Vigilantism

[Flatchett]

Classic example: Dude comes home to find his family raped and killed. Dude hunts down perpetrators and kills them. Leaving aside the morality of the death penalty, is this wrong?


Personally, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with vigilantism. Period. Obviously, you can point to many scenarios where vigilantes punished the wrong person, harmed innocents, terrorized communities, etc. But I could point to many scenarios where the police did the exact same thing. The problem is not with vigilantism or policing per se but with the corruption of these ideas. The police have no more moral authority to punish wrongdoers than does your average citizen, they merely have more political authority.


All that said, in our society I think vigilantism should be discouraged for the most part because of the disrupting effect on society that it would have should it become widespread. When the cops put someone away, people tend to assume that they got the right guy, and everyone goes on with their lives. (This is not always a good thing.) If a vigilante shoots someone they know is a killer/rapist/pedo, but they didn't bother to prove it to everybody, who is to say if they actually got the right guy.


This is my opinion after three whole minutes of careful consideration.

[Madrigal]

All that said, in our society I think vigilantism should be discouraged for the most part because of the disrupting effect on society that it would have should it become widespread.

Except it isn't. Vigilantism is glorified on all levels.

Dunno if you watched the ending of The Dark Knight. That's even justification of the US acting on its own against international law.

[Chunes]

When the cops put someone away, people tend to assume that they got the right guy, and everyone goes on with their lives. (This is not always a good thing.) If a vigilante shoots someone they know is a killer/rapist/pedo, but they didn't bother to prove it to everybody, who is to say if they actually got the right guy.

I'd bet a hundred bucks that vigilantes are more accurate than police. They're more personally invested. If I'm going to torture and kill my wife's murderer, I'm going to get the right guy.

[Anonymous]

The general populace is untrained for law enforcement and, as has been shown empirically, more likely to make biased mistakes, such as erroneously shooting ethnic minorities faster than national police would. I'm opposed to the United State's police, since I'm opposed to the country, but police in general should be highly trained and cooperative.

[Flatchett]

Except it isn't. Vigilantism is glorified on all levels.

Dunno if you watched the ending of The Dark Knight. That's even justification of the US acting on its own against international law.

Well, it's glorified in movies, obviously. But I don't think many people actually condone it in real life.

Also, while in many cases reprehensible, I don't think the actions of the US are really vigilantism. I think, by definition, vigilantism involves non-state actors.

[Night]

Classic example: Dude comes home to find his family raped and killed. Dude hunts down perpetrators and kills them. Leaving aside the morality of the death penalty, is this wrong?

This is the classic example? Seems pretty gruesome. Actually, the strength of your initial example probably sets an unfair tone for your subsequent justification of vigilantism.


Personally, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with vigilantism. Period. Obviously, you can point to many scenarios where vigilantes punished the wrong person, harmed innocents, terrorized communities, etc. But I could point to many scenarios where the police did the exact same thing.

So, the "Two Wrongs Make A Right" fallacy? Hmm.


The problem is not with vigilantism or policing per se but with the corruption of these ideas. The police have no more moral authority to punish wrongdoers than does your average citizen, they merely have more political authority.

You're waxing unrelated terminology. There's no "moral" impulse present in police behavior - enforcement is a legal extension of the legislative authority of the respective governing body. The legal use of force to maintain order.

I'm not sure how you factor "political" power into this equation, as I'm not certain in what context you use the term. Perhaps you could clarify?


All that said, in our society I think vigilantism should be discouraged for the most part because of the disrupting effect on society that it would have should it become widespread. When the cops put someone away, people tend to assume that they got the right guy, and everyone goes on with their lives. (This is not always a good thing.) If a vigilante shoots someone they know is a killer/rapist/pedo, but they didn't bother to prove it to everybody, who is to say if they actually got the right guy.


Vigilantism is subjective enforcement of personal vendetta. It has no place in civilized society.

[Toonia]

Ghandi's statement "an eye for an eye would leave the world blind" speaks to the fact that every person acts upon the other in an endless chain of imbalances and rights violated. Every act of punishment is perceived as justified - both the perpetrator's act and the one seeking revenge.

