Abstract

Quentin Tarantino’s filmography, especially since the turn of the century, seems to be an argument for the moral justification of revenge. Bill and his D.iV.A.S. hit-squad (from Kill Bill); Adolf Hitler and Hans Landa (from Inglourious Basterds); “Monsieur” Calvin Candie and his loyal house slave Stephen (from Django Unchained); Stuntman Mike and the Manson family killers (from Death Proof and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood); and Daisy Domergue and General Sanford Smithers (from The Hateful Eight) – they all had it coming, and audiences celebrate when they get what they deserve. Revenge, Tarantino reminds us, is a dish best served cold. But is it really the kind of thing that can be morally justified? To see whether it is, this chapter explores arguments both historic and contemporary. After delineating revenge from legal justice and simple retribution and exploring how Tarantino’s films argue for moral justification of revenge, we will consider common everyday arguments on the topic, as well as the relevant arguments of Plato, Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Friedrich Nietzsche, Trudy Govier, Suzanne Uniacke, Andrew Oldenquist, Simone de Beauvoir, Joshua Gert, Gilead Bar-elli, David Heyd, Robert Nozick, and others. In the end, we will see that revenge can be justified – but only in very specific conditions.