Vigilantism

Legally, vigilantism is rarely acceptable.

Morally, its is absolutely necessary.

Laws and morals are relative. What is it you are trying to say?

Its our duty to uphold what is right. You can argue that it is relative and no one can disprove that, but I believe there is such thing as "correct morals" in a sense. Of course, by definition, everyone believes their morals are correct.

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

To him, it would feel that way. Of course, he would also be insane and hopefully in a mental hospital.

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:58:32 PM

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

To him, it would feel that way. Of course, he would also be insane and hopefully in a mental hospital.

Many people applauded Jack the Ripper for ridding the East End of what were perceived as "undesirables". What makes your opinion any more valid?

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

And it is the moral obligation of others to stop him. You are of course obligated to do what you feel is right. Why would we need laws if it didn't matter?

Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 10:00:47 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:58:32 PM

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

To him, it would feel that way. Of course, he would also be insane and hopefully in a mental hospital.

Many people applauded Jack the Ripper for ridding the East End of what were perceived as "undesirables". What makes your opinion any more valid?

Because it is unjust to the prostitutes.

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 10:05:00 PM

Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 10:00:47 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:58:32 PM

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

To him, it would feel that way. Of course, he would also be insane and hopefully in a mental hospital.

Many people applauded Jack the Ripper for ridding the East End of what were perceived as "undesirables". What makes your opinion any more valid?

Because it is unjust to the prostitutes.

Is it? Some would say it's better to die than live as a whore. It might be in your bible, something about stoning adulterers(esses)   

Quote from: KingMan on February 20, 2009, 06:19:56 AM

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 10:05:00 PM

Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 10:00:47 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:58:32 PM

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

To him, it would feel that way. Of course, he would also be insane and hopefully in a mental hospital.

Many people applauded Jack the Ripper for ridding the East End of what were perceived as "undesirables". What makes your opinion any more valid?

Because it is unjust to the prostitutes.

Is it? Some would say it's better to die than live as a whore. It might be in your bible, something about stoning adulterers(esses)   

Why do you do this? I don't say, "Well it would be hard for a heathen like you to understand."

Quote from: Guessed on February 20, 2009, 02:54:58 PM

Quote from: KingMan on February 20, 2009, 06:19:56 AM

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 10:05:00 PM

Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 10:00:47 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:58:32 PM

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

To him, it would feel that way. Of course, he would also be insane and hopefully in a mental hospital.

Many people applauded Jack the Ripper for ridding the East End of what were perceived as "undesirables". What makes your opinion any more valid?

Because it is unjust to the prostitutes.

Is it? Some would say it's better to die than live as a whore. It might be in your bible, something about stoning adulterers(esses)   

Why do you do this? I don't say, "Well it would be hard for a heathen like you to understand."

Because you say hypocritical things and contradict yourself. Conversely, I do not.  Why do you resort to being insulted when you can't make a proper point?

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:58:32 PM

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

And it is the moral obligation of others to stop him. You are of course obligated to do what you feel is right. Why would we need laws if it didn't matter?

I was asking the moral objectivist.

Quote from: Raist on February 20, 2009, 02:44:25 AM

Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:58:32 PM

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

And it is the moral obligation of others to stop him. You are of course obligated to do what you feel is right. Why would we need laws if it didn't matter?

I was asking the moral objectivist.

People have the right to anything that doesn't hurt others. When what you are doing infringes on someone else's rights that's when you should be stopped. This man wants to end her life simply because he doesn't like her doing things that don't effect him. Therefore he is violating her rights. He is in the wrong.

People have the right to anything that doesn't hurt others.

No, they don't.

When what you are doing infringes on someone else's rights that's when you should be stopped. This man wants to end her life simply because he doesn't like her doing things that don't effect him. Therefore he is violating her rights. He is in the wrong.

Where do these rights come from?

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

People have the right to anything that doesn't hurt others.

No, they don't.

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

When what you are doing infringes on someone else's rights that's when you should be stopped. This man wants to end her life simply because he doesn't like her doing things that don't effect him. Therefore he is violating her rights. He is in the wrong.

Where do these rights come from?

Their ability to do so. Their lack of rights to do things that infringe on others, comes from those other people stopping them.

Quote from: Proleg on February 21, 2009, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

People have the right to anything that doesn't hurt others.

No, they don't.

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

When what you are doing infringes on someone else's rights that's when you should be stopped. This man wants to end her life simply because he doesn't like her doing things that don't effect him. Therefore he is violating her rights. He is in the wrong.

Where do these rights come from?

Their ability to do so. Their lack of rights to do things that infringe on others, comes from those other people stopping them.

How come people continue to hurt others then?

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:55:45 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 21, 2009, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

People have the right to anything that doesn't hurt others.

No, they don't.

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

When what you are doing infringes on someone else's rights that's when you should be stopped. This man wants to end her life simply because he doesn't like her doing things that don't effect him. Therefore he is violating her rights. He is in the wrong.

