thought of the day
I be missing the late night discussions... not too many folks enjoy the
deeper discussions up here... feels like a forced conversation getting
them involved. Ah well...
I find myself torn by the moral questions that Boondock Saints asks. The main one that has been rolling around of late is the question of vigilantism. Is it ever acceptable to take the law into my own hands? If so, then when?
The two main answers that I see are the individualistic approach of moral relativity, and its opposite in social law. I can see both points of view, but am still torn as to which should apply to me, and balancing that with what I want to apply to humanity at large.
For starters, I'll outline my thoughts on social law. For us to live with others, we must abide by a common code of conduct (yes, back to freshman year with the social contract ~_^). Part of that conduct is that we delegate the power to punish to the society at large, which is represented in our court system. This keeps social order intact, and allows our society to function on a basic level. As such, the act of vigilantism destroys this social order, and invariably leads to Hobbes' state of nature. The vigilante essentially removes his/herself from society's structures, but still remains in the society. They are essentially trying to replace the society's justice with their own. In a way, they are playing God, for they put themselves above the society and arbitrate their will upon it. This is a very scary prospect, for what then keeps them in check? This is why society must quickly and effectively deal with vigilantism. For while the vigilantes may help destroy "evil" people, they commit a crime against society to do so. Left unchecked, this will ultimately destroy the society and rain anarchy upon the land.
But what then, are we to do with our own morality? Do we subsume it to the will of society? Or do we act according to our morals, and fuck societal rules that go against them? I know I want to follow my morality, and will do what I can to stop evil from going on around me. If I see rape, murder or child abuse going on, I will do my damndest to put an end to it, come what may. I cannot just watch it go on, for that is giving my consent to it happening. Taking action to stop evil in progress is fine by me, and I encourage it. Some may argue that I have no right to force my morality upon others- that all moral codes are inherantly equal and therefore mine has no moral justification to take precidence over theirs. The problem with this is simple: I must live and answer to my morals, not theirs. If I am to remain a moral person, I cannot subsume my morals under theirs: I must act. Vigilantism takes this one step further, however, and that is a step that I can no longer morally back up.
Vigilantes actively seek out evil. They go on a crusade to wipe evil from this earth, and do so with the fervor of moral zealots. They actively become the very devil they are fighting however, for they murder the murderers. This act takes away any moral standing that they may have had to begin with and leaves an evil individual in its stead. There is only one way I see that vigilantes can still justify their actions to themselves, and hope to have a shred of morality to cling to. And that is the same justification used by the Agent in Serenity. If they make themselves a moral sacrifice for the betterment of others, then they can justify the monstrosity they have become. The "I am more of a demon than those around me so that I may destroy the lesser devils, and make the night safe again" line of thought fits well with the whole fighiting evil mentality. This mentality works especially well when the evil is deep rooted and protected by portions of society. For the only way to fight the entrenched evil is to tear down and rework the protections it has woven around itself (by destroying/changing society's laws) or to circumnavigate the protections by working outside the law. When the evil is deep rooted into society, then the amount of force it takes to remove its protections is often daunting and beyond the reach of an individual. Which leaves the circumnavigating bit of working outside the law.
Now that I've danced around for a while, time to try and draw me thoughts into some semblance of a conclusion. While I must act on my morals, I must also act according to the societal standards that are around me. As such, I cannot actively hunt down and destroy any "evil" that catches my fancy, but must restrict myself to combating any evil that rears itself in my presence. The compromise here is only defending my morals when I happen to wander into a situation as compared to actively putting myself in situations to defend my morals. If I ever do cross the line into vigilantism, then I must be cognizant of what I have done, and willing to accept society's swift and wrathful retribution.
As always, feel free to add any comments/questions that strike your fancy- I love conversing back and forth. It is much more interesting that hearing my rants over and over in me head ^_^.
I find myself torn by the moral questions that Boondock Saints asks. The main one that has been rolling around of late is the question of vigilantism. Is it ever acceptable to take the law into my own hands? If so, then when?
The two main answers that I see are the individualistic approach of moral relativity, and its opposite in social law. I can see both points of view, but am still torn as to which should apply to me, and balancing that with what I want to apply to humanity at large.
For starters, I'll outline my thoughts on social law. For us to live with others, we must abide by a common code of conduct (yes, back to freshman year with the social contract ~_^). Part of that conduct is that we delegate the power to punish to the society at large, which is represented in our court system. This keeps social order intact, and allows our society to function on a basic level. As such, the act of vigilantism destroys this social order, and invariably leads to Hobbes' state of nature. The vigilante essentially removes his/herself from society's structures, but still remains in the society. They are essentially trying to replace the society's justice with their own. In a way, they are playing God, for they put themselves above the society and arbitrate their will upon it. This is a very scary prospect, for what then keeps them in check? This is why society must quickly and effectively deal with vigilantism. For while the vigilantes may help destroy "evil" people, they commit a crime against society to do so. Left unchecked, this will ultimately destroy the society and rain anarchy upon the land.
But what then, are we to do with our own morality? Do we subsume it to the will of society? Or do we act according to our morals, and fuck societal rules that go against them? I know I want to follow my morality, and will do what I can to stop evil from going on around me. If I see rape, murder or child abuse going on, I will do my damndest to put an end to it, come what may. I cannot just watch it go on, for that is giving my consent to it happening. Taking action to stop evil in progress is fine by me, and I encourage it. Some may argue that I have no right to force my morality upon others- that all moral codes are inherantly equal and therefore mine has no moral justification to take precidence over theirs. The problem with this is simple: I must live and answer to my morals, not theirs. If I am to remain a moral person, I cannot subsume my morals under theirs: I must act. Vigilantism takes this one step further, however, and that is a step that I can no longer morally back up.
Vigilantes actively seek out evil. They go on a crusade to wipe evil from this earth, and do so with the fervor of moral zealots. They actively become the very devil they are fighting however, for they murder the murderers. This act takes away any moral standing that they may have had to begin with and leaves an evil individual in its stead. There is only one way I see that vigilantes can still justify their actions to themselves, and hope to have a shred of morality to cling to. And that is the same justification used by the Agent in Serenity. If they make themselves a moral sacrifice for the betterment of others, then they can justify the monstrosity they have become. The "I am more of a demon than those around me so that I may destroy the lesser devils, and make the night safe again" line of thought fits well with the whole fighiting evil mentality. This mentality works especially well when the evil is deep rooted and protected by portions of society. For the only way to fight the entrenched evil is to tear down and rework the protections it has woven around itself (by destroying/changing society's laws) or to circumnavigate the protections by working outside the law. When the evil is deep rooted into society, then the amount of force it takes to remove its protections is often daunting and beyond the reach of an individual. Which leaves the circumnavigating bit of working outside the law.
Now that I've danced around for a while, time to try and draw me thoughts into some semblance of a conclusion. While I must act on my morals, I must also act according to the societal standards that are around me. As such, I cannot actively hunt down and destroy any "evil" that catches my fancy, but must restrict myself to combating any evil that rears itself in my presence. The compromise here is only defending my morals when I happen to wander into a situation as compared to actively putting myself in situations to defend my morals. If I ever do cross the line into vigilantism, then I must be cognizant of what I have done, and willing to accept society's swift and wrathful retribution.
As always, feel free to add any comments/questions that strike your fancy- I love conversing back and forth. It is much more interesting that hearing my rants over and over in me head ^_^.