Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
As an Internet Smart Guy who has read Plato's Republic I feel pretty well obligated to call this one out. There are many theories on what constitutes justice, but the common thread is that justice is regarded as a constructive force. This places it squarely at odds with vengeance, which is destructive in nature. Justice promotes (and is integral to) a harmonious society, while vengeance is not.
This guy beat the shit out of an old man, is what this comes down to. Not a very nice old man, and maybe he deserved it. But in the end what was accomplished here? No future crime was prevented. I'd be surprised if our vigilante friend even feels any better about the crimes committed once the dust has settled. So, what?
I can't condone acts of this nature. While "the system" is imperfect in practice, it's only through a state institution working for the good of society as a whole that I feel justice can effectively be meted out. Individuals are too capricious to be reliable.
|
I don't seen any particular reason to define vengeance as destructive in nature, except to undermine my point. No offense to Plato, but it's not inherent to the definition of vengeance as I understand it. Perhaps my point would be made more clear if we went forward using the word retribution instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hektore
Vigilantism isn't inherently different than state justice, both are forms of revenge retribution upon a person who committed a crime. I fail to see why the source of the revenge retribution makes it any more/less moral for that revenge retribution to take place. The difference is in the state being a third party which is supposed to not be emotionally invested in the outcome and as such capable for more sound judgement. supposed be...
Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz144HiL2u8 |
The point was, the difference between vigilantism and state justice is not the actions, but the actors. Yes, the actions taken in the name of justice by vigilantes and the state are typically different but there nothing inherent to their natures that makes this necessarily true. A person is just as capable of imprisonment as the state and the state just as capable as unjust murder as a person. Also the retribution that takes place can be constructive or destructive by either actor.
The question as originally asked was:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
|
Which I took, in this context, to mean roughly "Is vigilantism inherently immoral?" Which, no, I don't think it is. I think that in some cases where the state fails to act or is incapable of acting there is a case to be made for people taking the law into their own hands. Occasionally a case comes up where we see it. Remember
this thread? A woman got 4 years, which was later reduce to 6 months for killing her brother in law by shooting him 5 times, reloading and shooting him another 5 times because he had allegedly molested her daughter.
If they had been strangers on the street she'd be in jail for the rest of her life. Allowing vigilantism is not without problems, which you and I both mentioned. But it's certainly not inherently immoral.