Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Superheroes

Rate this topic


Linkara

Recommended Posts

There can be exceptions. The judge may be corrupt. The jury may be corrupt. But other than that, if for example a criminal walks because the prosecutor screwed up, or because the criminal had a very good attorney, you just ahve to learn to live with the result.

I guess I simply disagree with this, and I still think my position is justified under Objectivism. If the law is unable to touch, for whatever reason, a high profile, repeat violent offender - say, a high ranking member of the mafia - then I think someone would be perfectly justified in the rational use of force to remove this person from society. Not only is it justified, but it would save the taxpayers money on continuously prosecuting someone who never does any real time.

One problem with vigilantism is accountability. Courts are subject to review and trial records are open to anyone at all. If a court sentences you unjustly to death, there is a chance for an appeal (or many). What if a vigilante kills the wrong person, or even an innocent person he thought was guilty? More important, by what right does a vigilante get to decide whom he kills?

I'm not talking about armed thugs roaming about the streets killing people on whim. I am only saying vigilante killing would be justified in rare and extreme circumstances, and only when the would-be vigilante is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE that someone is a repeat violent offender, and that they will continue to commit crimes. In the case of a mobster or a well-known gang member, everyone knows the person is guilty. If the courts are unable to prosecute because of a lack of evidence or because witnesses mysteriously disappear, vigilante force is perfectly justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By its nature, government has a monopoly on the use of force. In a rational society, individuals agree to delegate their right of self-defense; they renounce the private use of physical force even in self-protection (except during those emergencies that require action at once, before the police can be summoned). If a society is to uphold man's rights, such delegation is essential.(16)

If men did not delegate the task of self-defense to a central agency, every individual would have to live and work armed, ready to shoot any stranger who looked suspicious (and who in turn would be ready to shoot him)—or, much more likely, men would form packs to protect themselves from other, similar packs, and the result would be gang wars and mob rule. In either case, peaceful coexistence among men would be impossible.

The key phrase here is "In a rational society..." Do you think we live in a rational society? Ever walk around Harlem or South Central LA at 2 a.m.? Neither have I. :worry: Granted, things are better now than they were ten years ago, but they are far from ideal.

And we DO have gang wars and Mob rule. It's not as extensive as it was, but it still exists in places. Again, it is only when the justice system fails to prosecute a repeat violent offender that I am advocating vigilante justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key phrase here is "In a rational society..." Do you think we live in a rational society?

Largely, yes, and likely the most rational society in existence. I'm a cop, I work in neighborhoods similar to those you mention. I see irrational behavior every day in people. That is EXACTLY why I still support the rule of law even in our mixed government today. I see entirely too many retaliatory acts that are wholly unjust and disproportionate to the offense committed because the retaliators themselves are irraitional and make judgements on whim.

But your statement goes beyond "the key phrase". You appear to assert that in any thing less than a wholly rational society that Objectivism would find vigilantism acceptable, and there is no evidence that I'm aware of in here non-fiction writings that supports this. Ayn Rand was quite adamant about the rule of law, not the rule of men. Others have pointed out to you that a differing interpretation of the fictional example you offered so I'll leave that to them.

And we DO have gang wars and Mob rule.
Yes, but the existence of these conditions neither justifies them nor supports your argument that Objectivism as a philosophy is okay with them. It quite clearly is not.

Again, it is only when the justice system fails to prosecute a repeat violent offender that I am advocating vigilante justice.

I would then direct you to debate forum if you wish to further advocate "vigilante justice" (which is a very dubious phrase) as that is not appropriate for the general forum.

[Edit - Spelling - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What makes you think Objectism rejects vigilante killing?"

Because it does.

Hi Rationalcop,

Without bringing up the question of whether or not current circumstances warrant it, since that oppinion is going to very greatly based on individual perception and circumstance, do you believe that vigilantism is ever justifiable by objectivist standards?

I am imagining having a daughter killed by the abusive nephew of the mayor in the old west. I am not saying that I, would necessarily take him out, but if I knew someone else in that circumstance I can't say I'd hold it against him.

In objectivist terms it seems to me that Ragnar's existence in the novel implies that it could be justified and moral in some circumstances. In other words, it, like most things, is a contextual issue. Like, for example, when a criminal is at your door with a gun asking where your children are, honesty with the criminal is not necessary. I guess I see it as similiar to this. So if the answer to my initial question is no, I would like to hear why it is never justifiable.

Best Regards,

Gordon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say you'd be justified in the killing of a repeated known killer, such as in the case of where your spouse/sibling/loved one is killed by a mob boss while you watched (100% proof) and they walked out of the courts free. There are circumstances that would allow it. The normal course of the justice system has failed you. Just be ready to pay the penalty for taking the law into your own hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to hear why it is never justifiable.

