connection to this, which are

42
retributiveness and humanitarianism. He simplified that when an individual strongly supports the

concept of retributiveness it might lead to that individual strongly favoring the concept of using

military force or violence to use as a sense of justice. On the other hand, he also tackled the other

concept which is the humanitarianism which shows that violence isn‘t an option to use as a

punishment.

The study of Choi and David (2009), also proves that when punishment is practiced to

those who are seen as criminals or the offenders, the victims desire for a justice that focuses on

revenge is being satisfied. As they have concluded that with the presence of retributive measures

with these cases, it is seen that there is some kind of reduction with the desires of the victims

with regards to retributiveness. The satisfaction of the individuals with their desires for revenge

is being justified to be used in the context of transitional justice.

The Development of Lex Talionis into the Modern Society

The Hammurabi Code represents the most thorough enumeration of talionic justice,

according to De Gruyter (2018), and it may be a legal breakthrough here. The Hammurabi Code

distinguishes between different social groups and considers physical attacks as crimes against an

aw lum (free citizen) while attacks against citizens of lower status (mu ke num) are considered as

tort. Although these disparities frequently strike modern readers as barbaric, they must be seen as

an effort to retain order (Barton: 108; Rothkamm: 87-88). The source of the theory must lie in

the scriptural sense of a legal education aimed at preserving the rights of the aw lu class (Otto:

244). In the Holy Bible, the lex talionis is attested in Exodus 21:23-25, Deuteronomy 19:19-21,

and Leviticus 24:18-10., explicitly in the Old Testament. It is often seen as the hallmark of

43
biblical law and justice because of Jesus' comment in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:38-39).

This overlooks the fact that all three passages aim at restricting or abrogating the concept. It is

fair to say that the formula at least implies a limit to punishment for wrongdoing in all its

instantiations, rather than implacable vengeance. The laws of the Holy Bible also never prescribe

bodily mutilation, apart from Deut. 25:11-12. In addition, multiple cases tend to be regulated by

the three passages. The theory of lex talionis in Christianity is linked in a variety of complex

ways to punishment. From its roots in the Old Testament, the definition of lex talionis has a

social purpose, namely to restrict the vengeance that otherwise could be extracted in a blood feud

(cf. Gen 4:24). When the human judge assumes communal responsibility for vindicating the

victim's allegation, justice, both rights and responsibilities, are shifted from the private to the

public sphere. Yet, in these Old Testament chapters, the retributive punishment prescribed is not

without limits. The convicted person was to obtain the amount of lashes his crime requires in

cases of corporal punishment, but not more than forty lashes. It is also important to stress that the

concept of lex talionis in the OT also includes, in addition to a retributive aspect, the aspect that

its object is proportionate by way of reimbursement or restitution (e.g., Exod 21:23-27). But,

both in the OT and in the ancient world, the primary purpose of the lex talionis was to curb

brutality by banning vigilante justice and disproportionate revenge. This theory cannot, however,

be reduced to a barbaric show of judicial revenge.

The Rationalization of Retaliation and Punishment

For a lot of scholars, the term of revenge has always been barbaric and immoral and that

the verses in the bible has been misinterpreted and perverted (Nozick, 1981; Barton, 1999; Miller,

44
2005; Fish, 2008) and that it misinterpreted the holy bible (eye for an eye is compensation and

should only be seen as value or metaphor) for the Code of Hamurabi (literal body mutilation and

mirror punishment for compensation). With the gathered information, scholar‘s rationalization of

exacting revenge is entitlement (Mdakane et al., 2012), feeling of debt (Choi and David, 2009),

moral standing (Liberman, 2006 and Bandura, 1991 as cited in Coher, 2014) search for closure

and repair of negative mood (Carlsmith et al., 2008), and avenging stolen honor (Nietzsche, as

cited in Ganesh, 2017) or shamefulness (McCullough, 2008, as cited in Boyatzi, 2011).

