News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Vigilante Justice VS Military/ police Justice

Started by Dragon_Of_Heavon, July 30, 2009, 10:59:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dragon_Of_Heavon

I have been doing some thinking. I was up late watching Dexter and I got a question stuck in my head. What makes a vigilante unjust and the military and or police just. I think that I may have come to a good conclusion after a highly caffeinated night spent pacing and thinking. The difference I see between the two comes in the fact that our police and military wear a uniform. The reason that this makes a difference is not in the fact that it empowers the officer or military to do as they must. It is because the uniform is a constant reminder of who they are what they are doing and what they are doing. Every single member of the military or police force is responsible for the people under their care. When they stand on watch they do so with gigantic responsibility. Immediately the well being, and security of their community and civilization is on their shoulders. It is because the uniform acts as a reminder of this responsibility that it creates the difference. There is another reason the uniform makes a difference, the other reason is that it makes the person visible to the public. A citizen is able to walk up to a member of the military or and spit in their face or to shake their hand. (Police not so much but that is because of differences between Military personnel and Police personnel).

This visibility makes a difference to set this group dedicated to protection from the person who though a vigilante is also dedicated to the protection of society. The Vigilante is not open to the checks and balances that police and military personnel are subject to. They do as they do under the radar away from public eye and public scrutiny. Even super hero's no matter how beloved from Batman to Super Man are wrong. It does not matter how just the convictions of the person it does not make a difference if their code is unbreakable. They are in the end a person and as they are a vigilante they are unbalanced and unchecked, their actions are held behind a mask. Of course an argument to this may be that a country is even easier to corrupt than a person because of the destructive force of the group think mentality. This is true but it may not always be so societies change and evolve and ours will be no different. It cannot evolve though if we keep living in a thought process of putting one person in charge of the group.

The equality based in the United States is what make it a republic that is worthy of existing.It is the common belief in the rites of all and the equality of man that makes us special. It is the protection of the people and their freedom that is the only justifiable reason for killing another person. In the interest of protecting those freedoms and their sanctity that a vigilante is condemned as a criminal. The uniform indicates all of this and is the reason that it is essentially the deciding factor separating the two and their justice. What do you all think?
When the last bastion of religion falls the religious will look up at the sky and ask their God why? And then they will collapse wailing and grinding their teeth. The atheist will look at his feet and say "I think that I can build something better here!"

Will

First off, I'll give you a cookie if you separate that into paragraphs.

Morality and ethics are highly dependent on the existing social contract, and not all social contracts are the same. It's essentially an assumed collective subjective. The collective subjective on the US military being in Iraq tends to be against it, or think it's immoral. The collective subjective in the US on the military's existence, however, is that it's not just necessary, but somehow honorable and even moral. The sad part is that the collective subjective is very often formulated upon illogical foundations, like assuming that all people that join the military are doing so to "defend freedom" or some such nonsense.

If you remove yourself from the collective subjective, things become very cloudy. Most things become a very similar hue of gray. People don't like gray, because it challenges their assumptions, so they prefer to think of things as black and white.

Regarding police work vs. vigilantism, each have their practical strengths and weaknesses, but because of the collective subjective it's very easy to condemn one and laud the other. When removed from the restraints of other people's opinions, it seems that if the police are failing in a particular way vigilantism should be at least tested. If it proves successful, the collective subjective will bend to the will of practicality over time so that the system can improve (usually, sometimes the idiots out there are more than willing to ignore practicality until it's either being jammed down their throats or the problem has become so big that it actually has real consequences on their every day lives). If it's not successful, it can be dismissed based on merit instead of some collective opinion.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Dragon_Of_Heavon

I like cookies! Thanks will that is what happens to me when I drink coffee.
When the last bastion of religion falls the religious will look up at the sky and ask their God why? And then they will collapse wailing and grinding their teeth. The atheist will look at his feet and say "I think that I can build something better here!"

AlP

In some areas, such as mathematics, objectivity has a clear meaning to me. In terms of ethics and more generally how one should act, "objectivity" comes down to the wisdom of the crowd. The crowd has a particular perspective. They have an idea of the kind of world they live in that is objectively false yet they treat it as objective.

Compare a vigilante operating in the US today to a vigilante operating in the French resistance in WW2. If you have a different opinion of those two kinds of vigilante, I suggest that's perspective. I'm not condoning being a vigilante by the way =).

I like what what you said about shades of gray Will. To me the gray is not on a continuum between black and white. Separating oneself from the values of the crowd reveals the absurdity of it all. I like absurdity. Most folks seem to get anxious about absurdity and stick to the crowd and their objective (but not really) values.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

Well, shucks! There goes my dream of being a superhero.

I think a vigilante's version of "justice" would be retributive.  Not that the government is much different....
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

xSilverPhinx

QuoteI got a question stuck in my head. What makes a vigilante unjust and the military and or police just.

Under the same circumstances actions are just or unjust, those two concepts are independent of the people who perpetuate them. It's not linked to authority (who wears the uniform or who's the older person or who has a random diploma which is viewed as a carte blanche to do whatever they please etc.)

Justice really starts to loose it's meaning when you confuse a person who sees themselves as an arbiter on what's 'right' and goes on to say what is just and what is not, especially when those same people doing it would not like to have the same unjust actions committed on them.

Some can legally commit injustice though. But that's a whole other field...
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Asmodean

Vengeance is vengeance, no matter if personal or social. And more often than not, justice is synonimous with legally justified vengeance. Thus, justice is vengeance by a legal authority.

How are the police just in their cause? Because the society says so. How are the vigilantes unjust? Because the society says so. See a pattern emerging here?  :P
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.