Question

 
A point I’ve been mulling over during the last day, and I wanted to hear your opinion about it (I didn’t find that you addressed it explicitly in the post you wrote about “revenge”). I’ll formulate it through a few points:
 
A. There is a certain feeling that wanting something bad to happen to someone who did something bad is somewhat improper. At any rate, it’s certainly not praiseworthy. That is, for the sake of prevention, correction, or protection—it may be that he deserves something bad. But bad as a matter of justice or revenge is not justified, or at least not worthy of appreciation, and not the business of a person.
B. There is a certain intuition that when a person has done something good, it is fitting that he receive something good in return. Gratitude. People see this as a value, and someone who does not repay good is problematic from a moral standpoint. And certainly someone who does not think this way at all.
C. Seemingly, these two assumptions contradict one another. That is, good and bad are concepts opposite to each other. If so, if you assume that good deserves good (from a moral standpoint), then by the same logic, a person who did evil should also deserve an evil recompense from a moral standpoint. Why is that not so?
D. It is important to clarify that assumption B (gratitude) is not based on the fact that the thing is good. That is, it is not that since the act is good, it is proper to reward it. Rather, there is apparently an understanding here that when a person performs action X, it is proper that he also receive that same X. There is some intuition here of universal, global justice. That is the logic. In other words, it is not that it is proper to increase good, or to give a reward as motivation so that more people will do good. Rather, it is a kind of judicial justice on the global moral level. If so, then the same principle also applies to evil. And from here comes the question. In light of this, one can of course reject this, and then the question disappears.
[By the way, if my analysis is correct, this could justify the concept of “revenge.” That is, one should distinguish between: 1. Emotional revenge—which has no justification. 2. Revenge in the sense of absolute justice—a person who did evil ought to receive something bad. Like gratitude. That is, the same intuition behind gratitude is also the intuition behind revenge. And one should not reject one side without rejecting the other (and vice versa).]
What do you think?