Another form of how people could rationalize vengeance and violent actions against

perpetrators of crimes is the process of dehumanization. Aronson (2008) discusses how people

will normally feel immoral in exacting violence and harm on other people unless they find a way

to dehumanize their victim or perpetrator. In the process of dehumanizing a person, they are

removed of any redeeming qualities or good traits as this has been ―tainted‖ and overwhelmed by

their negative act. In this sense, the rationalization of dehumanizing people that victims would

like to harm makes it ―not only easy for people to aggress against other people, but guarantees

that people will continue to maintain the aggression against the person‖ (Aronson, 2008 as cited

in Pacalda et al., 2021). From this strand point, it could be deducted from the rationalization that

simply because of the perpetrator‘s negative act against the victim, the victim could easily

dehumanize the perpetrator and maintains the level of aggression they have against him. The

process of dehumanization could allude to the fact that it makes the rationalization of vengeful

acts against the seemingly immoral and dehumanized perpetrator easier.

45
 Conclusion

From the gathered documents of related studies and literature, it could be concluded that

the researchers‘ hypotheses and research question has been adequately answered. The hypothesis

that the law of retaliation, also known as lex talionis or revenge, could somehow implicate to the

perception of justice and rationalization of acts of vengeance and punishment is proven by

Robert Nozick‘s theory, along with the gathered studies and literature.

The law of retaliation was designed to enforce limits on how justice was done. It was to

manage waste in its most simplistic form. The object of this law was not to permit men to in any

way take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. It was intended to avoid and preserve the spirit

of vengeance and the demand for revenge (Nozick, 1981; Barton, 1999; Miller, 2005; Fish,

2008). Nozick defends that revenge was never moral and could never be justified due to the fact

that revenge has ―personal ties from the victim to the perpetrator‖. However, Nozick also argues

that in exchange of revenge, retribution and justice could be justified for the fact that the

execution of punishment is fair in the sense that the executioner holds no personal tie to both the

victim and the perpetrator.

46
 CHAPTER V

Retaliation, Retribution, and Conclusion

In this chapter, the researchers will be concluding the research paper by

summarizing the past four chapters of the study, as well as discussing the conclusion and results

of the study. The chapter will present the research paper‘s findings, answering the research

inquiries formed by the researchers, and will present a body of recommendations.

In Chapter One, the researchers introduce the topic of the study, the research questions

inquired by the paper, the scope and delimitation of the study, and the theoretical framework that

will be used. The topic of the study is the genealogy of the law of retaliation and its impact on

the perception of justice. The background of the study is divided into three parts; in the first part,

the researchers gave a quick description of revenge, the underlying source of revenge, and some

examples of fiction and literature that discusses some form of revenge, it being impliead that

there are numbers of works that involve the topic of revenge; in the second part, the researchers

tackle the examples of modern-day retaliation representation, as well as the implications of said

works on a person‘s perception of justice; and in the final part, the researchers address the

research gap. With the following background of the study, the researchers are able to propose

three research questions that aim to guide them through their research. The researchers

established the scope and limitation in which the conducted study is qualitative and philosophical.

For the last part, the researchers briefly discussed the theory of Robert Nozick on Justice and

Revenge.

47
 In Chapter Two, the researchers discussed the different review of related literatures and

studies from different credible researchers and authors. The studies that were gathered are shown

to have relevance towards the topic of the research. The studies tackled gave an in-depth

understanding and interpretation with the topics of retaliation, retribution, morality and justice.

The researches gathered from both local and foreign literatures have shown connection to the

theory of Robert Nozick, which is the Entitlement Theory of Justice, the theory that is the main

focus of the researchers and the research itself. Some of the compiled studies focused on the

topic, Lex Talionis or the Eye for an Eye which is also a significant concept in the research. The

two related literatures that have shown the main point of the research are the studies authored by

Miller (2015) and Fish (2008). Both studies examined and reviewed the context of Lex Talionis

and its roots, definition and its application and perception when it comes to justice.