Why did the person rape and kill the family? The chilling truth is that the act was likely justified in the person's mind. This could result from the person having a chemical imbalance that distorted his perception of reality to the point of being psychotic viewing the family as a personal mortal threat. Perhaps the perpetrator's own family caused him intense personal harm and he punished this other family as a proxy. Perhaps he was punishing the husband/father for something the perpetrator viewed as being taken. Even as a random act the perpetrator felt the right to regain a sense of power that someone, some place had taken from him. There is a cause that produced the effect. The perpetrator settles a personal score through his act of punishment. The perpetrator is likely vigilante of sorts in motivation.

Every act of punishment whether measured as cruelty or justice from the people within the context it occurs is motivated similarly. There is a perceived imbalance, a violation has been committed, a personal right violated. This imbalance must be resolved by reflecting it back as a punishment. The object of the punishment is either the person directly responsible for a harm, or a person who serves as a proxy for someone who caused harm. The process of creating proxies often results from being violated because it is a mental process based on fear that oversimplifies reality through prejudicial thinking to avoid another harmful scenario in the future. What is often overlooked is the distortions of personal perception that always play into this process to varying degrees. Justice and punishment are possibly the most subjective processes and most prone to becoming distorted away from reality when based on personal revenge and settling scores.

The irony is that it does not resolve the imbalance, but perpetuates it. The deepest violation is to internalize and take on the characteristics of the violator to perpetuate his acts and in a strange way become a proxy of the original violator. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be problem solving to stop harm where it occurs, and it isn't to say there needs to be feelings of forgiveness. It is to say that a violation should be approached in as impersonal a manner as possible as a problem to be solved to prevent further acts. It is of primary importance to distance oneself and not be pulled into the cycle of perceptual distortion it perpetuates.

[bass_n_treble]

The most famous Vigilante is Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels. He's an interesting character, and even though he is critical of police, he usually works along with them. He's done a lot of good.


Except it isn't. Vigilantism is glorified on all levels.

Dunno if you watched the ending of The Dark Knight. That's even justification of the US acting on its own against international law.

:rofl:
Why am I not surprised your image of the United States is influenced by a movie about fictional people? That's pretty warped. You know Gotham isn't a real city, right?

[M.L.Fay]

also, vigilantism, "uncorrupted" (by corruption you mean human nature ?) as you would have it, is then no longer an idea, but an ideal.
Unless you understand the "corrupting" process, and structurally integrate it.

[ApeTheDog]

Except it isn't. Vigilantism is glorified on all levels.

Not on all levels. A serial killer is a vigilante as well.

Vigilantism carries the approval of those who would have done the same, were they in a similar situation - and is glorified by those who would be too afraid if it were them.

[Flatchett]

This is the classic example? Seems pretty gruesome. Actually, the strength of your initial example probably sets an unfair tone for your subsequent justification of vigilantism.


I think it's a fairly well established masterplot. Shows up with minor variations in all sorts of places: Sweeney Todd, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Searchers, etc.



So, the "Two Wrongs Make A Right" fallacy? Hmm.


Nope. My point is that in both cases corruption of purpose and misapplication of force can occur.




You're waxing unrelated terminology. There's no "moral" impulse present in police behavior - enforcement is a legal extension of the legislative authority of the respective governing body. The legal use of force to maintain order.


The application of force is a moral issue. There is no moral difference between a person killing a murderer and a government killing a murderer. The difference is that one has a certain amount of legitimacy and the other doesn't. One has the tacit approval of society and the other doesn't. This is what I meant by "political" authority. It was a poor choice of words.





Vigilantism is subjective enforcement of personal vendetta.

How so?



It has no place in civilized society.

I agree with this.


also, vigilantism, "uncorrupted" (by corruption you mean human nature ?) as you would have it, is then no longer an idea, but an ideal.
Unless you understand the "corrupting" process, and structurally integrate it.

What I meant was that self-appointed "vigilantes" are often nothing more than gangs of people who kill people they don't like.


A serial killer is a vigilante as well.



What?

[Ptah]

One ought to be free to seek one's own vengeance, if you ask me. As congruent with the rational principle of justice, that is.

I can tell you this. In the OP's example, you can be sure that if by whatever course of action I can take a shot at my family's killer, I will.

