Regardless of how large of how small, everyone suffers injustice at the hands of others at some point in their life. In these circumstances, we are often faced with a decision as to whether we can seek revenge for what has been done to us, or forgive the offenders unconditionally. In this essay, we analyze the case scenario in which severe physical damage has been to us by perpetrators. Should friends ask us whether we want revenge, we would clearly state that revenge is the wrong course of action. Taking physical revenge has negative moral implications, brings us down to the level of the attackers, and accomplishes nothing constructive at all.
Within the context of any serious circumstances, revenge has objectively negative moral implications. Any situation can give rise to an injustice of epic proportions, but in spite of all this it will never warrant revenge of a similar nature. If the act would be wrong initially, there is no reason to suggest that it becomes right simply because more wrongdoings precede it. If we justify our revenge and our actions by the wrongdoings of others, then we are allowing those who have initially committed the crime to justify their own actions in a similar means, regardless of how warped their thinking may be. They may have no real reason to justify their attack, but how can their reasoning be compared to ours? There is no way to arbitrate this with people. Because of this, it can be seen that we would not be right in taking similar revenge using our suffering as justification. There are many situations, in which these lines become blurry, and we must use discernment to see the black and white amidst it all- but in this particular case, "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you," means exactly what it says. Even with the suffering at the hands of others, it is not our job to punish them for it.
Committing a crime of such magnitude would be mentally devastating to most people.