The central puzzle is this: the payback idea does not make sense. Whatever the wrongful act was – a murder, a rape, a betrayal – inflicting pain on the wrongdoer does not help restore the thing that was lost.
I mean sure. Anger (revenge) is purely destructive in one isolated interaction, but its possibility may prevent actions against you next time (or at all). Its "irrationality" makes such a response more likely even if you might rationally (or out of timidity etc) decide against it, which increases its scope of protection. It all makes a lot of sense.
Comments
My understanding is that the "tit for tat" algorithm explains why anger can make sense as a game theory strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
I mean sure. Anger (revenge) is purely destructive in one isolated interaction, but its possibility may prevent actions against you next time (or at all). Its "irrationality" makes such a response more likely even if you might rationally (or out of timidity etc) decide against it, which increases its scope of protection. It all makes a lot of sense.