[M.L.Fay]

...I can tell you this. In the OP's example, you can be sure that if by whatever course of action I can take a shot at my family's killer, I will.

I think it would`ve sounded more vigilante-like hadn't you said "If by whatever course of action I can".

[Night]

I think it's a fairly well established masterplot. Shows up with minor variations in all sorts of places: Sweeney Todd, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Searchers, etc.

That's kind of where I thought your head was at when you made the distinction. Cinematic plot often doesn't jive with reality - that's one of the main attractions of theater.

I'm not sure why you offer these comparisons to real world events. Unless your thread was examining the moral role of vigilantism in popular film and theater, your examples are misplaced.


Nope. My point is that in both cases corruption of purpose and misapplication of force can occur.

Sure they can. Human error is ubiquitous.


Let's compare the terms:

Police must follow procedure. There are many overlapping, redundant checks and balances set up specifically to reduce the likelihood of unfair process. Illegitimate prosecution certainly happens - however, I think we can both agree that it is an anomaly within the system - a blip; a misfire. While not perfect, the judicial system is the best we have to combat crime and maintain order.

Vigilantes are different. Accountability is limited to the vigilante, and his actions probably aren't critically analyzed from independent sources before he makes the decision to act. There are no external authorities. His behavior is self-selecting. The chances of him making errors of bias are substantially higher, as he is generally a self-reliant entity intent on exacting personal vengeance, versus the detached enforcement of due process.

Your variables are worlds apart. There is no effective bridge between the two.

As such, the probability for error and corruption remain monumentally higher with the vigilante.


The application of force is a moral issue. There is no moral difference between a person killing a murderer and a government killing a murderer. The difference is that one has a certain amount of legitimacy and the other doesn't. One has the tacit approval of society and the other doesn't. This is what I meant by "political" authority. It was a poor choice of words.

You're moving pretty quickly down the slope here, Flatchett. Who said anything about killing? I'm simply discussing the inherent right to enforce rules on territory held by a governing body.

As I've already indicated, the gulf between police and vigilantes is profound. One is concerned with justice. The other with self-gratification.

I'm not sure how to make the separation more clear.

And, no - the maintenance of order is not a moral issue. If anything, it is a sociological necessity.


How so?

How not?

[ApeTheDog]

What?

What is the difference between a person who exacts justice upon someone for killing his daughter - and someone who exacts vengeance upon all women of the planet for being inpure?

Both are breaking the law, and both might think their actions are above the law (most serial killers, admittedly, know perfectly well they're acting wrongly - but there is a subset that is crazy enough to feel they are archangels of deliverance. They're very interesting for this thought exercise).

[M.L.Fay]

...
And, no - the maintenance of order is not a moral issue. If anything, it is a sociological necessity...


Disagree. Your point of view appears to be from-the-inside-out. It's the necessity of the established system, but because the better will forever be the enemy of the good, chaos (defined as to mean the disruption of your order) is an essential part of the dynamic.

Order is non-movement. Stillstand. A horrible state.

[Night]

Disagree. Your point of view appears to be from-the-inside-out. It's the necessity of the established system, but because the better will forever be the enemy of the good, chaos (defined as to mean the disruption of your order) is an essential part of the dynamic.

Order is non-movement. Stillstand. A horrible state.

What do you disagree with? The notion that order is a sociological necessity or my statement that order is not an issue of morality?

Furthermore, what does "[T]he better will forever be the enemy of good, chaos" mean? It's central to your contention and doesn't make much sense in its present form.

I'll wait to comment until you clarify.

[M.L.Fay]

What do you disagree with? The notion that order is a sociological necessity or my statement that order is not an issue of morality?

Furthermore, what does "[T]he better will forever be the enemy of good, chaos" mean? It's central to your contention and doesn't make much sense in its present form.

I'll wait to comment until you clarify.

"The better..." is the tendency of systems to constantly adapt. "better" and "good" is a bit misleading.

I disagree, because your post lead me to assume the following

When you say "sociological" I assume you define "order" as the structure of our society - laws, culture, etc. So, yes, order is a sociological necessity, as is its opposite, since the context is always changing, and we are constantly adapting.

