I got to tell you there is a fne line between being a real life superhero and a vigilante. In recent weeks dealing with degenerate drug dealers I really see that. Honestly tonight I wanted to grab my mace grenade and lob it at the group of dealers out tonight. I wanted to mace them and beat them down with batons. I won't do it, but I really wanted to. It would be easy to grab all different self defense items and weapons and go beat the hell out of them. The hard thing is doing the right thing and following the law. Using legal means to take them down and get them out.
Having these feelings really made me appreciate the strength of all those who always try do the right thing. I appreciate the characters who seek to follow the law and not harm others. This is a true sign of strength. This mentality is that of a hero.

Sometimes, more than often the law doesn't work. At least here. Unfortunately these people don't learn alot of the time unless they are scared to do it again. Problem in N.I. is that alot of criminals are involved in the paramilitaries, the law here basically gives them a by ball. If that wasn't a problem I believe going down a legal route would work but fact is it won't work. The people here would getbehind someone taking care of scum the way they should be not the way this damn country handles them.

The law has too many flaws that protect criminals not the victims.

Who says following the law is necessarily the moral thing to do? It is only a part of an imperfect system. If we all truly wanted to use the system to reach our goals, we would become police officers, enabling us to take down crime in the most legal and efficient way possible.

~
Point to Goodfellow.

There's a distinct difference between law and justice. Check the sig.
~

I don't want to be all long-winded, so I'm bullet-pointing this shit.

Also, I am going to break this up into two posts: One which you are reading and another to make points regarding vigilantism.

PART !- JUSTICE VS. LAW

- Morality is purely subjective, meaning that the only appropriate standard for judgment is the conscience of the individual.

- Justice is defined as "moral principle regarding just concept"

- Since morality is subjective and judged solely on the individual, and justice is a moral principle, then justice is also subjective.

- The law is objective as it is unbiased, based upon fact and precedent, and without individual bias or prejudice.

- If the law is objective, then the case can be made for it being egalitarian since without bias, it can only assume all to be equal under it.

- With the law being objective and therefore egalitarian, and justice being subjective and based on an individual's morals; it can be then agreed that the law represents all, whereas justice is a construct of the individual moral mindset.

- Given the above, the only logical conclusion is that to enforce justice is to endorse moral absolutism, since by such an action, the enforcer is placing his/her individual morals above all others. And since society is founded on the basis that the whole is greater than the individual, then it is quite fair to say that to choose justice over the law is selfish and monocratic.

PS- If we truly feel that the law is imperfect, then we would all become lobbyists and/or politicians.

Null you haven't taken politics into consideration regarding the law. Too many criminals get off on technicalities and human rights assholes appear to do more to protect criminals opposed to victims. I said that somewhere else I think.

Example, the catholic church has spent billions in USA alone to protect peadophile priests. Instead of kicking em out when they have done time the relocate them. Then it happens again. Once they have had enough of these pervert priests they ship em back here!

Harsh truth of it is the "justice" system don't work. Why else would we be doing this or training to do it? I believe that it's because we see the failing system and have no faith in it. Doing charity work don't make you a superhero, it makes you a charity worker in a costume. We should be stopping crime by any reasonable means neccessary. Don't kill. I reckon that would be my only no no for me. Yes beat the living daylights out of them and let the useless police clean it up. If that's what we need to be then so be it.

This might be a little bit of anger and frustration inside of me coming out but I guess what I'm trying to say is from my experience the "justice" system hasn't worked in a long LONG time. Over here at least.

This a whole big convo. I'm not a big typer.
Yes the justice system isn't perfect. There will never be a perfect system let's get over that. The system is the best we got and we need it.

Let's look at being a vigilante here. You will either get arrested or killed. This is not the comics. You will not outrun the police, you will not survive a gang of armed thugs. This is real life. No billionaes with all types of equipment, no superpowers, no hiding in the shadows, it does not translate into real life.

There are ways for citizens to fight crime and I'm out on the streets doing it. Is it dangerous? Hell yes. Is it legal? Yes it is. Is it making a difference? Yes it is.

Is beating up a criminal gonna stop crime? I don't know.
I know creating a presence in an area will deter and stop crime. I go to the lengths of confronting the scumbags. A group with a visible presence that is willing to spring into action will do more to fight crime than somebody hiding in the shadows looking to beat up criminals.

And why do people want to beat up criminals?
Because they think it is some perverted form of justice or just for the personal fullfillment of pounding your fist into some criminals face?

For me it's a bit of both. In Belfast it won't cut it to observe and tell the police. I'm willing to try anything to stop all sorts of crime. Unfortunately this country is a breeding ground for violent crimes, many of these pieces of crap never get arrested cause of either the system or paramilitary affiliations. These people don't respond well to police involvment and police presence often spark even more trouble. I don't want a presence as such as everyone knowing I'm there but rather a presence that people know don't fuck with me and don't let me catch you doing shit. As I have said numerous occasions the police here are useless apart from the few who would assist and cooperate.

What works in 1 country may not work in another but trust me if I approached a drug dealer here and told him to move I'm getting punkd. If I get a drug dealer to fear me then they wontbe a problem anymore.