Where do these rights come from?

Their ability to do so. Their lack of rights to do things that infringe on others, comes from those other people stopping them.

How come people continue to hurt others then?

Because they can. Have you never met people before?

Quote from: Proleg on February 21, 2009, 02:07:19 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:55:45 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 21, 2009, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

People have the right to anything that doesn't hurt others.

No, they don't.

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

When what you are doing infringes on someone else's rights that's when you should be stopped. This man wants to end her life simply because he doesn't like her doing things that don't effect him. Therefore he is violating her rights. He is in the wrong.

Where do these rights come from?

Their ability to do so. Their lack of rights to do things that infringe on others, comes from those other people stopping them.

How come people continue to hurt others then?

Because they can. Have you never met people before?

I have. They certainly have the ability to harm and often do. What happened to their "lack of rights" to do so?

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 10:34:28 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 21, 2009, 02:07:19 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:55:45 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 21, 2009, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

People have the right to anything that doesn't hurt others.

No, they don't.

Quote from: Raist on February 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM

When what you are doing infringes on someone else's rights that's when you should be stopped. This man wants to end her life simply because he doesn't like her doing things that don't effect him. Therefore he is violating her rights. He is in the wrong.

Where do these rights come from?

Their ability to do so. Their lack of rights to do things that infringe on others, comes from those other people stopping them.

How come people continue to hurt others then?

Because they can. Have you never met people before?

I have. They certainly have the ability to harm and often do. What happened to their "lack of rights" to do so?

I said other people not wanting them to prevents them from having a right to. I see no contradiction.

Right. So, for example, if a man believes prostitutes deserve to be killed, it is his moral obligation to uphold what he believes is right?

I once heard someone refer to laws as something put into place to deal with a situation which cannot be solved.

This would be an excellent situation for that context.

If a man believes a prostitute should be killed due to his morals, there is nothing which stops him. Laws are a false boundary.

This is an excellent video which illustrates how morals and belief systems will lead someone to vigilance.




I didn't know they did a follow up interview... It appears to a situation where people use laws to justify thier vigilatism. ( being 100 yards from the church, ect... )




Perhaps laws are what lead to vigilance? Can you separate the two? Is the act of vigilance rooted directly in the laws, beliefs and morals of an individual?


Are morals false? Beliefs False and laws simply a means to justify them?

I said other people not wanting them to prevents them from having a right to. I see no contradiction.

You said a right to do something comes from the ability to do it. So a lack of rights would entail a lack of ability. That is not always the case.

Quote from: Raist on February 22, 2009, 05:57:58 AM

I said other people not wanting them to prevents them from having a right to. I see no contradiction.

You said a right to do something comes from the ability to do it. So a lack of rights would entail a lack of ability. That is not always the case.

You have the right to do anything. You'll just be stopped if you violate someone else's rights. If the majority of people recognize something as a right they will fight against those that try to stop it.

Quote from: Proleg on February 22, 2009, 10:51:50 AM

Quote from: Raist on February 22, 2009, 05:57:58 AM

I said other people not wanting them to prevents them from having a right to. I see no contradiction.

You said a right to do something comes from the ability to do it. So a lack of rights would entail a lack of ability. That is not always the case.

You have the right to do anything. You'll just be stopped if you violate someone else's rights. If the majority of people recognize something as a right they will fight against those that try to stop it.

Again, people are rarely stopped before violating the rights of others. Rights cannot be circumstantial.

Personally, they seem like bullshit even as an abstraction.

Quote from: Raist on February 22, 2009, 02:02:51 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 22, 2009, 10:51:50 AM

Quote from: Raist on February 22, 2009, 05:57:58 AM

I said other people not wanting them to prevents them from having a right to. I see no contradiction.

You said a right to do something comes from the ability to do it. So a lack of rights would entail a lack of ability. That is not always the case.

You have the right to do anything. You'll just be stopped if you violate someone else's rights. If the majority of people recognize something as a right they will fight against those that try to stop it.

Again, people are rarely stopped before violating the rights of others. Rights cannot be circumstantial.

Personally, they seem like bullshit even as an abstraction.

circumstantial? Rights to something does not mean you'll get it.

Quote from: Proleg on February 22, 2009, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Raist on February 22, 2009, 02:02:51 PM

Quote from: Proleg on February 22, 2009, 10:51:50 AM

Quote from: Raist on February 22, 2009, 05:57:58 AM

I said other people not wanting them to prevents them from having a right to. I see no contradiction.

You said a right to do something comes from the ability to do it. So a lack of rights would entail a lack of ability. That is not always the case.

You have the right to do anything. You'll just be stopped if you violate someone else's rights. If the majority of people recognize something as a right they will fight against those that try to stop it.

Again, people are rarely stopped before violating the rights of others. Rights cannot be circumstantial.

Personally, they seem like bullshit even as an abstraction.

circumstantial? Rights to something does not mean you'll get it.

Exactly. They may as well not exist.