To what degree is vigilantism a duty, and other questions

[fakename]

Now, we have a duty to defend people who can’t defend themselves.

As a corollary it seems that vigilantism, (in the sense of a bruce wayne figure) is just the regularization and application of such a duty.

However it is also not good to kill sinners because one does not have public authority.

So to what extent is self-defense not also an infringement on public authority?

But finally, if one’s family member (or some such person) is murdered, does the family have a responsibility to get justice or is there no responsibility for the family (that’s the dichotomy I present to you, because I was presented with it too and I don’t think it would be a false one since a commentator on Aquinas presented it (and answered the latter).)?

 

[Glomung]

The answers to these questions depend somewhat on the culture you find yourself in.

Now, we have a duty to defend people who can’t defend themselves.

One would assume, but in the USA, the police might say otherwise.

As a corollary it seems that vigilantism, (in the sense of a bruce wayne figure) is just the regularization and application of such a duty.

In the past UNARMED==VICTIM, now ARMED==CRIMINAL

However it is also not good to kill sinners because one does not have public authority.

Police are supposed to be the duly deputized (public authority) fellows who maintain the peace and deal with those who won’t behave, including occasional execution of the lawless. What bothers me is that our SCOTUS has muddied the waters on what a person may do to defend themselves or others before the police show up. Sotermeyer has opined that individuals have no right to self defense.

So to what extent is self-defense not also an infringement on public authority?

Depends on the authority, some would see any individual initiative as an infringement on the powers of the state. That seems to be the general trend these days.

But finally, if one’s family member (or some such person) is murdered, does the family have a responsibility to get justice or is there no responsibility for the family (that’s the dichotomy I present to you, because I was presented with it too and I don’t think it would be a false one since a commentator on Aquinas presented it (and answered the latter).)?

In this culture you have no right to “take justice into your own hands”. The government claims all authority to mete out justice. You may however sue to your hearts content.

 

[yukonbrad]

Now, we have a duty to defend people who can’t defend themselves.

As a corollary it seems that vigilantism, (in the sense of a bruce wayne figure) is just the regularization and application of such a duty.

However it is also not good to kill sinners because one does not have public authority.

So to what extent is self-defense not also an infringement on public authority?

But finally, if one’s family member (or some such person) is murdered, does the family have a responsibility to get justice or is there no responsibility for the family (that’s the dichotomy I present to you, because I was presented with it too and I don’t think it would be a false one since a commentator on Aquinas presented it (and answered the latter).)?

Yes we do have an obligation to defend those who are unable to do so themselves, however, self defense - in leagal terms- deals with threats of violence diredtly against oneself or immediate family members present at the time of the attack and the use of force consistent with stopping the attack which may not mean killing an individual. Interceding on behalf of a stranger on the street while noble can be dangerous and even result in charges against yourself. That said there are plenty of things we can do, call the police get detailed descriptions (eg license plates) and so forth.

 

[Nelka]

Vigilantism is wrong and are generally made up of scum.

Defending people or protecting people is fine but going after people and basically lynching them is totally wrong.

 

[fakename]

Yes we do have an obligation to defend those who are unable to do so themselves, however, self defense - in leagal terms- deals with threats of violence diredtly against oneself or immediate family members present at the time of the attack and the use of force consistent with stopping the attack which may not mean killing an individual. Interceding on behalf of a stranger on the street while noble can be dangerous and even result in charges against yourself. That said there are plenty of things we can do, call the police get detailed descriptions (eg license plates) and so forth.

But not everything legal or official is necessarily right. That is, regardless of what the law says, it seems that there is no logical reason why vigilantism is not simply either self-defense (because when one tracks down a murderous thug, you have to defend oneself against him) or defense of others (which is morally praiseworthy).

The only objection is that vigilantism is not either right or wrong but it varies with the circumstances and the usefulness of police.

 

[fakename]

Vigilantism is wrong and are generally made up of scum.

Defending people or protecting people is fine but going after people and basically lynching them is totally wrong.

