I finally decided to finish my article on revenge. I will define the word "revenge" as the delayed infliction of perceived equivalent damage to an individual for damage received by the latter. I stress the word "delayed", because otherwise you wouldn't call that kind of behavior "revenge", but rather - "retaliation". So if a guy hits you with a baseball bat, and you wait until next week to hit him back, that would be revenge.
Why commit revenge? "To receive justice, and teach the bad guy a lesson".
You feel bad because you "lost" the "game" with the bad guy. He got away with doing harm to you, and you couldn't fight back at that time. This certainly hurts, and you feel like justice should be served, because there is a lack of reciprocity between you and him. The false-self hates "losing". So in order to "win", you think it's a good idea to fight back later. Why is that bad for you? If you fight back later, the bad guy might defend himself, and there's a chance you'll get hurt. Even if you do defeat him, he might later decide to fight back, which can then hurt you, and so on. This is what I call "The Game", where you're trapped in a vicious cycle of battles, and you never give up, because you can't stand the thought of "losing"; you want to dominate your enemy.
What would happen if you "lost"? You'll have to feel the burn. But this is good. The pain might actually motivate you to figure out how to avoid being defeated next time. You can conclude that you want to stay away from situations where you can't immediately retaliate. You'll be pushed to learn how you can prevent such unfortunate events from happening.
The second argument, "teach the bad guy a lesson", is based on the assumption that whoever hurt you lacked sympathy, therefore they should be taught a lesson in Sympathy 101 by you, yourself. "If he knows what it's like to be bullied, he'll probably stop being a bully". That statement could be true in some cases, but we shall see why it's not worth trying to teach the bad guy a lesson. By punishing the Attacker, the Avenger takes responsibility for teaching him a lesson. This may take great effort. Why would you waste resources for teaching someone you hate a lesson? It makes no sense to do him a favor after what he's done to you.
"If a loved one hurt you", then you might say, "it would probably pay off well to teach them some sympathy, so maybe then revenge would be beneficial". No. A reasonable person would be greatly offended if you tried to control their behavior through punishment, for there are better, more effective ways to persuade a person. A reasonable loved one would be greatly saddened if she hurt you, and she'll probably do her best to learn how to be sympathetic in the particular instance, without having to be forced by your revenge.
Even if we assume that your loved one is retarded, revenge still won't do your relationship any good. Urgency is of importance, like in conditioning dogs. If you hit a dog right after it's done some harm, it'll subconsciously register why you've punished it, and it might learn not to do what it did again. If however, you hit it hours after it took a shit on your carpet, you'll only confuse the dog, and it won't learn the intended lesson. I figure, it would be the same with retards.
The alternative to revenge would be ostracism, if the Attacker is someone of no importance to you. Just ignore them, and be prepared to retaliate, next time they attack. If the Attacker is rather valuable to you, and you prefer to keep your friendship, it would be much more productive to talk with him about your feelings, and how his behavior triggered painful emotions in you. It's up to him to decide whether he wants to change, or not. If he has no desire to change, it's up to you to decide whether you want to make a compromise, or end the friendship.
