> This wasn't justice. It was revenge. There's a difference. Justice accomplishes something. It keeps a bad person from doing bad things. Revenge only makes things worse.
I disagree with your definitions. I would say justice is sanctioned legally, while revenge isn't. Aside from that, they're nearly indistinguishable. And given what is and isn't legally sanctioned by countries ("torture" for example), I think the difference is even less.
I'd say justice is more than legal punishment, it is punishment appropriate to the crime. If you steal from me and then I shoot and kill you, that's revenge but it's probably not justice.
Justice is meant to break the cycle of vengeance. Justice is based on objective morality whereas vengeance is based on feelings. Justice is what has cause western civilization to be so successful. On the other side you have dictators and despots.
Very cynical, and wrong. Revenge is carried out by the victim or someone who is emotionally attached. Justice is an objective third party, punishing based on evidence and an established standard which the offender has knowingly agreed to and broken. (By being a citizen of our country, you have implicitly agreed not to murder, for example, or by signing this contract, you explicitly agreed to complete the work.)
Sure, justice gets twisted on a regular basis. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as a concept, as something different from revenge.
Regardless of the semantics, my point was that Anonymous hasn't accomplished anything aside from a feeling of satisfaction. Use whatever language you wish.
I disagree with your definitions. I would say justice is sanctioned legally, while revenge isn't. Aside from that, they're nearly indistinguishable. And given what is and isn't legally sanctioned by countries ("torture" for example), I think the difference is even less.