Lynching doesn’t fittingly differentiate bad acts of defense and good ones. This is because it is totally possible that a great threat might want to escape and in thus giving chase, you will also have to lynch him later.

So unless hanging is always evil, then this scenario also seems unproblematic.

 

[Nelka]

Lynching doesn’t fittingly differentiate bad acts of defense and good ones. This is because it is totally possible that a great threat might want to escape and in thus giving chase, you will also have to lynch him later.

So unless hanging is always evil, then this scenario also seems unproblematic.

Hanging is always evil.

 

[fakename]

Hanging is always evil.

really?

 

[JIB]

I’m of the belief that civilian authorities have no more rights than anyone else. At best they are an example of the division of labor. So I don’t think there is anything wrong with vigilantism per se, but someone going out and killing criminals is, like the civilian authorities, wrong.

 

[Bill_7154]

But not everything legal or official is necessarily right. That is, regardless of what the law says, it seems that there is no logical reason why vigilantism is not simply either self-defense (because when one tracks down a murderous thug, you have to defend oneself against him) or defense of others (which is morally praiseworthy).

The only objection is that vigilantism is not either right or wrong but it varies with the circumstances and the usefulness of police.

Prior to my recent conversion to becoming a Catholic (I was raised Catholic but not invested, believed in God but was a sinner who did not go to confession or seek to avoid further sin). Prior to my recent discovery of my faith and truely opening my heart and soul to God and Jesus I was an advocate (in my mind, and at times in speaking with certain individuals) a believery in vigilantism. I was also proud of this. I knew in my heart vigilantism (as opposed to protecting the innocent or oneself in the moment, in the presence of an active threat of violence against us/them) this was wrong but thought myself that I would be proud to be a vigilante should someone harm a person I loved or an innocent child. I even fantasized about doing so at times.

I think that way no longer and am ashamed of that line of thinking now. I think it’s important to stop violent individuals from doing harm both in the moment or if the person is known, to take steps to try and prevent them from doing further violence to the same person or others. But to physically attack a person who, despite what evil’s they have done in the past, if not an immediate threat to oneself or another, I now believe is wrong.

I have had a change of heart and a change of mind since accepting Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the light. Accepting him as my savior and one to try and learn from his teachings and behave how he would have me behave. I do not believe he would have me assault someone to prevent them from doing violence in the future. I think there are a variety of other means at the disposal of a thinking man, especially if that man has Jesus and God in their lives, to intervene in any number of ways to have the violent person contained so they do not do further violence to others.

Again, I am ashamed of myself for harboring thoughts and fantasies (that I was proud of) of doing vigilante justice in the past.

The police is but one resource. Family and friends and neighbors are others. I think it depends on the circumstances. Hotlines to report things are another. Vigilantism is akin to Vengeance I think.

“Vengeance is mine said the Lord.” Is this a correct quote of scripture?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

It seems almost worse to me to murder someone you suspect to be a sinner than someone you suspect to be a saint. If you kill someone in a state of mortal sin, you have removed all potential of future repentance.

 

[fakename]

Prior to my recent conversion to becoming a Catholic (I was raised Catholic but not invested, believed in God but was a sinner who did not go to confession or seek to avoid further sin). Prior to my recent discovery of my faith and truely opening my heart and soul to God and Jesus I was an advocate (in my mind, and at times in speaking with certain individuals) a believery in vigilantism. I was also proud of this. I knew in my heart vigilantism (as opposed to protecting the innocent or oneself in the moment, in the presence of an active threat of violence against us/them) this was wrong but thought myself that I would be proud to be a vigilante should someone harm a person I loved or an innocent child. I even fantasized about doing so at times.

I think that way no longer and am ashamed of that line of thinking now. I think it’s important to stop violent individuals from doing harm both in the moment or if the person is known, to take steps to try and prevent them from doing further violence to the same person or others. But to physically attack a person who, despite what evil’s they have done in the past, if not an immediate threat to oneself or another, I now believe is wrong.

