answer:The debate surrounding the morality of revenge and the impact of time on its justifiability is a complex and contentious issue. Let's break down the arguments for and against the effect of the passage of time on the morality of revenge. On one hand, your friend's argument suggests that the passage of time diminishes the justification for revenge. One possible argument is that as time passes, the immediacy and intensity of the harm or injustice may lessen, and the perpetrator may have changed or grown as a person, potentially diminishing their culpability. Additionally, the passage of time may lead to a shift in priorities, values, or perspectives, which could render revenge less relevant or less important. Your friend might argue that the woman's pursuit of revenge for 20 years is an all-consuming force that has prevented her from moving on and healing. Another argument against the morality of delayed revenge is that it may lead to a cycle of retaliation, causing further harm and potentially escalating the situation. The passage of time may also lead to a lack of context or a distorted perception of the original event, which could result in misdirected or disproportionate revenge. On the other hand, you could argue that the passage of time does not necessarily diminish the justification for revenge. One possible argument is that the severity and impact of the original harm or injustice remain unchanged, regardless of the time that has elapsed. The woman's pain, suffering, and sense of injustice may still be present, even after 20 years, and revenge could be seen as a means of finally addressing and rectifying the situation. Another argument in favor of the morality of delayed revenge is that the woman's unwavering commitment to seeking revenge demonstrates her unrelenting dedication to justice and her refusal to forget or forgive the wrongdoing. This could be seen as a testament to the severity of the original harm and the importance of holding the perpetrator accountable. Furthermore, it could be argued that the passage of time allows for a more calculated and thoughtful approach to revenge, rather than an impulsive or emotional reaction. This could lead to a more effective and targeted form of revenge, rather than a knee-jerk response. After considering both sides of the argument, it seems that your position has more convincing arguments. The fact that the woman has been seeking revenge for 20 years suggests that the passage of time has not diminished her sense of injustice or her desire for justice. While the immediacy of the harm may have lessened, the underlying issue remains unaddressed, and revenge could be seen as a means of finally rectifying the situation. Additionally, the woman's commitment to seeking revenge over an extended period demonstrates her dedication to justice and her refusal to forget or forgive the wrongdoing. This could be seen as a testament to the severity of the original harm and the importance of holding the perpetrator accountable. However, it's essential to acknowledge that the morality of revenge is a complex and highly subjective issue, and different people may have varying perspectives on the matter. Ultimately, the decision to seek revenge and the morality of that decision depend on the specific circumstances and the individual's values and principles.

answer:If we consider a much shorter time frame of 5 days instead of 20 years, some of the arguments for and against the effect of the passage of time on the morality of revenge would remain relevant, while others might become less applicable or new ones might emerge. The arguments that remain relevant include the idea that the passage of time, even if short, can lead to a shift in priorities, values, or perspectives, which could render revenge less relevant or less important. Additionally, the concern that revenge might lead to a cycle of retaliation, causing further harm and potentially escalating the situation, remains a valid consideration regardless of the time frame. However, some arguments that were relevant in the 20-year scenario become less applicable in the 5-day scenario. For example, the argument that the perpetrator may have changed or grown as a person over time is less convincing when the time frame is only 5 days. Similarly, the idea that the passage of time allows for a more calculated and thoughtful approach to revenge is less relevant when the time frame is so short. New arguments that might emerge in the 5-day scenario include the idea that the emotional intensity of the event is still high, and the desire for revenge may be more of an impulsive reaction rather than a thoughtful and considered response. This could lead to concerns that the revenge is not proportional to the original harm or that it may be motivated more by emotions like anger or hurt rather than a desire for justice. Another argument that might emerge in the 5-day scenario is that the short time frame suggests a lack of attempts to address the issue through other means, such as talking to the perpetrator, seeking mediation, or pursuing legal action. This could lead to concerns that revenge is being sought as a first resort, rather than a last resort, and that other options have not been explored. On the other hand, an argument in favor of the morality of revenge in the 5-day scenario is that the harm or injustice is still fresh and ongoing, and revenge may be seen as a necessary response to stop further harm or to protect oneself or others from future harm. Considering these arguments, it seems that the shorter time frame of 5 days may actually weaken your original argument that revenge is justifiable if the person has been seeking it nonstop since the event. The impulsive nature of revenge in a short time frame, combined with the lack of attempts to address the issue through other means, may suggest that revenge is not the most moral or thoughtful response. In contrast, your friend's argument that the passage of time, even if short, diminishes the justification for revenge may gain more traction in the 5-day scenario. The emotional intensity of the event, combined with the lack of time for reflection and consideration, may lead to concerns that revenge is not a proportionate or just response.

answer:If we lengthen the time frame to 50 years, some new arguments might emerge, while others might become more or less relevant. Here are a few possibilities: One new argument that might emerge against the morality of revenge is that the perpetrator may have already faced a form of punishment or consequence for their actions, even if it's just the natural consequences of aging and declining health. For example, if the perpetrator is now elderly and frail, revenge might be seen as excessively cruel or even pointless. Another argument that might emerge is that the woman's desire for revenge has become an all-consuming and defining aspect of her life, potentially preventing her from finding closure or moving on. This could lead to concerns that revenge is no longer about justice, but about perpetuating a cycle of anger and resentment. On the other hand, an argument that might emerge in favor of the morality of revenge is that the passage of 50 years has allowed the woman to reflect on her past and the harm she suffered, and that revenge is now a thoughtful and considered response. This could suggest that the woman has had time to weigh the potential consequences of her actions and has decided that revenge is the best course of action. Another argument in favor of revenge is that the woman's advanced age might mean that this is her last opportunity to seek justice, and that revenge is a way of ensuring that the perpetrator is held accountable before she passes away. This could be seen as a way of achieving closure and finally finding peace. Additionally, the argument that revenge is a means of rectifying a historical injustice might become more relevant in the 50-year scenario. If the original harm was a grave injustice that was never addressed or acknowledged, revenge might be seen as a way of correcting the historical record and ensuring that justice is finally served. The argument that the perpetrator may have changed or grown as a person over time might also become more relevant in the 50-year scenario. If the perpetrator has spent decades reflecting on their actions and has genuinely reformed, revenge might be seen as less justified. However, if the perpetrator has continued to live a life of cruelty or disregard for others, revenge might be seen as more justified. In the 50-year scenario, the question of whether revenge is still justifiable becomes even more complex and nuanced. While some arguments, such as the perpetrator's potential decline or the woman's all-consuming desire for revenge, might suggest that revenge is no longer justified, others, such as the woman's thoughtful consideration or the desire to rectify a historical injustice, might suggest that revenge is still a moral and just response. Ultimately, the morality of revenge in the 50-year scenario would depend on the specific circumstances and the motivations of the woman seeking revenge. However, the lengthened time frame does introduce new complexities and considerations that must be taken into account.

answer:Emily agrees with Michael's idea of a field trip to Oakwood University's math lab. She plans to discuss the details at today's math club meeting, including getting approval from the administration and arranging transportation. Emily is looking forward to a productive meeting.