Unfortunately tho with different American organizations etc having IRA fundraisers and donating money to Sinn Fein these problems will be here for a while. The people need someone or a few people to kick them in the balls!

Perhaps morals are not subjective, and deontology is correct. If this is true, then justice is more than a construct of the mind, but something we all have a duty to protect, regardless of the law.

All these big words are above my pay grade. But yeah a blind man on a race horse can distinguish the difference between justice and the law. Good point Goodfellow

To Sentinel:

Yes, you are correct in that I speak of this purely in terms of American laws and guidelines. Unfortunately, while I have been doing some reasearch on Northern Ireland, I do not know enough to make a determination on the situation there. I would really have to be there to see for myself.

And as far as politics go, by the very definition of the word "politics" (the act of creating policy) means that one cannot seperate politics from law, as laws are policies.

To Goodfellow:

+1

But dude...stop making my think all the time! It makes my head hurt

As far as morals being deontological...this idea fails under real world observation. If morals were in fact deontological, then everybody would have the same set of morals, and they would be duty-bound to uphold them. Thus, there would be no crime at all.

Another question is which deontological ethics make up everybody's morality? There are in fact five schools of thought on this.

I agree with Agent Null on the definition of morality. Just my 2 cents.

You've heard of criminals running to Mexico? Well they run up here, to Alaska, as well. I once had a roommate who worked for mobsters in Anchorage. He was caught red handed after taking some guy out - he didn't pay money or something like that.

Anyway...Alaska is full of ex-cons and people who are "in hiding".

When it comes to justice and the law, I tend to lean a bit towards the vigilante side of things. I do happen to know how important evidence is in a court of law, so I'm also a big fan of investigation and documentation. I would rather have photos or video evidence of Joe Schmoe robbing a store, then just going out and kicking some ass - know what I mean? The cops can put away a criminal with photos or video evidence. My exception in all cases is: if someone is in harms way by whatever means, I will step in and take action.

I didn't say that it was vigilantism. I just said that I lean towards vigilantism - which I meant as a personal choice, not my actions.

As promised. Once again, can't be bothered with writing. At least it's a quick read though, yeah?

PART 2- HERO VS. VIGILANTE

- The problem the "Hero" designation has is that like morals, the qualities that define such a lofty ideal are subject to the individual.

- Because the qualities of heroism are subjective, it can be said that a person seen by one man as a hero may not necessarily been viewed the same by another.

- Due to the subjective view of what a hero is, it is natural to deduce that all manner of people can be seen as being heroic, even those of undesirable quality. To use an extreme example, Jesse James is seen as a heroic historic figure by some, whereas he is vilified by others.

- Vigilanteism historically comes into rise as socially beneficial in times when there is little to no law, such as that seen in the Dark Ages, or the American Frontier Expansion.

- Since vigilantes traditionally operate in areas without formal law, the vigilante is free to operate under laws based upon their own subjective moral views, and use these to administer justice.

- The United States of America, despite opinions to the contrary, actually has a very well crafted and reasonable system of law, created and mutually agreed upon by both the politicians and the people.

- Criminals damage society with their actions, as they challenge the society's notions of what should be fair and equal punishment under the law.

- As vigilanteism is subjective, while the law is objective and mutually agreed upon, it is probable that some vigilantes may operate under morals which may be criminal.

- In such cases it can only be said that the vigilante, by not being objective in practice, has the potential to damage society, despite any noble intentions.

Well everyone does seem to have a similar code of ethics, although the more specific we get, and the more speculative things get, and opinions develop, but this is not morality. most people will agree that to attack and murder someone for fun is morally wrong. maybe these hints of a common ethical code could be evidence of an objective moral system built into the universe.

Also, people would have to have a duty to uphold the moral system, but a flaw in human nature disallows them from fulfilling that duty. If any moral code would mandate that all humans under its rule would have to follow it, then the world would be a different place. Take subjective individual morals for instance (if they are the case), my subjective ethics of not lying should create a governing ethical force that would require that i do not lie. However, I do lie, even though I know it is wrong. If we can break subjective ethics, we can break objective ethics as well. Therefore having a moral code, whether it is objective or subjective, is only a knowledge/opinion of right and wrong, not something anyone is bound by.

As for whose ethics are the objective ethics, that depends on if everyone shares the same core ethics. Not, "should we stay in Iraq" ethics, that would be political opinion, but, "should one man kill another in cold blood." I think most people would agree that one should not.

Whether or not morals are subjective or objective, it still is our duty to uphold them on two levels, the state and the individual. Since the justice system can never be perfect, it is complemented by actions taken by individuals, like the RLSH. Doing things by the law is good, such as handing in evidence to the police, but it is using the imperfect system set in place and is therefore on the "state" level. To bring justice on the individual level, sometimes citizens must go beyond the law.

So if I see someone in need of help and it is within my power and my morals to help, then I will help them. likewise, I will stop those whom it is within my power to stop if they are caught in wrongdoing.

"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander."

Goodfellow, you make great points. I think we agree more than it seems on here. We are looking to help others and do good. We are not looking to beat up someone just because they a "bad guy". I beleive there are ways the system can really help us in what we do, but we are not the system which is what is so great about what we do. No dealing with beauracracy and BS.