Oy. Nobody said that it was never justifiable. Remember that Objectivism does not have an intrinsic epistemology and does not make acontextual statements. As for the contexts in which such a thing is and is not justified, I think RationalCop has provided that information already, if you look closely. :)

Funny how this comes up at the same time as the thread on intrinsic value, where RationalCop is arguing against acontextual statements... and then lo and behold someone misinterprets one of his statements as acontextual. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you believe that vigilantism is ever justifiable by objectivist standards?

(snip)

Like, for example, when a criminal is at your door with a gun asking where your children are, honesty with the criminal is not necessary..

To your question, yes, I would believe that vigilantism could be justifiable IF as in AS the government has become totally corrupt and/or the government has become essentially unreliable in it's duty to protect rights. As others have stated, I think we are a long way from that in this country (the US).

As to your example, that is not an example of vigilantism as I see it. That is an emergency circumstance where seeking assistance from the government is not possible. Objectivism, as I understand it, does not expect a person to stand by idly while their children are murdered.

Vigilantism, in the sense that I use it and in the sense that I think is at issue in this discussion, is when someone has already committed a right's violation, the victim (or retaliator) is not necessarily any longer in danger, and the victim (or retaliator) decides to exact what they think is a just resolution to the rights violation, either before attempting to resolve the problem legally when it is otherwise possible, or when not satisfied with the legal systems resolution.

Very early on when I joined this board I explained a circumstance in which I thought I might go exact retaliation on a person if I was certain they killed my son. I then explained that after doing that, I would turn myself in to the authorities to face a legal review of my actions. I don't know that I actually would do that (the retaliation part), nor do I assert that it makes that retaliation justifiable, but typically, vigilantes DO NOT wish to have their actions reviewed after the fact to see if they were even remotely lawful or reasonable.

I'd say you'd be justified in the killing of a repeated known killer, such as in the case of where your spouse/sibling/loved one is killed by a mob boss while you watched (100% proof) and they walked out of the courts free. There are circumstances that would allow it. The normal course of the justice system has failed you. Just be ready to pay the penalty for taking the law into your own hand.

His question was does Objectivism ever allow for vigilantism to be justifiable. I disagree that your circumstances here are sufficient to justify it by Objectivism principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oy. Nobody said that it was never justifiable. Remember that Objectivism does not have an intrinsic epistemology and does not make acontextual statements. As for the contexts in which such a thing is and is not justified, I think RationalCop has provided that information already, if you look closely. :)

Funny how this comes up at the same time as the thread on intrinsic value, where RationalCop is arguing against acontextual statements... and then lo and behold someone misinterprets one of his statements as acontextual. ;)

I apologize but I had not read that thread. I don't usually have time to read everything and pick what interests me the most. I actually made a point to not ask about contexts where it is justified. I was simply trying to get a clarification on rationalcops oppinion that I referenced in my original post. In it he did say that objectivism does not support vigilantism and I figured he did not mean it without context but thought I would clarify anyways. I do not know him personally and I have read more mistaken things then the simple dropping of context which is why I was asking for clarification prior to criticizing him.

Sorry for the confusion,

Gordon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His question was does Objectivism ever allow for vigilantism to be justifiable. I disagree that your circumstances here are sufficient to justify it by Objectivism principles.

Justice is granting to each man that which he deserves. You saw the man kill your spouse/child, you took him to the courts, he does not deserve to walk out and not pay for his crime, that is not justice. The jury may be persuaded by his arguments, or threatened to not convict, and the courts would feel justified to let him go. I have seen it with my own eyes and know beyond a doubt he killed (insert person here), why would I not be morally right in handing out the punishment deserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To your question, yes, I would believe that vigilantism could be justifiable IF as in AS the government has become totally corrupt and/or the government has become essentially unreliable in it's duty to protect rights. As others have stated, I think we are a long way from that in this country (the US).

As to your example, that is not an example of vigilantism as I see it. That is an emergency circumstance where seeking assistance from the government is not possible. Objectivism, as I understand it, does not expect a person to stand by idly while their children are murdered.

Sorry for not being clear. The example with the gun was not in regard to vigilantism. It was an attempt at a brief explanation as to why I think virtues are contextual. In this case with regard to honesty. The same principle could be applied to vigilantism. The initial example was one in which I would not hold someone immoral for taking the law into his own hands. In other words, where I think vigilantism would be acceptable.

At any rate, thanks for the clarification.