But the main reason why I am opposed to your post is, that I am convinced, that the structure of societies can an should be changed to be more adaptive. Less rigid.

[Wolfe]

I'd bet a hundred bucks that vigilantes are more accurate than police. They're more personally invested. If I'm going to torture and kill my wife's murderer, I'm going to get the right guy.

you would hope it is the right guy. I have heard incidents in my country where frequently a mob kills someone, and it is the wrong individual - and they have no remorse for it. This is the purpose of the justice system although it is flawed, it is the fairer route.

[Night]

"The better..." is the tendency of systems to constantly adapt. "better" and "good" is a bit misleading.

I disagree, because your post lead me to assume the following

When you say "sociological" I assume you define "order" as the structure of our society - laws, culture, etc. So, yes, order is a sociological necessity, as is its opposite, since the context is always changing, and we are constantly adapting.

But the main reason why I am opposed to your post is, that I am convinced, that the structure of societies can an should be changed to be more adaptive. Less rigid.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

It sounds like you're offering a tangent of dialogue outside the scope of the OP - which is fine. It's probably best to just begin with this statement, as much of what we will now discuss doesn't bear much relevance to "vigilantism".

As I mentioned, order is a sociological necessity. From order, we can achieve things like cities and government - individually, communities of human cooperation built on a mutual interest to survive. In this sense, "order" simply means the conscious desire to share resources and pool our collective information towards a common good.

It sounds like you're applying a personal statement to the notion of "order" as it applies to stymieing creativity and progress. On the contrary, order allows us to combine intellectual output towards a shared goal. Take the evolution of the personal computer as an example.

Shared initiative made personal computing feasible in homes across the world. Through the employment of diverse fields - marketing, electrical engineering, materials science, etc., the personal computer has expanded from simple desktop format into many different mediums, spanning across many different platforms (the Laptop, the Pocket PC, the iPhone, etc.)

It's with collective order that these ideas came into practical focus, were developed for mass production and made available for you and me - the consumer (also a valuable variable in the sociology of ordered culture).

Does that make sense?

[Zelda]

Based on my own personal experience of pursuing this for myself, I don't think anybody really wins in the end. Well, unless one has no conscience and can easily feel victorious in destroying another persons life.

In retrospect, I should have dealt with things a little differently but ultimately the police were involved (even though it took those assholes forever to look into it) and he now has a record.

So, based on personal experience with this, I vote 'bad'.

[Flatchett]

I don't have time to respond to anyone in depth right now, but I should probably try to clarify exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm asking is, is it wrong for a person to apply punishment to a criminal assuming that they have right person and that their punishment is not out of proportion with the crime? What I'm trying to get at is, does a group of people (the government) have a moral right to enact punishment that one person does not?

I totally agree with the people who are saying that it is more efficient and less risky to have the government do these things.

I'm talking about morality not convenience.

[M.L.Fay]

Yes, that makes sense - I do understand your point of view, I just don't happily share it. You mention "a common good" and "mutual interest" - simple terms that belie the incredible complexities that arise from the dynamics of systems. I don't think a human can know "the common good". We can imagine to know the better compared to the good (or status quo), as we see fit.
I don't think that "survival" is exclusively a "mutual interest" - for many it is very much only the opposite. Ask Ptah.
I think "survival" is a biological imperative, but I if we were to venture deeper into the topic I would prefer to abstract it as "propagation of information".

Communities are not "built" - community is the natural structure of the organism homo sapiens...anyway

Maybe not the place for this discussion, pardon.

[Lurker]

I don't have a lot of faith in the legal system, to be honest.

[Bugs701]

Technically, the example in the OP is more revenge than vigilantism. Vigilantism is more general and less personal than revenge.

You may be motivated to risk your life and your freedom to avenge a loved one (revenge), but taking it upon yourself to punish criminals generally (vigilantism) is a tougher thing to get motivated for. Usually it happens when governmental authority is too corrupt or ineffective in dealing with crime, making vigilantism worth the risk.

Whether it is right or wrong, in my opinion, comes down to this: Every person has a right to bring justice. In modern society, we contract with our governments to provide law, police, and courts to that end. In order to enjoy the protection of that system, we obey the law. This generally includes giving up any right to personally affect justice.