In Chapter III, the researchers explained on where the concept of revenge have come

from and this chapter had provided the explanation and understanding of the Philosophy of

American Philosopher, Robert Nozick. Based on this chapter that according to Brake (2005),

retaliation is generally re-guarded as an afterthought, retaliation also steps in to punish the

challenger and restore the social standards in question when challengers are courageous enough

to conquer their fears of speaking out. While according to McClealland (2013), consolidating the

retributive nature of revenge with its own character, we show up at the definition offered by

Barton: "Revenge is close to home retributive discipline". Revenge, at that point, is a type of

retributive activity, regardless of whether it is done by the individual outraged against or for

other people. On this chapter the researchers had added, Nozick‗s Philosophical Explanations

(1981, cited in PHIL 169 Harvard Meetings, 2019), in where he argues the contrast of revenge

from retribution. This chapter included that Bohm, T. & Kaplan, S. (2018) had stated that the

48
authors remind us that the revenge motif appears in literature, such as ancient Greek drama and

Shakespeare‗s plays, which is no surprise, as we noticed it almost daily in our all-too-human

individual and collective behavior. A short overview of revenge as a motif in literature, film,

culture, religion, and at work is therefore given as an introduction to the study of revenge.

In Chapter IV, the researcher discusses the contemporary views on justice with the

implication of the law of retaliation. It will involve the perspective of the famous philosopher

such as Friedrich, who tells us that everything has a price. He stated that we can hardly

distinguish fhe meaning of punishment and an act of enduring can be the cause of revenge and

retaliation. Niccolo Machiavelli then implied that peace is the fruit of justice (Parel, 1990). He

implied that it was the "ancient poet" who first discusses the revenge, and not some philosophy

and the book of Genesis. He stated that justice was in an ideal condition before and the people

have a perfect knowledge about justice but then disappeared. Retributive Justice has three

principle such as 1. Those who commit such crimes must endure the same punishment that was

done. 2. It is right to retaliate as long as the punisher gives them the punishment they deserve. 3.

It is wrong to intentionally punish an innocent person. It explains that the victim‘s and judgement

to the crime was a form of punishment that was created by the idea of retributive justice. It also

stated the Vengeful Justice that provide some examples that can be seen to the current events that

revenge can be seen as a form of justice in our justice system such as in Death Penalty and War

on Drugs, and The Current Stance of Philippine Justice which gives important about Death

Penalty.

Along with the discussion of the object of the study, Chapter Four also discusses the

researchers‘ answer to the research problem proposed in Chapter one.

49
 The researchers proposed the question if the law of retaliation could affect how people

perceive justice and judge actions of morality. The law of retaliation has been a known fact that

through the early stages of justice, revenge is evident in former systems of criminal judgement,

as seen in the Code of Hammurabi that discusses lex talionis as mirror punishment, and as

portrayed in the Holy Bible with lex talionis portrayed as just compensation of monetary

payment (Plaut, 1981; Miller, 2005; Coher, 2014; Fish, 2008; De Gruyter, 2018). With regards to

the results of the findings of Liberman (2006), it can be concluded that when an individual has a

strong feeling of retributive desire within himself or herself it is possible that it might lead to a

strong support towards a justice system that is in the form of ―an eye for an eye‖. It is also

proven with his study focusing on the military force being used to combat those that they see as

evil. It is also seen in the study of Choi and David (2009), that when punishment is practiced to

those who are seen as criminals or the offenders, the victim‘s desire for a justice that focuses on

revenge is being satisfied.

The researchers proposed the question of how did the law of retaliation develop into our

modern society. According to De Gruyter (2018), the Hammurabi Code is the most

comprehensive enumeration of talionic justice, and it may be a legal advancement in this case.

