[ SECRET POST #1839 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1839 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 07 pages, 156 secrets from Secret Submission Post #263.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

Isn't Batman a vigilante.

I mean it seems like he doesn't get to throw this criticism around, especially since the only defend-able usage of a vigilante of any real worth is carrying out extra-judicial killings that the state is unwilling or unable to do.

Those who's corruption is rampant but leaves them untouchable, or otherwise have such a tremendous negative effect that the value in removing them through non-legal purposes outweighs the net negative of such a fundamental violation of the social contract.

[(Anonymous)]

And who decides what is "rampant"? Would you really, honestly trust the judgement some random person who decides to go and dish out justice based on his own values? Do you trust him to be always in the right state of mind? Do you trust him to serve society and not his own means?

It's a bit like autocracy vs democracy. Yes, in theory autocracy is more effective and if done right it can be better than democracy because ut cuts down on debate and can silence unsavory voices and opinions. The problem is that it's rarely, if ever, done right because humans are just humans.

No, judges and courts are not infallible either, but at least they're society's own way of dealing with its problems based on rules accepted by the majority of society. Not on the values of some random stranger off the street.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

Well no I don't necessarily trust them. Hell, chances are they're a nut job.

But as someone who believes in moral facts, as long as they follow those, then what they've done is just (obviously the moral calculus here is absurdly complex).

Appeals to the masses doesn't really change that.

Or would you categorically say there is never ever a situation in which vigilante violence is acceptable?

[(Anonymous)]

As a member of society I wouldn't want people I don't know/trust/didn't accept as authority out there doing what they please to appease their own morals. I don't really care that they believe they're just - what I care is how it affects me and the society I live in. And vigilantism inherently has a huge margin for making things worse. Because vigilantes are human, they're not necessarily stable mentally and even if they are they don't necessarily stay stable and sane; there's no guarantee that their morals won't change with time, or that their power won't get to their head, that they won't harm innocents in their attempts to remain anonymous, etc. etc. It's a very slippery slope, and once you step on it it's guaranteed not to end well.

It's not a question of appealing to the masses or not. If we get down to it, it's about all the things that can potentially go wrong, and ordinary people not living in fear or at least uneasiness because there's a murderer on the loose - a well-intentioned murderer, maybe, but a murderer all the same. (And if he starts being less well-intentioned and more concerned with his own purposes, it's even worse.)

I'm not saying that vigilantism is necessarily wrong by default, but vigilantes resorting to the heavy end of violence and murder? I can't condone that. There are just way too many things that can go wrong.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

Ah.

See I actually think we agree, sort of.

You're right in that those are very much real issues, and why almost always vigilantes are a bad idea.

It's just where I think we differ, is that in a select number of extreme situation they're an unpleasant necessity, and that for anything below that they're not acceptable*.

The monopoly on violence in a society needs to remain in the hands of the state, except when situations develop where the state is unable to self regulate. However, the number of those situations is intensely rare, and every time has to be balanced against the moral evils of engaging in vigilantiism.

I suppose one could make a more compelling argument for it, but like you said it's very similar to the issue with autocracies, fundamentally if you have it functioning with moral drive and purpose, it is far more effective (slightly more nuanced then that but eh), except the system always, and inherently falls apart or becomes corrupt, which leads to a negative situation far outweighing the good done through it.

*If batman wants to go around beating up poor people and minorities, he can join the police. I find the idea that 'oh, as long as he doesn't kill them it's cool more then a little problematic'.

[insanenoodlyguy.livejournal.com]

Good luck finding that universally accepted omnibus of moral facts. Rarely will people agree on just, and certainly not enough that any vigilante is ever going to be able to run around killing people based on their own judgement in any way close to a flawless methodology.

There are people who could ascribe to what you propose and will go out targeting drug dealers, and then the next guy believes he must kill the president.

[kindlycoyote.livejournal.com]

Eh, personally I think a citizen going around stopping crime is a good thing if they have the means and don't ruin cases. In Batman's case, he is a billionaire genius and not operating in our world, so he gets a pass.

There was actually a article I read about real-life vigilante super-heroes (martial arts trained) people in one city. They didn't go out of their way to find stuff, their martial arts were focused on disabling and they used pepper spray instead of guns. I think this is a good thing as it is one more person keeping people safe. If they overstepped their bounds, I would say that is a bad thing, but not vigilantism as a whole.

Hell, police step out of bounds a hella lot and I still see them as a good thing.

My own philosophy is 'as long as you are doing more good than bad, and not doing something permanent (aka killing someone, which if you were wrong about the situation means you took a innocent life, and even at the best you have taken the choice to become good from that person. There are a lot of examples of people doing horrible things in their youth only to turn around and become saints... so that is why I lean on the 'no kill' side).