If, however, the governmental system of justice fails to adequately maintain order, private individuals are morally justified in violating the law in order to affect jusice. When they do so, they must accept that they have willingly given up any protection that the law once provided and are now subject to its consequences.

In other words: If you have the balls to own the consequences, I have no problem with vigilantism.

[Night]

Yes, that makes sense - I do understand your point of view, I just don't happily share it. You mention "a common good" and "mutual interest" - simple terms that belie the incredible complexities that arise from the dynamics of systems.

For the purpose of our forum, it makes sense to offer terms that are simplified, as to reduce misapprehension.

If we all shared a common foundation, we could wax complexity, as we'd be better able to get over common errors in communication that arise from divergent position.


I don't think a human can know "the common good". We can imagine to know the better compared to the good (or status quo), as we see fit.
I don't think that "survival" is exclusively a "mutual interest" - for many it is very much only the opposite. Ask Ptah.

If I recall correctly, I've debated with Ptah over the relationship between society and citizens.

It was a long time ago, so I can't remember specifics. You're right, though - our pretext differs when it comes to how one variable serves the other.


I think "survival" is a biological imperative, but I if we were to venture deeper into the topic I would prefer to abstract it as "propagation of information".

Communities are not "built" - community is the natural structure of the organism homo sapiens...anyway

Maybe not the place for this discussion, pardon.

Survival is a biological imperative. Intercellular competition gives rise to complex life - there's no question about that.

It's how we opt to define the practical expression of competition that's important. What it means to cooperate and perpetuate shared data that defines our final success as both an individual, and as a species.

What do you mean by "natural structure of the organism homo sapiens"?

[M.L.Fay]

By "natural structure" I mean that a system, let's say an organism, as definied by species-boundaries, has an inherent structure that defines its dynamics of propagation of information - or "survival". Adaption. A complex social organism like our species has a relatively complex structure...and, well, like ants...the point is that is has to be inherent, to a certain extend - the old nature and nurture question is especially relevant insofar that it points to a structure, an order if you want, that is inherent. So, we aren't technically that far apart.
The difference arises from you measuring the status quo by its own standards, whilst I measure it by "the better...", to me it does not reflect ideals.

[MoneyJungle]

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd243/Dangerfeild4Life/ThePunisherMeetsArchieSkull.jpg

[repo_man]

I find vigilantes lacking in wisdom and self-control.

In addition, they lack in the justice virtue. A vigilante is not a good citizen. Vigilantism is not how society is supposed to work.

I voted "bad". I did not read most of the discussion, sorry.

[Dirac]

I'd bet a hundred bucks that vigilantes are more accurate than police. They're more personally invested. If I'm going to torture and kill my wife's murderer, I'm going to get the right guy.
Nothing aids logical think and clear deductions like a headful of rage.

[Chunes]

Baloney.

[Ferrus]

I'd bet a hundred bucks that vigilantes are more accurate than police. They're more personally invested. If I'm going to torture and kill my wife's murderer, I'm going to get the right guy.
With all due respect, this is an utterly childish picture of human psychology. People can easily delude themselves about such matters. And in traumatic situations such as you describe, their capacity to reason is dimished to an even greater extent.

[Ptah]

With all due respect, this is an utterly childish picture of human psychology. People can easily delude themselves about such matters. And in traumatic situations such as you describe, their capacity to reason is is often but not always or necessarily dimished to an even greater extent.

fixed.

It is possible to be methodical and objective while acting upon a passionate need for justice. That said, I will agree that very often people fall far short of this possibility.

[Ferrus]

It is possible to be methodical and objective while acting upon a passionate need for justice. That said, I will agree that very often people fall far short of this possibility.
Only people who are emotionally lobotomised. And they are a tiny minority. And moreover not in personally involved situations. In fact it is such a subconscious temptation that I'd be surprise to see anyone acting on fully pure rationality.

More importantly is - people in such emotional states are not likely to consider a correct method of evidence. If your wife has been killed, I think the last thing 99% of the human population would consider is abstract principles of justice. They would only be interested in a form of personal justice. In fact, speaking to the majority of people, even if they were capable of eclipsing their emotions, their lack of reasoning ability would in itself preclude any decent judgement.