Physical attacks against an aw lum (free citizen) are considered crimes, while attacks against

people of lower rank (mu ke num) are considered torts, according to the Hammurabi Code.

While these inequalities can seem barbaric to modern readers, they must be viewed as an attempt

to maintain order (Barton: 108; Rothkamm: 87-88). The theory's origins must be found in the

scriptural context of a legal education aimed at protecting the aw lu class's rights (Otto: 244).

The lex talionis is expressly stated in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-25, Deuteronomy

50
19:19-21, and Leviticus 24:18-10. Because of Jesus' comment in the Sermon on the Mount, it is

often regarded as the pinnacle of biblical law and justice (Matt 5:38-39). This makes the

assumption that all three passages seek to limit or exclude the definition. It's safe to assume that

the formula suggests a cap on retribution for crime in all of its forms, rather than unrelenting

revenge. Apart from Deut. 25:11-12, the laws of the Holy Bible never call for bodily mutilation.

Furthermore, the three passages appear to control several events. In Christianity, the doctrine of

lex talionis is applied to retribution in a number of ways. The concept of lex talionis, which has

its origins in the Old Testament, serves a social function, namely to limit the revenge that could

otherwise be exacted in a blood feud (cf. Gen 4:24). Justice, both privileges and duties, are

transferred from the private to the public domain as the human judge assumes communal liability

for vindicating the victim's accusation. However, the retributive punishment prescribed in these

Old Testament chapters is not without limits. In cases of corporal punishment, the convicted

person was to receive the number of lashes required by his crime, but not more than forty. It's

also worth noting that the OT's definition of lex talionis contains, in addition to a retributive

component, the requirement that the object be proportionate in terms of compensation or

restitution (e.g., Exod 21:23-27). However, the primary aim of the lex talionis in both the Old

Testament and the ancient world was to prevent bloodshed by prohibiting vigilante justice and

disproportionate vengeance. This theory, on the other hand, cannot be reduced to a barbaric

display of judicial vengeance.

The researchers proposed the question of how is retaliation and punishment justified as

morally correct or incorrect. Many scholars believe that the term "revenge" has always been

barbaric and immoral, and that biblical verses have been misinterpreted and perverted (Nozick,

1981; Barton, 1999; Miller, 2005; Fish, 2008), and that it misinterpreted the holy bible (eye for

51
an eye is compensation and can only be used as a value or metaphor) for the Code of Hamurabi

(literal body mutilation and mirror punishment for compensation). Scholars' rationalizations of

exacting revenge are entitlement (Mdakane et al., 2012), feeling of debt (Choi and David, 2009),

spiritual status (Liberman, 2006 and Bandura, 1991 as cited in Coher, 2014), and the search for

closure and repair of negative mood (Liberman, 2006 and Bandura, 1991 as cited in Coher,

2014).( Carlsmith et al., 2008), avenging stolen dignity (Nietzsche, as cited in Ganesh, 2017), or

shamefulness (Nietzsche, as cited in Ganesh, 2017). (McCullough, 2008, as cited in Boyatzi,

2011). The mechanism of inhumanity is another way for people to rationalize revenge and

violent acts against criminals. People would usually feel unethical in inflicting violence and harm

on others unless they can dehumanize their victim or perpetrator, according to Aronson (2008).

When an individual is dehumanized, they lose all redeeming attributes or positive characteristics

that have been "tainted" and overshadowed by their negative act. It is ―not only convenient for

people to attack against other people, but it also ensures that people will continue to perpetuate

the violence against the person‖ when victims want to hurt them (Aronson, 2008 as cited in

Pacalda et al., 2021). From this strand point, it can be deduced from the rationalization that the

victim can easily dehumanize the perpetrator and retain the degree of violence they have towards

him solely because of the perpetrator's negative act towards the victim. The term

"dehumanization" could refer to the ease with which vengeful actions against a supposedly

unethical and dehumanized victim can be justified.

