• Skates@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      I’m just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility

      Vigilante justice is always wrong

      Now, where did I claim that it’s never wrong? Because that’s what you seem to argue. You won’t find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like “vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn’t weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling”. So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.

      I’ll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn’t know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn’t really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it’s his, and rides off into the sunset with it.

      So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?

    • DrownedRats@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      You seem to be under the impression that there’s only 2 agruments here when in reality there is at least 3.

      Your interpretation seems to be that Either Vigilante justice is never OK, or vigilante justice is always OK.

      No one here is arguing that vigilante justice is always OK.

      The argument here is between vigilante justice is always OK, and vigilante justice is sometimes OK.

      The examples of slave revolts and lynchings of black people both fall into the camp of sometimes. Slave revolts are always morally good, while racist lynchings of black people are always not morally good. Both were illegal at the same time, but at no point is it argued that both are always morally good.