[Ptah]

Only people who are emotionally lobotomised. And they are a tiny minority.

... or emotionally integrated, stabilized. Which is also a tiny minority, perhaps, yes. But only for great default, not unavoidably.



More importantly is - people in such emotional states are not likely to consider a correct method of evidence. In fact, speaking to the majority of people, even if they were capable of eclipsing their emotions, their lack of reasoning ability would in itself preclude any decent judgement.

You don't need to sell me on the sad state/disposition of most people as such. Anyhow, be all that as it may, I say it remains that people don't have to be such slackers, they effectively choose to be (that is, by great default, and affirmed/validated by prevalent cultural norms, etc). In other words, they're seeking gratification, not justice. I say again: it can and should be that people follow justice passionately, for this is the concept that keeps them firmly anchored on the facts as against their feelings-qua-impulses on the matter.

It is an utterly childish view of psychology to see it otherwise, if you ask me.

edit to edit:

If your wife has been killed, I think the last thing 99% of the human population would consider is abstract principles of justice. They would only be interested in a form of personal justice. In fact, speaking to the majority of people, even if they were capable of eclipsing their emotions, their lack of reasoning ability would in itself preclude any decent judgement.

Again, this is to speak of most people, not human potential. And as such I more or less find it agreeable. But as for potential, its an entirely different projection. Anyhow, sure I'd feel rage at and want revenge upon someone who kills my wife. But that doesn't mean I'm blinded by it. Just motivated by it. And to let the initial rage, etc pass, delayed, methodical revenge is that which accords with justice.

[Ferrus]

From my perspective, concepts of human perfectibility died with the 20th century. Animals we are with a tiny tincture of reason that has been granted to suit evolutionary purposes.

[Toonia]

fixed.

It is possible to be methodical and objective while acting upon a passionate need for justice. That said, I will agree that very often people fall far short of this possibility.How would you describe the purpose of punishment as an act of passion? What are the things it accomplishes better than an impartial approach? Intense emotional reaction usually triggers additional physiological phenomenon that distort perception. Are there examples of a passionate vigilante approach getting an accurate and effective result? It's too easy to find examples that produced inaccuracy and overreaction, so I'm wondering if there are specific models to point to that demonstrate its usefulness.

[Zelda]

Nothing aids logical think and clear deductions like a headful of rage.

Definitely. Perhaps rage fuels the emotions in some but in my case I become extremely calm, quiet and very rational and focused (very Jish). During the time I was involved in vigilantism (not revenge) I used this to my advantage in order to get the results I wanted.

[Ptah]

How would you describe the purpose of punishment as an act of passion? What are the things it accomplishes better than an impartial approach? Intense emotional reaction usually triggers additional physiological phenomenon that distort perception. Are there examples of a passionate vigilante approach getting an accurate and effective result? It's too easy to find examples that produced inaccuracy and overreaction, so I'm wondering if there are specific models to point to that demonstrate its usefulness.

I guess I don't see it as a form of "punishment"; I'm not out to punish, I'm out to see revenge done in accord with a proper principle of justice.

Don't get me wrong: if there was an effective impartial approach available, I'd consider using it. But there isn't. If a man kills my wife, I could either wait for the police/legal system to maybe -- just maybe, not not likely -- deal with him in a way congruent with justice.... or I could go take care of things myself, see justice done properly.

Invoking all the same principles and concepts in a different but compatible context, when someone screws with me at work, I could either go to HR and watch them fail utterly in getting anything in accord with justice done, or I could deal with the problem myself; see justice done.

[Dirac]

Definitely. Perhaps rage fuels the emotions in some but in my case I become extremely calm, quiet and very rational and focused (very Jish). During the time I was involved in vigilantism (not revenge) I used this to my advantage in order to get the results I wanted.
Wah? Maybe this is the case for you, but this does not seem to be the case for the vast majority of people.

[Ptah]

Wah? Maybe this is the case for you, but this does not seem to be the case for the vast majority of people.

Not perforce necessity, only athwart their defaulted-upon potential.

[Toonia]

I guess I don't see it as a form of "punishment"; I'm not out to punish, I'm out to see revenge done in accord with a proper principle of justice.