This study focuses on ―Eye for an Eye‖ Culture or Law of Retaliation, the morality of

revenge, and how different factors such as media and films affect our perception of the justice

system. In this day and age, with the rise of digital media, the abundance of modern devices, and

the popularity of different works of fiction, we are left with a platform filled with various

52
concepts and ideas that may intervene our standpoint in every subject matter specifically, seeing

revenge as an automatic defense mechanism when someone did us wrong . With regards to this

we recommend to the future generation, to be mindful in every situation may it be in an online

setting, workplace or person to person and possibly considering the idea of forgiveness for a

healthier way of solving conflicts that may arise in every circumstance. We suggest to the

incoming researchers who will discuss the same topic to find more local sources to better

comprehend the study. Thus, finding additional articles can also help in having more supporting

details to ponder on. For the students, we advise to properly reflect on the information and

knowledge that has been giving out by these technologies and works of fiction, to filter out what

is educational and beneficial and what is not. Thus, being aware of the Law of Retaliation and

morality of revenge so as, to have an idea to properly handle future disagreements.

Along with the development of the technology, the medium wherein people talk and

discuss things are also undergoing continuous development. Therefore, with this in mind, more

people are being exposed to different issues, opinions and perceptions, like the system of justice

in a country. As for the students who are more open to these issues and talks, the researchers

recommend that they study the concepts of revenge and retaliation in a deeper level by reading

and analyzing different literature and studies. By doing this, they will be able to respond to

discourse about different cases that are connected to justice. As for the law enforcers, the

researchers recommend for them to scrutinize the concept of the Lex Talionis and its

effectiveness when it comes to the justice system while weighing if it‘s morally correct or not to

adapt. The researchers also recommend for them to thoroughly discuss if it is morally acceptable

with regards to the execution of death penalty as a form of punishment in the country as it is an

example of the Eye for an Eye.

53
 The researchers also recommend to our law enforcers, to carefully analyze every case that

they may handle in the future so, they can properly weigh in justice and impose punishments

accordingly regardless of the social status. The researchers would like this paper to be a call to

action to the people who are in charge of judging, mediating, and executing justice to evaluate

whether or not the punishment is coming from a source of anger and vengeance or an impersonal

act for justice.

Through the study conducted by the research, it could be observed that tropes regarding

revenge are everywhere and that people need to be aware that revenge is not the way to achieve

justice. Revenge is not always the answer in achieving a certain fulfillment when someone did us

wrong, as much as possible negotiate and communicate properly to attain peace and avoid feuds.

As civilized citizens of the 21st Century, the people must learn to deal with every trial as fair as

possible and understand that violence is not the answer, even if it is normalized in the eyes of the

public.

54
REFERENCES
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of
offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(3), 653–668. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653

Barton, C. (1999). Getting Even: Revenge as a Form of Justice. Open Court Publishing.
RetrievedFrom:https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=DEhWQInAIbcC&lpg=PR9&ots=WVmYTeRFh5&dq
=the%20concept%20of%20revenge&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

BAR, B. (Sept. 2012). Perceptions of equity and justice and their implications on affective organizational
commitment: a confirmatory study in a teaching and research institute. . Adm. Rev. vol.9 no.3. Retrieved from:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-76922012000300003

Berker, S., (2019). Seminar on Nozick‘s philosophical explanations. Harvard University. Retrieved from:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/sberker/classes/phil-169-nozicks-philosophical-explanations
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sberker/files/phil169-meeting8.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0nFhHbreP-
4ZZgtBRkird6W3u1MlGWh2YRc8nXbTxm7-bGQ5lpxUzBKSY

Boyatzi, L. (2011). Eye for an eye, but not for everyone: Revenge and its relationship with the need for closure.
Retrieved from https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11745

