Notice the wording… it is already known that the person fleeing the murder scene is a serial killer. That fact does not need to be determined in a court of law.
That’s precisely the problem. “It is known…” is specified in the OP, but life doesn’t work like that. In real life, these things have to be proven with evidence, in an objective forum, and if this guy were proven to be a serial killer in a court of law then he’d be in jail.
That’s precisely the problem. “It is known…” is specified in the OP, but life doesn’t work like that. In real life, these things have to be proven with evidence, in an objective forum, and if this guy were proven to be a serial killer in a court of law then he’d be in jail.
Indeed, even if a guy walks out in broad daylight and commits a crime, of course it is permissible to use immediate self-defense, but once the guy surrenders or is arrested, then it is impermissible to retaliate until such procedures had been performed. So, according to moralist, in the case of the Gabriel Giffords shooting in Phoenix, Arizona, it would have been perfectly acceptable for the police to say, well, we all saw the guy open fire on that crowd of people, so he’s guilty, and let’s just shoot him right here on the spot then. But if, as we have been claiming, people have procedural rights on top of their natural rights, then this wouldn’t be acceptable, and the government was right to give the shooter a trial instead of summary execution.
That’s precisely the problem. “It is known…” is specified in the OP, but life doesn’t work like that.
Fair enough… I understand that you’re responding to a very different situation than the one which was described.
In real life, these things have to be proven with evidence, in an objective forum, and if this guy were proven to be a serial killer in a court of law then he’d be in jail.
He wouldn’t need to be proven to be a serial killer in a court of law if he was witnessed fleeing the scene by both the super hero and the vigilante as described in the original situation.
Just to take the point closer to home…
So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene where he murdered the vigilante’s wife. A super heroe intervenes, he isn’t in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer of his wife. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.
If you were the super hero… what would you do?
So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene where he murdered the vigilante’s wife. A super heroe intervenes, he isn’t in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer of his wife. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.
If you were the super hero… what would you do?
If the super hero wants to make a citizen’s arrest of the fleeing guy, he will do so. The third man is irrelevant, because this guy is a super hero. He’ll just deal with it. The details will be something like this: he will breathe out sharply at just the right moment, diverting the third-party’s fire safely into a pile of sand at the construction site visible at the corner of the panel.
If the super hero wants to make a citizen’s arrest of the fleeing guy, he will do so. The third man is irrelevant, because this guy is a super hero. He’ll just deal with it. The details will be something like this: he will breathe out sharply at just the right moment, diverting the third-party’s fire safely into a pile of sand at the construction site visible at the corner of the panel.
But what if the third guy is also a super hero, but he belongs to a different Super Hero League?
J
“So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene where he murdered the vigilante’s wife. A super heroe intervenes, he isn’t in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer of his wife. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.”
If the super hero wants to make a citizen’s arrest of the fleeing guy, he will do so. The third man is irrelevant, because this guy is a super hero.
I believe you misread… the third man is not irrelevant because he is the vigilante whose wife was murdered by the serial killer.
This is becoming like Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on first?” :lol:
I love comic books and super heroes. I grew up watching all of the animated super heroe cartoons.,I like a lot of the super heroe movies today as an adult. That may seem childish but I can’t not think super heroes are cool. One thing I noticed about superheroes is they tend to avoid killing. Even when they are confronted with totally horrible and dangerous people, they don’t kill them. Essentially they don’t want to be vigilantees, they just want to make citizens arrests.
I find this to be extremely interesting
So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene. A super heroe intervenes, he isn’t in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.
If you were the super heroe what would you do and why?
In the last Batman’s movie Batman in fact stopped Catwoman when she was about to shoot a criminal. In principle all Superheroes are self-appointed law enforcement agents and act within the framework of the law. They believe that a function of punishment belongs exclusively to the court of Law. What puzzle me is that some of them, like Batman, even reluctant to kill in self-defense.
By that reasoning, the character Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged was not delivering justice since he did not establish anyone’s guilt by an “objective legal process,” and therefore Atlas Shugged falsely presents an immoral act as if it is heroically virtuous and should be condemned as evil, no?
J
No. Ragnar was recovering stolen goods, not punishing anybody for a theft. And collection of tax money by force is a robbery by any legal standard
But what if the third guy is also a super hero, but he belongs to a different Super Hero League?
J
You made me laugh with that one! :lol:
You made me laugh with that one! :lol:
No matter to what League he belongs, if he a Super Hero and not a villain, he should also act as a self-appointed law enforcement agent and not to take the law in his own hands. Besides, Super Heroes have no need to kill. With their superpowers they can easily apprehend and neutralize villains without killing them.