I have had a change of heart and a change of mind since accepting Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the light. Accepting him as my savior and one to try and learn from his teachings and behave how he would have me behave. I do not believe he would have me assault someone to prevent them from doing violence in the future. I think there are a variety of other means at the disposal of a thinking man, especially if that man has Jesus and God in their lives, to intervene in any number of ways to have the violent person contained so they do not do further violence to others.

Again, I am ashamed of myself for harboring thoughts and fantasies (that I was proud of) of doing vigilante justice in the past.

The police is but one resource. Family and friends and neighbors are others. I think it depends on the circumstances. Hotlines to report things are another. Vigilantism is akin to Vengeance I think.

“Vengeance is mine said the Lord.” Is this a correct quote of scripture?

One can argue that if God will deal out justice eventually that then there would be no inherent obligation (in some sense) to pursue revenge now.

 

[Bill_7154]

One can argue that if God will deal out justice eventually that then there would be no inherent obligation (in some sense) to pursue revenge now.

This is a good point.
Thanks,
Billl

 

[sw85]

Now, we have a duty to defend people who can’t defend themselves.

As a corollary it seems that vigilantism, (in the sense of a bruce wayne figure) is just the regularization and application of such a duty.

However it is also not good to kill sinners because one does not have public authority.

So to what extent is self-defense not also an infringement on public authority?

But finally, if one’s family member (or some such person) is murdered, does the family have a responsibility to get justice or is there no responsibility for the family (that’s the dichotomy I present to you, because I was presented with it too and I don’t think it would be a false one since a commentator on Aquinas presented it (and answered the latter).)?

Self-defense is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is the arrogation to oneself of that authority which rightly belongs to the state. Nearly every state everywhere allows self-defense, and those that do not offend against the natural law by forbidding it.

Now for one to have a valid claim to vigilante action, one must be able to make and defend the claim that the state, through incompetence or corruption, has lost the authority to command obedience to the laws it promulgates. In arrogating legal authority to oneself, then, one must be prepared to effectively declare war against the state. The validity of such an action is governed by just war theory, which includes (among other things) a reasonable probability of successful outcome. If no such probability exists, then there can be no just war, and thus no just vigilantism.

 

[fakename]

Self-defense is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is the arrogation to oneself of that authority which rightly belongs to the state. Nearly every state everywhere allows self-defense, and those that do not offend against the natural law by forbidding it.

Now for one to have a valid claim to vigilante action, one must be able to make and defend the claim that the state, through incompetence or corruption, has lost the authority to command obedience to the laws it promulgates. In arrogating legal authority to oneself, then, one must be prepared to effectively declare war against the state. The validity of such an action is governed by just war theory, which includes (among other things) a reasonable probability of successful outcome. If no such probability exists, then there can be no just war, and thus no just vigilantism.

Let me pick your brain regarding the authority of the state.

Is the authority of the state derived from two sources (1) it’s ability to materially provide and (2) it’s ability to spiritually provide (that is, its ability to be just and carry out justice)?

And do you think that there are certain human rights which are equal among all men and that these include the right to food, property, health (as opposed to distributive rights like honor or good birth)? Or can one believe that not everyone even has the same degree of even the former rights though they all equally have the same quality of rights (by quality I mean that they are all human and potentially (at least) equal)?

 

[JIB]

I’d like to point out that in the United States civilians do not have a legal right to police protection.

See: Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County.

With that in mind I don’t believe that individuals have any less rights than people claiming to act on behalf of the state.

 

[fakename]

Let me pick your brain regarding the authority of the state.

Is the authority of the state derived from two sources (1) it’s ability to materially provide and (2) it’s ability to spiritually provide (that is, its ability to be just and carry out justice)?

And do you think that there are certain human rights which are equal among all men and that these include the right to food, property, health (as opposed to distributive rights like honor or good birth)? Or can one believe that not everyone even has the same degree of even the former rights though they all equally have the same quality of rights (by quality I mean that they are all human and potentially (at least) equal)?

Actually I think that I’ll pick this up in an older thread.