Bohm, T. & Kaplan, S. (2018). Revenge: On the Dynamics of a Frightening Urge and its Taming. Routledge
Publishing. From
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=b0ZaDwAAQBAJ&dq=revenge+in+literature&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Brake, D. (2005). Retaliation. Retrieved from:

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&=&context=mlr&=&sei-
redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253
D0%25252C5%2526q%253Ddefinition%252Bof%252Bretaliation%2526oq%253Ddefinition%252Bof%252Bretali
atio#search=%22definition%20retaliation%22

Carlsmith, K., et al. (2008). The paradoxical consequence of revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol 95, No. 6, pp. 1316-1324. Americann Psychological Association. Retrieved from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/93e9/a6e0272b16c08bd5c0934f8ca0fd26b5c98f.pdf?_ga=2.204239191.611531670.
1611421177-1565477109.1611421177&fbclid=IwAR2Qx-MU142DbJM_L42gjAz-
aNGmtF9nQjhxHQPNMhWZkCZogjBEGsXhvVY

Cepeda, M. (2019). Death penalty for retribution? 'Not all victims want revenge' – CHR. News article retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/nation/death-penalty-not-all-victims-want-revenge-
chr?fbclid=IwAR0_eogl2l7VrjxnXYC13svMRDv4tJ3wcJYtPgK_zqJbkl9Iey44kRzXkEE

Coher, E, (2014), Studies in the Sermon of the Mount, Retrieved fromwww.csmedia1.com/fbcevansville.com/eye-

for-eye--tooth-for-tooth.pdf.

Collins, M. (2011). Give up tomorrow. Documentary retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UHQqM8f50Y&t=4086s

David, R., & Choi, S. (2009). Getting Even or Getting Equal? Retributive Desires and Transitional Justice. Political
Psychology, 30(2), 161-192. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25655385

Davis, M. (1977). Necessity and Nozick's Theory of Entitlement. Political Theory, 5(2), 219-232. Retrieved January
26, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/190730

55
Dawson, L. (2014). Revenge and the Family Romance in Tarantino's "Kill Bill". Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary
Critical Journal, 47(2), 121-134. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44030145

De Gruyter, W. (2018). "Lex Talionis," Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception Vol. 16. Yeshiva University.
Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/40021427/_Lex_Talionis_Encyclopedia_of_the_Bible_and_Its_Reception_Vol_16_Berli
n_De_Gruyter_2018_

DiGorio, S. (2017). The Nature of Revenge. Retrieved from

https://digitalworks.union.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=theses&fbclid=IwAR32Iyt9U9Gf_Sau44l
GWRP6tAcjUucWS9UCwXoaBz0FIIRmIk7wFBXQFEo

Fernquest, J. (2018). State Killing, Denial, and Cycles of Violence in the Philippines. Philippine Sociological
Review, 66, 5-34. doi:10.2307/26905842

Fish, M.. (2008). An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment. Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies, 28(1), 57–71. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqm02

Ganesh, A. (2017). Nietzsche on honor and empathy. Georgia State University. Retrieved from:
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1210&context=philosophy_theses
&fbclid=IwAR0mZ29cRAT7gts_PKIBeNhB5qLE8MtNkkM2tTWje5o4Mes_SffWUOqwH6g

Jaffe, E. (2011). The Complicated Psychology of Revenge. Association for Psychological Science. Retrieved From
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-complicated-psychology-of-revenge/comment-page-1

Kiefer, T. (1968). Reciprocity and Revenge in the Philippines: Some Preliminary Remarks about the Tausug of Jolo.
Philippine Sociological Review, 16(3/4), 124-131. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23892284

Lex talionis must serve more Filipinos in need, president duterte tells fraternity in its 50 th Anniversary. Retreieved
from: https://pcoo.gov.ph/news_releases/lex-talionis-must-serve-more-filipinos-in-need-president-duterte-tells-
fraternity-in-its-50th-anniversary/ and https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/9789783

