Sunday, August 30, 2009
30/8/09
:
hi all~ whee, 5 days holidays are only half gone... amyway, i want to talk about vigilantism today. so why does society not allow people to take justice into their own hands? the obvious answer is that that person's justice may not be what the society agrees as justice. but what if that persons sense of justice is the same as society's? if a there is a murderer thats so smart to hide all evidence pointing towards him, but yet everyone knows that he did it, wouldnt it be better if some vigilant just go kill him? apparently, society's laws dont think so. thereofore, there must be something fundamentally wrong with skipping the process of judging someone, and going to the appropriate punishment directly. so what is that fundamental mistake? is it the respect of law? or the potential that vigilant may become something far more dangerous?
ok
just read an debate. thoughts: it seems that most arguments rely upon the assumption that vigilant have an inaccurate sense of justice. but if someone does, will his actions be justified? hmmm.... a vigilant takes away another persons right to life without permission....just like what his victim did..... is the "permission" of law so powerful, that it can mean between right or wrong? even if the outcome is still the same? apparently, it is. so its kinda like someone doing something even they are not told to do so... kinda like when u took the sweets that are meant for you without permission, then kena scolding.
whats the difference between this and initiative? one does good things, one does bad things? but then again, good and bad is objective.... whee enough liao thanks for reading!Labels: contemplations
Posted by william the weirdo at 6:26 AM
|