This is the actual crux of the issue. Justice doesn’t recognize national borders, governing bodies, or laws. The very fact that we — as thinking, feeling creatures capable of suffering — allow a bureaucracy to monopolize violence and distribute justice on our behalf is a tenuous miracle (and a biiiig illusion).
We are entitled to justice. It’s an innate aspect of our rational nature (what Immanuel Kant called membership in the kingdom of ends). We permit a “justice system” to act on our behalf for the sake of practical efficiency, but that’s a tenuous contract, and when it fails to hold up its end of the bargain…
That’s the thing though, I dont’t think it had failed her. Not only was it in the process of dispensing justice, but it wasn’t even doing it at her request since it seems she never reported him. The justice system isn’t failing when it’s being ignored by the victim.
We are entitled to justice but that doesn’t entail killing folks on a whim when it feels justified. We have systems in place and we need to at least give them a chance before taking matters into our own hands.
I understand your point that not all forms of vigilantism are bad. For instance, I applaud the ordinary citizens that were fighting against the cartels in mexico a while back. I just think in this case it wasn’t justified.
We are entitled to justice but that doesn’t entail killing folks on a whim
I appreciate the conversation. I doubt we disagree on the fundamentals. However, I have to push back against this characterization. There was nothing whimsical about her decision or this guy’s culpability.
It’s also important not to conflate our ability to know something definitively (our epistemic confidence) with the truth.
If what she claims about this guy is true, then she is morally justified. If it’s not true, then she isn’t. Our uncertainty about the matter is a separate issue and regrettably not the subject of this litigation.
This is the actual crux of the issue. Justice doesn’t recognize national borders, governing bodies, or laws. The very fact that we — as thinking, feeling creatures capable of suffering — allow a bureaucracy to monopolize violence and distribute justice on our behalf is a tenuous miracle (and a biiiig illusion).
We are entitled to justice. It’s an innate aspect of our rational nature (what Immanuel Kant called membership in the kingdom of ends). We permit a “justice system” to act on our behalf for the sake of practical efficiency, but that’s a tenuous contract, and when it fails to hold up its end of the bargain…
That’s the thing though, I dont’t think it had failed her. Not only was it in the process of dispensing justice, but it wasn’t even doing it at her request since it seems she never reported him. The justice system isn’t failing when it’s being ignored by the victim.
We are entitled to justice but that doesn’t entail killing folks on a whim when it feels justified. We have systems in place and we need to at least give them a chance before taking matters into our own hands.
I understand your point that not all forms of vigilantism are bad. For instance, I applaud the ordinary citizens that were fighting against the cartels in mexico a while back. I just think in this case it wasn’t justified.
I appreciate the conversation. I doubt we disagree on the fundamentals. However, I have to push back against this characterization. There was nothing whimsical about her decision or this guy’s culpability.
It’s also important not to conflate our ability to know something definitively (our epistemic confidence) with the truth.
If what she claims about this guy is true, then she is morally justified. If it’s not true, then she isn’t. Our uncertainty about the matter is a separate issue and regrettably not the subject of this litigation.