Liberman, P. (2006). An Eye for an Eye: Public Support for War against Evildoers. International Organization,
60(3), 687-722. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877824

Libertarianism (2008). Retrieved from https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/minimal-state

Markel, D. (2005). State, be not proud: a retributist defense of the commutation of death row and the abolition of
the death penalty. Harvard Civil Rights- Civil Liberties Law Reviewer, Vol. 40, pp. 407-480. FSU College of Law.
Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=567561

McClelland, R. (2010). The Pleasures of Revenge. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 31(3/4), 195-235. Retrieved
January 29, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43854277

Mdakane et al. (2012). Customer relationship satisfaction and revenge behaviors: examining the effects of power.
African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(39), pp. 10445-10457. Retrieved from
https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJBM/article-full-text-
pdf/A312F7314445?fbclid=IwAR2BXXCxVjpZlCZSkujK6EHBZsodMp68Q_HDFs4y3XqPD2E4xo21gKuSQV8

Miller, W. (2005). Eye for an Eye. Cambridge University Press.

Retrievedfrom:https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=_RMiOXoLnncC&lpg=PR9&ots=h9g7bAryFy&dq=
%20eye%20for%20an%20eye%2C%20tooth%20for%20a%20tooth&lr&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q=eye%20f
or%20an%20eye,%20tooth%20for%20a%20tooth&f=false

56
Miller, W. (1998). Clint Eastwood and Equality: Popular Culture‘s Theory of Revenge. Retrieved from
https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapteAronson, E. (1984). The social animal. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by Walter Kauffman. New York: Penguin Books, 1978.

Nnajiofor, O. & Ifeakor, C. Robert Nozick‘ Entitlement theory of justice: a critique. Retrieved from:
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/og/article/download/141255/130988

Obedat, Z., et al. (2017). Consumer Revenge Using the Internet and Social Media: An Examination of the Role of
Service Failure Types and Cognitive Appraisal Processes. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314399229_Consumer_Revenge_Using_the_Internet_and_Social_Media_
An_Examination_of_the_Role_of_Service_Failure_Types_and_Cognitive_Appraisal_Processes_CONSUMER_RE
VENGE_USING_ONLINE_AND_SOCIAL_MEDIA

Parel, A. (1990). Machiavelli's Notions of Justice: Text and Analysis. Political Theory, 18(4), 528-544. Retrieved
February 24, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/191540

Plaut, W. (1981), The Torah — A Modern Commentary, New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations

Ryan, J. (2020). Hasrevenge become a justification to legitimize the death penalty? Duke Journal of Constitutional
Law & Public Policy Sidebar Volume 15. Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1190&context=djclpp_sidebar&fbclid=IwAR1E0xOtf
OoTUZ7-i2ChmErSDz_K7o1Fn958_ju-qbwfKoPWJrMKa2LhL9Q

Spina, F. (2019). Stories of Revenge in Italian Popular Culture. A Narrative Study of Vigilante Films. Italian
Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 218-252. doi: 10.14658/pupj-ijse-2019-2-11, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3416165

The war on drugs, forensic science and the death penalty in the Philippines. (2020, January 1). ScienceDirect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X19301597?fbclid=IwAR2gc5EU7wObWLkCaAN0JO
GKYJmKhjLRM2-hMDgHzU9Os-wfKO_DIAv9gLo4

Viteo, K. (2012). Day of Woman?: Feminism & Rape Revenge Films. 1018. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation
Repository.

Vlastos, G. 7 - Socrates' rejection of retaliation. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511518508.009

Walen, Alec, "Retributive Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/justice-retributive/>.

Walker, N. (1995). Nozick‘s Revenge. Retrieved from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/nozicks-
revenge/F3A04A70305CA743164A99F09DAD6BC6?fbclid=IwAR0xRxqJ2b8qgRM51lIq2B755K_8JdSDSinlqi0X
aM7TlPgvUlTWylnvz7U

57