Don't get me wrong: if there was an effective impartial approach available, I'd consider using it. But there isn't. If a man kills my wife, I could either wait for the police/legal system to maybe -- just maybe, not not likely -- deal with him in a way congruent with justice.... or I could go take care of things myself, see justice done properly.

Invoking all the same principles and concepts in a different but compatible context, when someone screws with me at work, I could either go to HR and watch them fail utterly in getting anything in accord with justice done, or I could deal with the problem myself; see justice done.I'm reading here and elsewhere an underlying assumption that impartial = legal system while vigilante = individual reaction

For some reason I was not equating those in my mind consistently, although I can understand the connection on principle. There are examples of both systems and individuals acting in passion and examples of both systems and individuals acting impartially. Is a system by nature more impartial? That makes for an interesting question because there are plenty of examples where they are not and where the concept of justice is distorted through a collective subjective lens. My position leans towards valuing an impartial approach whether occurring at the level of system or individual. That might require circumventing an established system in some cases.

It does make for an interesting question regarding one's point of reference to make judgments and act. Reason being the aim, but searching for it through both individually and collectively distorted lens can make it difficult to ascertain. One movie that made an impression on me regarding this question of reason and perception was "Proof" in which a brilliant mathematician lost his mind. Internally he always had his proof and towards the end was excited about his recent work which had been reduced to irrational jibberish. Trusting reason is not hard, but trusting the individual or group's ability to comprehend it is a bit more difficult, and I tend to apply that same distrust to myself.

[Ptah]

I'm reading here and elsewhere an underlying assumption that impartial = legal system while vigilante = individual reaction

I concede to having made this leap in my last post. I certainly see the distinction you're drawing here.


My position leans towards valuing an impartial approach whether occurring at the level of system or individual. That might require circumventing an established system in some cases.

Well, perhaps we're just using different terms for the same basic ideas.

Let's see.

"Impartial" would (and should) be a property of objective, methodical revenge-seeking in accord with the principle of justice, as I've advocated before. Now I also advocated that the pursuit of justice can and perhaps should be passionate, as in: depart from, be perpetuated by a strong emotional base. But I am also quick to point out that emotions ought to be integrated; so that they serve as motive but not as method. Feelings can (and should) be the why but not (ever) the how.

Moreover: I suppose some would argue that feelings have no proper role, and can if not should be eliminated from the matter. But to do so would be to appeal to if not depart from a gross misunderstanding of justice, as well as a gross misunderstanding of how any and every human action follows from some kind of feeling. Whether or not those feelings are rationally integrated is the question we should be focusing upon. And that they are often not integrated as such leads many to cite the stigma of unjust emotion-fueled rampages or whatever as to dismiss the place of emotion in matters of justice.

[Madrigal]

:rofl:
Why am I not surprised your image of the United States is influenced by a movie about fictional people? That's pretty warped. You know Gotham isn't a real city, right?
That's funny. I've travelled more than you, learned more languages than you, had a better education than you, accumulated more citizenships than you, read more than you, worked more than you, did more shit than you, and definitely studied more films than you. So refresh my memory on how you know any better than me on anything except how to be a pustulent pimple on someone's ass.


Not on all levels. A serial killer is a vigilante as well.
I meant individual, group and state levels, not "every kind of crime".

[zago]

That's funny. I've travelled more than you, learned more languages than you, had a better education than you, accumulated more citizenships than you, read more than you, worked more than you, did more shit than you, and definitely studied more films than you.

And you did it all so you could say shit like that.

[pan_sonic_000]

That's funny. I've travelled more than you, learned more languages than you, had a better education than you, accumulated more citizenships than you, read more than you, worked more than you, did more shit than you, and definitely studied more films than you. So refresh my memory on how you know any better than me on anything except how to be a pustulent pimple on someone's ass.


He actually lives here.

[Madrigal]

And you did it all so you could say shit like that.

What a surprise you should pop up. You guys should form a club. Oh wait, you already have. (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=40923)

[Madrigal]

He actually lives here.

That doesn't make him better at analyzing film (my major) or understanding geopolitics. In fact, chances are that he doesn't understand much of either for that very reason.