No. Ragnar was recovering stolen goods, not punishing anybody for a theft.
The act of unilaterally “recovering stolen goods” without following an objective legal process is an act of vigilantism and anarchism. The fact that you may like the outcome of an act of vigilantism is irrelevant to its moral status under Objectivism. The ends do not justify the means.
In taking “justice” into his own hands, Ragnar assumed that he was representing those in whose name he claimed to be acting. But, in the case of Rearden, we discover that he was wrong. Rearden did not want the help of someone he thought of as a “criminal.” Ragnar was acting on Rearden’s behalf without knowing anything about Rearden or what his views might be on the subject of taxation. Ragnar didn’t know if Rearden shared his view that taxation was theft, or if he instead believed that he was agreeing to be taxed, and voluntarily contributing to pay for the proper services of government. Ragnar didn’t care to inform himself one way or the other.
And collection of tax money by force is a robbery by any legal standard.
That’s simply not true. There are many legal standards by which the collection of tax money by force is not robbery. The current legal standards of the United States are just one obvious example.
Besides, in avoiding any objective legal process, Ragnar neglected to establish that all of the tax money that he was “recovering” was taken by force. He didn’t bother to ask those in whose names he was acting whether they voluntarily agreed to pay a portion of their income to government. For all he knew, some of them may have felt that the government should take an even larger portion of their incomes.
J
No matter to what League he belongs, if he a Super Hero and not a villain, he should also act as a self-appointed law enforcement agent and not to take the law in his own hands. Besides, Super Heroes have no need to kill. With their superpowers they can easily apprehend and neutralize villains without killing them.
Super heroes often have a difficult time apprehending and neutralizing villains. How many times must a Lex Luthor be apprehended, only to escape from prison to wreak havoc on society, before a super hero can decide that Superman is being too gentle and allowing lots of innocent people to get killed by allowing Luthor to live?
J
If you were the super heroe what would you do and why?
The vigilante is a criminal too, so I’d arrest both and hand them over to the police.
Super heroes often have a difficult time apprehending and neutralizing villains. How many times must a Lex Luthor be apprehended, only to escape from prison to wreak havoc on society, before a super hero can decide that Superman is being too gentle and allowing lots of innocent people to get killed by allowing Luthor to live?
J
Prison is not Super Hero, it’s government. The whole point is that Super Heroes endorse law and order. If super hero were a prosecuter, judge and executer it would undermine the only proper government function which is in Ayn Rand words " to place the use of retaliatory force under strict control of objective law".
Batman doesn’t think he is anyone’s judge, jury, or executioner. Also, he is afraid that if he kills people he will go crazy.
This is actually not not quite true, or at least it is misleading. It is not that he fears that he will “go crazy”, it is that he fears once he decides to go down this path he will feel too tempted to go down that path again and again. Then he may be tempted to take the “easy” way out and kill again, possibly going out of control. This was a major theme of the “Venom” arc, where he was hooked on the Venom drug and became overly aggressive and brutal. He was not killing people as such as I recall, though he was being far more violent then was really justified in order to solve the crimes in question.
Almost nobody would be able to really stop him, as he is a force very much beyond the control of Gothams legal system. If he goes rogue, they will find it very hard to stop the words greatest ninja and detective. What they going to do, call in some other member of the Batman family? Assuming the “Batman” in question is Bruce Wayne (yes there have been others, including Dick Grayson) for prolonged periods, almost none of the other Batman Family heroes are capapble of stopping him. What are they going to do, call in Superman? Bring Green Lantern (Alan Scott) back to Gotham?
What puzzle me is that some of them, like Batman, even reluctant to kill in self-defense.
See above. It is not that he has a problem with killing in self-defense, he has a problem with killing except when he considers is abosultely neccessary. Despite popular misconception, he has killed people before, quite on purpose. In one story, he deliberetely threw a cult leader into the hands of his disillusioned followers, intending that they rip him to peices. In another story he left Ra’s Al Ghul to die in an explosion, knowing that this would happen. In I beleive the same story, he kicked one of Ra’s Al Ghuls followers in a fashion that would clearly result in his fatal electrocution, in order to save anothers life. In “Final Crisis”, Batman takes up a special *gun* in order to try shoot Darkseid so as to prevent DS unravelling reality.
He does kill in self defense of his own life, or that of others. As a last resort, when no other methods are reasonable. Being the worlds greatest expert in physical combat in the DC universe, there are few few cases where it is neccessary to kill someone in the situations he usually finds himself in.
Really interesting first post! Welcome!