Is the father morally justified in this act?Now, I know there may be a host of problems and implications that arise from vigilantism, but I want to hear your opinions on the act strictly from a moral point of view. Have you ever watched the show, "Arrow"? It's your choice to break the law if you weigh the penalty against your desire to commit the act and find the exchange acceptable, to to kill and try to conceal it would be a rebellion against justice.Personally, if I were a juror, I might not be able to hold the father in this case guilty, even if I were convinced he did it.I would say that the morality depends on the strength of the judicial institutions in question. People can't go around administering what the feel is justice under the basis that they're pretty sure it's justice.
Can we objectively define vigilante justice?But what if the vigilante isnt emotionally invested?In all reality, no. I am under the impression that the only time it is morally acceptable to act is when such behavior is deemed to be morally acceptable. Is this act justified?In your example, I would consider that more as self-defence than vigilantism. Morally it is still a question though. When NYC was struggling with high crime rates, Berhhard Goetz, in 1984 shot four men and was dubbed the ‘subway vigilante’. If vigilante justice is essentially someone using their own judgment to operate outside the parameters of the law, and we imagine a world where everyone takes the course of vigilante justice, then we would be … So, it's alright because it does no permanent damage, but it's not alright because the judgement of the individual doesn't take precedence over that of society as a whole? That would be a terrible thing!That said, there are exceptions/excuses/whathaveyou. It should be their call. Vigilantism in that situation would be hunting down the criminal and beating him to a pulp or what have you.
It's both alright and not alright?I am under the impression that the only time it is morally acceptable to act is when such behavior is deemed to be morally acceptable.Morals can change if the meme is spread thoroughly enough.
And the majority are far from infallible and can also be wrong, so this mob rule could hinder or prevent justice.I am under the impression that the only time it is morally acceptable to act is when such behavior is deemed to be morally acceptable.Blowing up an abortion clinic in protest of abortion is immoral because it violates But what if, in your gut, you felt that something ought to be done and yet this was not accepted by society? What if the father had a criminal record stemming from anger issues?The grey area is where you really find the discussion. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. Would you be anymore likely to kill a young criminal for his crime than if he was an adult?
I think that a vigilante who follows, for the most part, the rule of law and treats criminals fairly is a great idea. But in the example you gave, I wouldn't classify it so much as vigilantism as I would basic self-defence. I feel that enacting revenge on someone is immoral, but then how should we treat people who acts immorally? As far as I can see, our world has only one moral stricture.New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be castPress J to jump to the feed. A far-right wingnut blowing up an abortion clinic is seen by everyone else as immoral terrorism, and yet to them, it is being a moral vigilante. It makes everyone more susceptible to being "punished", regardless of guilt. But that sort of emotion is precisely why people who are emotionally involved shouldn't be included in the sentencing.An interesting idea to consider is who gets to decide what is justice. Otherwise, he should have a jury that listens to his case. The victim's close relative sought and killed the criminal. A criminal justice system exists for a reason. I see that your stance on moral vigilantism isn't absolutist in a simplistic sense, given that you set a condition excluding any action that leaves any permanent, irreversible outcomes. Oh, you aren't going to start up with this Landru Guide us meme business too, are you? Yes, vigilantism is absolutely up to the vigilante's interpretation of right and wrong, however, it seems you agree that there may be cases in which vigilantism is morally justifiable. If crime is rarely punished through incompetence, bad incentives or corruption, then a culture of vigilantism may create an overall safer environment for folks. The consent is subsequent to there being just cause. If the institutions are functional, however, vigilantism represents little more than a destabilisation of the rule of law. Vigilantism is what makes the law. In order to shame its inadequacy it is necessary to act outside the law-to pursue…natural justice. Consider the dilemma as simple facts more so than an arbitrary story.A rape crime was commited. There's also another issue, in my opinion. No, not vengeance. A properly enforced legal regime makes the world more safe, more stable, and more peaceful, and undermining it is immoral.All cases of vigilantism are morally justifiable if the criminal is really guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the law has failed to provide conviction.Edit: Laws of proportionality and reciprocity apply.I think its absolutely moral.