[kuranes]

Technically, the example in the OP is more revenge than vigilantism. Vigilantism is more general and less personal than revenge.

You may be motivated to risk your life and your freedom to avenge a loved one (revenge), but taking it upon yourself to punish criminals generally (vigilantism) is a tougher thing to get motivated for. Usually it happens when governmental authority is too corrupt or ineffective in dealing with crime, making vigilantism worth the risk.

Whether it is right or wrong, in my opinion, comes down to this: Every person has a right to bring justice. In modern society, we contract with our governments to provide law, police, and courts to that end. In order to enjoy the protection of that system, we obey the law. This generally includes giving up any right to personally affect justice.

If, however, the governmental system of justice fails to adequately maintain order, private individuals are morally justified in violating the law in order to affect jusice. +1

[mgb]

Within the past few years, where I live, a drunk driver went up over a curb and hit a mom walking with her son, who was in a wheelchair due to a lifelong and pre-existing medical condition, and a friend of the family that was walking with them.

The result of the accident was that the mom was killed and the son was maimed and put in a condition even worse than the one he was originally in. I think the friend was hurt, but not as badly as the other two (my detail on this part of the story isn't as clear, but I'm not sure it matters for the sake of this discussion).

The father of the family is left to raise his daughter and even more disabled son. The drunk driver kept going but was followed home and eventually arrested and is not serving a three year term in prison.

While I think the prison term is abysmally low given his actions, I can't say as the father and husband, I'd be really happy about this. I'd say he's still got a lot to live for still, but if the situation had been slightly worse, I for one wouldn't have been terribly upset if he'd acted out against the person that killed his wife.

I believe the driver had a known history of drinking and was at a local bar before he got into his car. In my opinion, while he was behind the wheel, it took dozens of people, from friends and family, right through to the person that served him his last drink that contributed to this accident. While I agree with toonia, that there is really no end to reprecussions for poor behavior, I really wonder if at the time, I'd be strong enough to see it that way.

[1104]

i'm a little wary of the "imagine what it would be like if everyone did it" argument. it's unrealistic; "everyone" never happens.

i chose depends. chasing down a shoplifter is cool by me. playing Batman is not.

[Bugs701]

i chose depends. chasing down a shoplifter is cool by me. playing Batman is not.

Unless, of course, you are Batman.
:ph34r:

[pocohauntus]

stop listening in on my pay phone conversations. i didn't read the posts in this thread, but i have a feeling there is some kind of threat here involving me. please note: i will continue to say whatever i want to say while talking to my mom, and i will do whatever i want to do, and i will not be threatened by the likes of your ilk. you make me completely and utterly sick to my stomach.

[Madrigal]

stop listening in on my pay phone conversations. i didn't read the posts in this thread, but i have a feeling there is some kind of threat here involving me. please note: i will continue to say whatever i want to say while talking to my mom, and i will do whatever i want to do, and i will not be threatened by the likes of your ilk. you make me completely and utterly sick to my stomach.

...Emma?

[pocohauntus]

Karen?

[Lurker]

:)

[M.L.Fay]

I concede to having made this leap in my last post. I certainly see the distinction you're drawing here.



Well, perhaps we're just using different terms for the same basic ideas.

Let's see.

"Impartial" would (and should) be a property of objective, methodical revenge-seeking in accord with the principle of justice, as I've advocated before. Now I also advocated that the pursuit of justice can and perhaps should be passionate, as in: depart from, be perpetuated by a strong emotional base. But I am also quick to point out that emotions ought to be integrated; so that they serve as motive but not as method. Feelings can (and should) be the why but not (ever) the how.

Moreover: I suppose some would argue that feelings have no proper role, and can if not should be eliminated from the matter. But to do so would be to appeal to if not depart from a gross misunderstanding of justice, as well as a gross misunderstanding of how any and every human action follows from some kind of feeling. Whether or not those feelings are rationally integrated is the question we should be focusing upon. And that they are often not integrated as such leads many to cite the stigma of unjust emotion-fueled rampages or whatever as to dismiss the place of emotion in matters of justice.

Shall I (continue) to try to prod you every now and then so that you can (continue to) demonstrate consistency - or rather not ?

[Flatchett]

I forgot about this threak.