Gordon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice is granting to each man that which he deserves. You saw the man kill your spouse/child, you took him to the courts, he does not deserve to walk out and not pay for his crime, that is not justice. The jury may be persuaded by his arguments, or threatened to not convict, and the courts would feel justified to let him go. I have seen it with my own eyes and know beyond a doubt he killed (insert person here), why would I not be morally right in handing out the punishment deserved.

I can provide you with a couple of quotes that are very explicit about Objectivist ethics and the use of retaliatory force. If you disagree with them, that's all well and good, but if you wish to continue to argue in contradiction to them, I would ask that you take it to the debate forum.

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—can-not be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors' intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

All three quotes are from TVOS - Chapter 14 - The Nature of Government - pgs 127 to 128.

Typically, I don't care to be quite so quote heavy, but these sections speak exactly to your question. While I sympathize with your frustration or (perhaps) disagreement with this, I still would like to think that with the government as it is now (as this is the context in which all of my following comments should be considered), I would still choose the side of the law. Once you allow people to take these matters into their own hands, however factually correct they may be (or they think they may be) in the relatively few instances you describe, you open the floodgates to EVERY man who disagrees with a courts decision and thinks that they are 100% certain and exacts whatever measure they think or feel is commensurate to seeking "justice" against the alleged criminal. You might as well not even have a system of objective laws and reviews for attempting to administer justice if you think it's appropriate to disregard them when you disagree with their decision. As has been said, no system will be 100% perfect.

I say that I think these situations are relatively rare because in my experience, most witnesses to crimes do not have 100% of the relevant information necessary for a proper objective review (and determination of guilt) of the offense when they are witnessing the crime. Typically, those closer to victim are even less objective than third party witnesses.

If you took the law into your own hands in the manner in which you described, would you then turn yourself over to the police and allow them (and the State's Attorneys) to investigate the justification for your actions as well as possibly stand trial for murder? And even if you wouldn't, you may not have a choice anyway.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you took the law into your own hands in the manner in which you described, would you then turn yourself over to the police and allow them (and the State's Attorneys) to investigate the justification for your actions as well as possibly stand trial for murder? And even if you wouldn't, you may not have a choice anyway.

I said I would be ready to pay the penalty, in fact I'd make it as much of a media spectacle as I can to put pressure on the courts to correct what went wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I would be ready to pay the penalty, in fact I'd make it as much of a media spectacle as I can to put pressure on the courts to correct what went wrong.

Okay, then the question becomes; if you pay the penalty and that penalty happens to be the death penalty or say life imprisonment, have you actually served your rational self-interest (as this is really the central issue to the question "Would it be moral to...?")? (sidenote: there most be something grammatically wrong with that last sentence :D ) I'm not presuming an answer here. That answer can be yes or no depending on how much you value your life relative to the life of the person you are avenging and/or how much value you place on the concept of justice (and perhaps many other factors).

Without enough specific context from your original example, I'm going to take some liberties in order to say what I think I would try to do to begin with well before it got to the vigilante stage. If the person being killed represents a high enough value to me that I would risk my life TWICE after the fact seeking revenge, then I would probably risk my life WHILE I'm witnessing this crime such that MAYBE I will avoid the loss of both my life and the life of the person I so highly value. The reason why I say twice is because you are likely to be risking your life as you attempt the revenge AND when you stand trial for the murder. Acting at the time of the murder (or during the emergency situation) may give you the opportunity to avert both deaths. Standing by and witnessing the murder without acting at the time means you are automatically "one down" after the fact when you finally do act.

I should note to you that I don't particularly care for hypotheticals. It is my opinion that rarely, if ever, is enough context presented in a hypothetical situation as to provide enough detail to truely find the "real life" answer.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should note to you that I don't particularly care for hypotheticals. It is my opinion that rarely, if ever, is enough context presented in a hypothetical situation as to provide enough detail to truely find the "real life" answer.

Hahaha, we are in agreement on this, however when talking about topics like this, the hypothetical is the only way I know to go, since I have nothing objective to go on right now. To put more context, yes, the reason I would not act during the murder is because I couldn't. The fact that I would risk my life twice, which I would be, would mean that person being avenged was worth that much to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have brought this up earlier, but I thought it would have been apparent given the context, and that we all consider ourselves Objectivists. If a person is considering exacting retribution on a person who he knows is a killer, who escaped the justice of the courts, one consideration would have to be that the person believes there is a risk that the killer will kill him or someone he cares about.

A specific example would be (and this isn't really a hypothetical if it has actually happened) every time a suspect is brought to trial the witnesses keep getting killed, even though they are sometimes under witness protection. If someone is a witness for the next trial, then there is a real risk that he would be killed before the trial. It would be in his rational self-interest to get the murderer killed before the murderer has a chance to kill him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...